“Does the military not have the right to choose who will serve?”

[sedonaman]

…
I didn’t ask or want to know what any man, hetero- or homosexual did on his own time in private.

But they want to do away with that. That’s what the whole push is for to eliminate DADT is all about. There are at least two reasons for it. First, to get moral approval:

You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.

Second, the military is an ideal place to locate new sex partners:

[Over forty] years have passed since the infamous Stonewall riots of 1969 in New York, the Lexington and Concord of the gay liberation movement. During that time, homosexuals have carved out for themselves public spaces in every major American city, and many of the minor ones as well. They have had the chance to create whatever they wanted in those spaces, and what have they created? New spaces for locating sexual partners.

Sometime in the mid- to late ‘60s, homosexuals said all they wanted was to be left alone. If that was true, then why are we even having discussion about this or about same-sex “marriage”?

 

[sedonaman]

Seriously? …

Yes.

Sedonaman, when speaking to members of his or her faith, a priest or minister wouldn’t need to worry about such things.

You have no idea what a priest has to worry about. If our mass goes over 45 minutes, the pastor can be sure the bishop will get some angry e-mails. During the 2008 campaign, there was a sign that said “Vote Pro-Life” [no candidates were named] in our parish center. Someone got offended and forced its removal. No one considered that others might be offended by its removal. Last June, our liturgical minister had to answer in the bulletin why “there is a crucifix on the altar at Immaculate Conception” [a Catholic Church in a nearby city]. I mention these not to open new discussions but to point out what people are capable of.

Uh, no. Not QED. The chaplains expressed two concerns, both which seem to be weak objections. If there is any evidence to support their viewpoint, they failed to offer it.

I guess you didn’t read the whole letter. In any event, I think they know more about life in general and their duties in particular than you or Rich Olszewski do.

 

[manualman]

I’m not and have not been in any of the services, but have catholic family members in the Navy.

To a certain extent, this changes nothing. Any christian currently in the service is frequently confronted (i.e. every port of call) with a culture of sexual depravity that is pervasive. A man (especially single ones, but even married guys) committed to chastity even when finally let off the ship in a foreign and exotic land is already considered pretty strange.

Let’s face it, we’ve already had to adjust to living in a culture that finds our values amusing at best, contemptable at worst. What’s one more log on the fire.

On the other hand, I’d not be too pleased to be a serviceman suddenly confronted with the loss of even the right to complain about a fellow soldier/sailor “coming on” to me. Sorry folks, there is no way that is going to have zero effect on morale.

 

[Veridical16]

Anyone siding with the “constitutional rights” to oppose DADT and other gay agenda politicizing are glib and don’t know what they’re talking about.
THIS IS THE MILITARY. LET them conduct themselves properly without crying foul for something that isn’t an issue, in order to rally the ignorant onlookers i.e. secular media influenced people who cry about how the homosexuals don’t get to hold hands when their boyfriends visit them!

This whole “i have a right to voice my sexual behaviors” constitutionally, if I can do it in public, why not in the military!! ? is so juvenile.
The Military society is a different place. It’s like trying to apply standards we expect in how we train doctors, to that of another profession.
Foolish liberalism.

Here is a clip that should add some perspective, by Lt C Allen West on DADT
youtube.com/watch?v=FVQ14IgCDE8

"The mission of the military is not to accommodate sexual behavior. Let me tell you something as a commander, I fine people for not having the proper haircut. I kick people out because they can’t run fast. I kick people out because they’re overweight. So, the thing is there was a compromise that was reached during the Clinton Administration, and I stand by that compromise and I think that’s the best thing for the mission of the United States military, and I appreciate any American that goes in and serves. **Let me tell you something about me, as a heterosexual in the military, I couldn’t even walk in my uniform holding my wife’s hand unless it was an official form of ceremony. So there are some rules and restrictions. Do you know how many years you can go to jail for committing adultery? Do we have that in the civilian world? You can go to military prison for 18 months for committing adultery. **The US military is a different society than a society that we have here, and I think the most important thing that we need to be focusing on is we’ve been in Afg or 9 years, and we’re still fighting, that 's where we should the focus should be so that we don’t have double amputees heterosexual or gay coming back to the USA "

So he pretty much answers YES the military has the right to choose who will serve, that’s the point!
What’s funny is even the most conservative Allen West acknowledge gays are able to serve under DADT So they’re not outright banned like they used to be.
(And I disagree with him being okay with gays serving, on that because the fact that gays are serving and NOW complaining, in spite of the compromise that FAVORED them means they should have stayed banned!)
It’s never enough for the active gays. West brings up priorities in focus, but most news don’t report why DADT is such a big issue. The biggest issue with DADT is the few spoiled gays in the military who act like children, " if I wanted to enlist, then I might not be allowed to get a call from my boyfriend" :nope:when they should actually be focused on their mission, outside of that it’s not about constitutional rights, it’s about validation and self-esteem issues.

This isn’t a civil rights issue or like segregation. This is a perversion of the natural trend towards humans treating humans by their God given rights (i.e. elimination of racist segregation)
But To equate sexual perversions as the next step to that is to deceive oneself.
All this is just a bunch of selfishness on the part of people who can’t think of something greater than themselves, it’s all about me and validation for something that CANNOT be validated, we shouldn’t even be debating this ridiculousness, “Gay Rights” malarkey It’s disgusting.
I thought military would help them transcend “individuality” you’d think they’d get a clue.
If Homosexuality is the end-all be all for them? then they don’t belong in the military in the first place!

manualman:

Let’s face it, we’ve already had to adjust to living in a culture that finds our values amusing at best, contemptable at worst. What’s one more log on the fire.

Yes society has become so immoral, and a large portion of the public are like , “i feel sorry for the gays anyone who objects to their behavior must be against their ‘rights’ and hateful” we’ve gotten to this point where it’s trying to infiltrate our military.

Bishop Fulton Sheen commented highly on our military, and its disciplines.
To mess with it,** is to go after one of the last bastions of order in our society**.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Second, the military is an ideal place to locate new sex partners:

So is a wedding or a beach party or a college mixer or even a parish dance. If you look, you can find.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I guess you didn’t read the whole letter. In any event, I think they know more about life in general and their duties in particular than you or Rich Olszewski do.

About their duties, yes. About life in general, maybe, maybe not. I’d not be so quick as to say that clergymen, in general, know more about life than I do.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

If Homosexuality is the end-all be all for them, then they don’t belong in the military in the first place!

I agree, just as I agree that if chasing and catching skirt is the end-all for heterosexual soldiers, they don’t belong in uniform either.

Bishop Fulton Sheen commented highly on our military, and its disciplines.
To mess with it,** is to go after one of the last bastions of order in our society**.

The good bishop is of another era, and I don’t know if he was ever a military chaplain.

 

[Dale_M]

Yes.

I spent half an hour trying to find an ecumenical prayer delivered to the military, but came up with nothing. However, here is Rick Warren’s prayer at the inauguration of President Obama. I think it avoids offending any Christians, although non-Christians seeking spiritual support would likely find it unsatisfying.
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012003.html

You have no idea what a priest has to worry about. If our mass goes over 45 minutes, the pastor can be sure the bishop will get some angry e-mails. During the 2008 campaign, there was a sign that said “Vote Pro-Life” [no candidates were named] in our parish center. Someone got offended and forced its removal. No one considered that others might be offended by its removal. Last June, our liturgical minister had to answer in the bulletin why “there is a crucifix on the altar at Immaculate Conception” [a Catholic Church in a nearby city]. I mention these not to open new discussions but to point out what people are capable of.

I don’t doubt that people whine and complain, and that being in a position of leadership is difficult. My point is that a service member who is Catholic, for example, would have no basis for objecting to Church teachings he heard while attending Mass or other Catholic activity. There is no reason to think that Catholic priests would have to avoid making statements concerning homosexuality at such events.

I guess you didn’t read the whole letter.

I did, I just didn’t find it convincing. Basically, they are worried that chaplains might have to water down their ministry, preventing them from presenting their denominational positions or their personal convictions. Certainly we’ve been seeing that with Evangelical chaplains in the US military, on matters unrelated to homosexuality.

I think the real message of that letter is not that homosexuality is incapable to the military, but that eliminating DADT might make it harder to attract chaplains who are willing to serve in ecumenical roles. And that would be a realistic concern.

 

[Dale_M]

Any christian currently in the service is frequently confronted (i.e. every port of call) with a culture of sexual depravity that is pervasive. A man (especially single ones, but even married guys) committed to chastity even when finally let off the ship in a foreign and exotic land is already considered pretty strange.

Let’s face it, we’ve already had to adjust to living in a culture that finds our values amusing at best, contemptable at worst.

Yes, it is very difficult to be a chaste guy in your twenties. The social and cultural pressure to be sexually active is immense.

On the other hand, I’d not be too pleased to be a serviceman suddenly confronted with the loss of even the right to complain about a fellow soldier/sailor “coming on” to me. Sorry folks, there is no way that is going to have zero effect on morale.

It’s a reasonable concern. The US military officially has a zero-tolerance policy on sexual harassment, but in practice it is often difficult to enforce without informal retribution by friends of the harasser.

On the other hand, most of the countries of the West allow gays and lesbians to openly serve, and I am not aware that sexual harassment from homosexuals as been a problem for them.

 

[sedonaman]

I spent half an hour trying to find an ecumenical prayer delivered to the military, but came up with nothing. However, here is Rick Warren’s prayer at the inauguration of President Obama. I think it avoids offending any Christians, although non-Christians seeking spiritual support would likely find it unsatisfying.
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012003.html

It mentions God, so atheists might be offended.

I don’t doubt that people whine and complain, and that being in a position of leadership is difficult. My point is that a service member who is Catholic, for example, would have no basis for objecting to Church teachings he heard while attending Mass or other Catholic activity. There is no reason to think that Catholic priests would have to avoid making statements concerning homosexuality at such events.

I attend mass every Sunday, and it’s been at least 20 years since I’ve heard a priest at a pulpit mention that homosexual acts are a sin, and probably just as long that homosexuality has been mentioned at all. Is this just a coincidence?

I did, I just didn’t find it convincing. Basically, they are worried that chaplains might have to water down their ministry, preventing them from presenting their denominational positions or their personal convictions. Certainly we’ve been seeing that with Evangelical chaplains in the US military, on matters unrelated to homosexuality.

And you don’t see a problem with that?

I think the real message of that letter is not that homosexuality is incapable to the military, but that eliminating DADT might make it harder to attract chaplains who are willing to serve in ecumenical roles. And that would be a realistic concern.

The term “evangelical chaplain” is redundant. The very vocation of a chaplain, priest, etc. is ecumenical. Your statement is comparable to saying, “finding officers willing to serve in leadership roles.” Your arguments don’t make any sense at all.

 

[sedonaman]

Anyone siding with the “constitutional rights” to oppose DADT and other gay agenda politicizing are glib and don’t know what they’re talking about.
…

Bishop Fulton Sheen commented highly on our military, and its disciplines.
To mess with it,** is to go after one of the last bastions of order in our society**.

Mega Actually, when you think about what the Bishop said, once the homosexual taboo is abrogated, no taboos are left.

---

"The indispensable condition of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”

 

[sedonaman]

So is a wedding or a beach party or a college mixer or even a parish dance. If you look, you can find.

So why do they need gay bathhouses and gay bars?

 

[sedonaman]

About their duties, yes. About life in general, maybe, maybe not. I’d not be so quick as to say that clergymen, in general, know more about life than I do.

Their knowledge is not just from their own experiences; it represents the distilled knowledge of the experiences and thought of 400 generations of Western Civilization … and you claim to know more than that. I rest my case.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Their knowledge is not just from their own experiences; it represents the distilled knowledge of the experiences and thought of 400 generations of Western Civilization … and you claim to know more than that. I rest my case.

I know a few clergymen personally myself, and not all of them have the “distilled knowledge of 400 generations.” I’m not as smart as a few of them, but certainly am smarter than a lot of them. I rest my case.

400 generations? 10,000 years? Really?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Actually, when you think about what the Bishop said, once the homosexual taboo is abrogated, no taboos are left.

Maybe the taboos against murder and theft might still be left.

 

[sedonaman]

Maybe the taboos against murder and theft might still be left.

Don’t be too sure. In any event, the burden of proof is on the advocate of social change; it’s not on the advocate of the status quo to prove it’s not a good idea. So far, the advocates have not made their case.

---

"The indispensable condition of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”

 

[sedonaman]

…I’m not as smart as a few of them, but certainly am smarter than a lot of them. …

And how did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you determine it must be so because you support the “correct” political causes and they don’t?

---

"The indispensable condition of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”

 

[Dale_M]

And you don’t see a problem with that?

Yes, I think there has been a problem with Evangelical chaplains, who are officers, trying to impose their doctrines on non-Christians, and Christians of other denominations. It has gotten some news coverage, for incidents at the Air Force Academy, and more generally too.

The term “evangelical chaplain” is redundant. The very vocation of a chaplain, priest, etc. is ecumenical. Your statement is comparable to saying, “finding officers willing to serve in leadership roles.” Your arguments don’t make any sense at all.

I disagree very much. The term “Evangelical” (with a capital E) refers to a particular version of Protestant Christianity. And, at least here in the US, it has been seen in contrast to mainline Protestant denominations and with the Catholic Church.

 

[sedonaman]

Yes, I think there has been a problem with Evangelical chaplains, who are officers, trying to impose their doctrines on non-Christians, and Christians of other denominations. …

Define “impose”. I was in the Air Force for 4 years and cannot recall anything of the sort, at least not by my concept of “impose”.

---

"The indispensable condition of our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”

 

[Dale_M]

Define “impose”. I was in the Air Force for 4 years and cannot recall anything of the sort, at least not by my concept of “impose”.

I can’t say I that I had that experience (in the Navy), either.

On the other hand, it has been reported in the news over the years. Here is a snippet:

Mainline chaplains complain that not only do evangelicals bend the proselytizing rules, many of them also refuse to be ecumenical while carrying out their duties. Some pray to Jesus instead of the more generic God, and a few refuse to tone down the talk of blood, Calvary and salvation. Gordon James Klingenschmitt is an evangelical Navy chaplain. He says he’s about to lose his job because of the way he conducted a public memorial service.

Mr. GORDON JAMES KLINGENSCHMITT (Navy Chaplain): I quoted John 3:36, and this verse is very controversial, very non-pluralistic. And it says if you believe in the Son you have eternal life. If you don’t believe in Jesus, you don’t have eternal life for God’s wrath remains upon you.

npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=4772331