Gays in military: Do allies' experiences matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Still have alot of questions on this topic. What does “openly serving in the military” mean? What exactly do they want?
 
You clearly haven’t read anything that I have said. Again, in my country, these activists have been systematically changing the attitudes that homosexuality is good and healthy. It isn’t. It is disordered. The Church has said it is disordered. Homosexual behavior is intrinsically evil. Granted, the military doesn’t care about that. What it does care about is if the soldier or sailor in question is honestly fit to serve, to follow orders, and to put the mission and the country before himself/herself. In other words, the soldier/sailor, etc must be willing to sacrifice. Many of these homosexual activists actions indicate that they are not willing to do that. This is also a reason why homosexuals are not allowed in the priesthood in spite of the fact that some get through.
 
joly said:
Still have alot of questions on this topic. What does “openly serving in the military” mean? What exactly do they want?
Click to expand...
I suppose it means that they want to flaunt their “gayness” by sticking rainbows everywhere, demanding housing and money for their “partners”, kiss and fondle in public, etc. You know, the usual like they have been doing everywhere else.
 
I’m not scapegoating. I see it just about everyday with what is going on at the university. It isn’t shrill either. I’m not insulting anyone. Just stating the facts.
 
Yes because honestly it doesn’t nothing to help morale or the mission. That is stuff that doesn’t need to be flaunted for all to see.
 
But we are Catholics. To either desire or encourage our elected representatives to do anything other than support Catholic morality would be hypocritical of us.

There are quite a number of moral issues. Recently, there was an attempt by US Senators to remove the ban on abortions being conducted in US Military hospitals. We fought that as well. Can a Catholic do otherwise?

Christ called us to be counter-cultural, to be in the world, not of it.

We expect our military to do good, as defined by the Church. We expect them to treat civilians well, not becuase it gives the military a tactical or strategic advantage, but because it is a morally good thing to do. It does not matter that our society is secular, Catholic morals teach us to do that. If a political faction in the US desired to make cruelty to civilians a policy, should we not oppose that, and do so on moral grounds. Even if that political faction has a different morality set than we do.

DADT falls into the same category.
 
That was the result of a compromise with the Clinton Administration. Compromises are never what we fully want.

But now one side is saying that even the compromise should not be agreed to. Perhaps it WOULD be better to go back to the older policy of it being a discharge condition no matter how it is discovered.
 
Brendan said:
But we are Catholics. To either desire or encourage our elected representatives to do anything other than support Catholic morality would be hypocritical of us.

There are quite a number of moral issues. Recently, there was an attempt by US Senators to remove the ban on abortions being conducted in US Military hospitals. We fought that as well. Can a Catholic do otherwise?

Christ called us to be counter-cultural, to be in the world, not of it.

We expect our military to do good, as defined by the Church. We expect them to treat civilians well, not becuase it gives the military a tactical or strategic advantage, but because it is a morally good thing to do. It does not matter that our society is secular, Catholic morals teach us to do that. If a political faction in the US desired to make cruelty to civilians a policy, should we not oppose that, and do so on moral grounds. Even if that political faction has a different morality set than we do.

DADT falls into the same category.
Click to expand...
So why aren’t we demanding that our military enforce chastity on the unmarried, ban contraceptive use, and enforce other aspects of Catholic morality? Why must the military be made to enforce Catholic morality in this one area but not elsewhere? Is this what we really want from our military - that it become some kind of morality police?
 
Hypocrisy is practicing what you tell others not to do, of feigning belief. So how exactly does this meet that definiton,.
 
Its not just about that. How about demanding housing and money for their “partners” and military health benefits? That would be essentially condoning the lifestyle which is immoral and VERY unhealthy. It isn’t right.
 
My mother is from Sligo and my father is from Belfast, I spent several years in Mayo.

And that would depend on:
  1. If the ‘Black Diaries’ are actually true and not MI5 forgeries.
  2. If they are true, that Sir Roger took the opportunty to repent before he was hanged. Since I have not heard definitively one way or the other, I must give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially since he was recieved into the Church while imprisoned and confessed his sins prior to his execution.
 
Consistency is sorely lacking in the discussions of this topic. A few years ago when discussing gays in the military the counter-argument was that the military should focus on warfighting and not be a social experiment. Now that the experience of our allies shows that no one can argue with a straight face that that allowing gays to serve has a negative military effect, suddenly the same folks want to use the military as an experiment in enforcing higher moral standards or some such. Gays serve openly in Congress, in the CIA, in the FBI, in every police and fire department, and everywhere else in society. There is no logical reason that they are banned from open service in the military and only there.
 
The problem is that it will hurt morale and the mission to have open homosexuals. Many of them will put themselves above the mission. It has been demonstrated before and not just with this guy from wikileaks. We can’t take that risk. Remember, unlike some other militiaries, the US’s are called up everywhere. We are right now fighting two wars and are stationed in many different places. It seems that we are the only ones that can bail anyone out. Our military does an awesome job under the circumstances. It is an all volunteer force. Our military has certain rules and regulations. IF someone can’t abide by them then they don’t need to be serving. If you cared to notice, it has been mostly civilians who have NEVER served in the military who is pushing for this as well as a few of the activists in the military. Most of soldiers/sailors don’t care. The ones who are homosexual came into the military abiding by the rules. Since when it is a rule that a person must flaunt their sexuality? Why must that be done to be consistent?
 
I suppose what the problem is is that we have been fighting to keep “gay” marriage and “adoption” out and it is a battle. I just see this as another thing they are trying to tear down. I’m frankly exhausted about it. Here on campus, there is always these signs and get togethers about how good homosexuality is and that we need to embrace it and make our university a “safe” place for them ,etc. They have their own support office. They have their “coming out” parties on the lawn. They have speakers that come all the time talking about how wonderful it is to be “gay”. Ugh. It is overwhelming at times.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
Immorality may be "tolerated’ within the ranks, but the Military Code and power strucuture actively discourages it, though, if I remember correctly.
Remmber, Military Justice considers Adultery a crime. 👍
And it does not bother you the 10-15 percent of our service members MAY quit if this is totally implemented?
Hmmmmmmmmm.:doh2:
Click to expand...
I think that 10-15% is wildly inaccurate, based on my active-duty experience.

And you’re right adultery is a crime, but mere factual adultery is not the only element of the offense. Without getting into too many details: It’s not accurate to say that a servicemember has committed a crime under the UCMJ merely by having sex with another person’s spouse (or with someone other than one’s spouse).

Pax,
OA
 
Good for you Jharek, throw to the wayside all Christian objections to normalizing the sexual acts of noncelibate same sex attracted persons.

How happy do you imagine that God is with you right now?
 
THis is just so silly. Gay soldiers are such a non-issue. The kind of things the heterosexual soldiers get up to are far far more problematic, both from a secular and religious point of view.

And gay coming out parties and PDAs at work? Get real. That would be totally inappropriate in any military context be it by gay or straight soldiers. Good grief.
 
newlywed10 said:
I want to start by saying, that I don’t really have a stanse on this “issue” just comments that have run through my mind on both sides.
My first point is that every man, no matter their sexual orientation should be allowed to defend their country. Being, gay, should not necessarily make them less able to defend their country…but…this leads me to my other point…
Many men might feel very uncomfortable with the knowledge that their bunkmate or comrad is gay. This discomfort could lead to the person paying more attention to the gay man and thoughts of “is he looking at me” “can he handle this” “is he attracted to insert name” All these questions running through the minds of the gay man’s comrads could potentially harm the company on missions, minds won’t be where they should. It’s not that any man is wrong for thinking that way, but it could happen.

I don’t mean to sound insensitive, these are just thoughts that have crossed my mind when this issue arose.
Click to expand...
I don’t personally see it as insensitive. It’s actually a very good point you’re making. That is why Opponents of Repealing DADT talk about Morale and Cohesion being affected by the decision to repeal it.
 
rapunzel77 said:
I suppose it means that they want to flaunt their “gayness” by sticking rainbows everywhere, demanding housing and money for their “partners”, kiss and fondle in public, etc. You know, the usual like they have been doing everywhere else.
Click to expand...
I was wondering the same thing. I guess it all has to do with PDAs, benefits for partners, and the right to bring their partners along to the Graduation ceremony without having anyone stare or complain. I guess also they want sexual prefrence to not be a factor in the determination of promotion up the ranks. Let’s say you want to be promoted to E-3 when you are currently an E-2. With the reapl of DADT, your superiors cannot consider your opne display of sexuality and sexual conduct in determining whther you will be prmoted or not. 🤷

One thing about PDAs-----the military discourages that with Heterosexuals. Will Heterosexual PDAs be also allowed if DADT is repealed?
 
Brendan said:
That was the result of a compromise with the Clinton Administration. Compromises are never what we fully want.

But now one side is saying that even the compromise should not be agreed to. Perhaps it WOULD be better to go back to the older policy of it being a discharge condition no matter how it is discovered.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that will not happen. The Proverbial “genie” has been let out of the Bottle. If you were to suggest that NOW you would have the ACLU, GLAAD, and most of the Media breathing down your neck, basically implying that You and the Military were advocating Hatred and Discrimination. So no, those days are gone, unfortunately. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top