T
TMC
Guest
That sounds good, but the practical experience is that a lot of lying is usually required. Even if some get by without ever actually lying, it is certainly a deceptive way to live one’s life.
- Status
J
joly
Guest
God Country Corps, Is this the motto for the US Marines? If so than how can they ignore Gods law?
N
NE_Catholic
Guest
no it is Semper Fidelis
T
TMC
Guest
Not all religous people think that being gay goes against God’s law. I am not saying they are right or wrong, I am just pointing out that the fact that there are religions (including Christians) that believe differently on this topic.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Given that most members of the Armed Forces consider themselves Protestants, I’d be more than upset if the Army became the United States Protestant Army.
I’ll be happy to see patriotic homosexuals who have a sense of the mission of the Armed Forces and desire to serve their country to be in the Services openly.
I’ll be happy to see patriotic homosexuals who have a sense of the mission of the Armed Forces and desire to serve their country to be in the Services openly.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
My liberal attitude, and I know that this is also conservative Stan Kolbe’s position, is that we couldn’t care less about the sexual orientation of the guy next to us as long as he could follow orders, shoot straight, and would help us get home to our families. I don’t care if a man is a saint or a sinner as long as he fulfills those three requirements, and if he or she is a sinner, I don’t care who they are sinning with.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t think anybody really knows how getting rid of DADT will actually affect recruitment, retention or performance. Allies’ experience is not particularly indicative because there are cultural differences between us and them, and because, for some, it was forced on them against their own judgments.
From a secular progressive standpoint, repealing DADT seems the obvious choice. And, of course, “imposing one’s religion” on others in an otherwise liberal secular society is one of the big bogeymen of our time. Nevertheless, as a Catholic, I, at least, feel compelled to oppose the scandal implicit in official governmental endorsement of homosexuality as simply “an alternative lifestyle” when our Church teaches that it is “gravely disordered”. I believe that, secular society or no, we are not obliged to act against our faith’s principles simply because we live in a secular society. Rather, I believe our first allegience as individuals is to the principles of our faith. That is particularly true when, as with DADT, the adverse consequences to homosexuals are miniscule to the near vanishing point, and when the consequences to society itself are zero as regards adverse consequences and when there may actually be benefits to society in its retention.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
So if gays in the military is implicit acceptance, then what about gays in the civil service, or the CIA, or other government jobs? Presumably people think those jobs should also have a DADT policy.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Presumably people in the civil service do not routinely shower together or sleep in foxholes together. It may be noted that the military does not presently quarter men and women in the same barracks either. Possibly secular progressives think they should, but they have not made a big deal of that if they do. At least not yet.
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
Men and women are in the same barracks just not in the same rooms its been that way for a long time now.
N
NotCrazyDan
Guest
Having different rooms in the same barracks = showering together, rooming with each other?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
One would not think so.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
If you read carefully what I said, I was specifically addressing the idea that allowing gays to serve openly in the military meant the government was condoning homosexuality. Your response is totally irrelevant to that.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Separate showers and rooms in the same building. A barracks usually has many different rooms.
Though in my experience in Canada, in the field we always slept together, though washed separately, or at least very discretely. I don’t know what the practice is in the US.
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
Female soldiers serve side by side with males; I have slept in the same tents with females. One time during an overseas tour we were short barrack space so some of us male NCO’s were moved on an entire female floor and shared the same latrine [not showers] we were professional about it there was no touchy-feely going on.
We were not going to ruin our military career for some hanky panky now do some men and women do that in the military? Yes there are stupid people in every job.
There are regulations already in place for misconduct.
However let’s say if I’m in a shower with a homosexual male there is no doubt in my mind that’s probably happened in the pass—if the person starts staring at my who-who I’m going to ask what’s his problem—if a male try’s to touch my who-who his head will harmonize with the shower wall.
Were talking about the military here not the boy scouts.
Remember our military is just a reflection or our civilian society. Also remember before DADT homosexuals were drafted and said they were homosexual and they were told to shut up get your shots you’re going to Vietnam.
It’s ok to draft them but they can’t volunteer; I don’t get the logic man?
We were not going to ruin our military career for some hanky panky now do some men and women do that in the military? Yes there are stupid people in every job.
There are regulations already in place for misconduct.
However let’s say if I’m in a shower with a homosexual male there is no doubt in my mind that’s probably happened in the pass—if the person starts staring at my who-who I’m going to ask what’s his problem—if a male try’s to touch my who-who his head will harmonize with the shower wall.
Were talking about the military here not the boy scouts.
Remember our military is just a reflection or our civilian society. Also remember before DADT homosexuals were drafted and said they were homosexual and they were told to shut up get your shots you’re going to Vietnam.
It’s ok to draft them but they can’t volunteer; I don’t get the logic man?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Logic is not the issue, because your first premise “…but they can’t volunteer” is flawed. Of course they can volunteer.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
My response was directed at the post I cited, not to the question whether repealing DADT is a condonation of homosexuality. So naturally, my response would have seemed irrelevant to your overall point of view, which I did not address in my post which you cited. So let’s focus.
Getting to the question whether repealing DADT is a governmental endorsement of homosexuality as “just a variation of normal”, in effect, ought to be viewed as obvious from a Catholic standpoint. I’ll grant that from a secular progressive standpoint, which at least purports to be essentially morality-neutral, (though it isn’t) it wouldn’t be. I don’t see how anybody could honestly maintain that enabling homosexuals to flaunt their homosexuality by word and deed in a military context is not a de facto government endorsement of it. So, there is a social event on the base. One’s partner in that social event is a statement of one’s sexual proclivities, and the military would have no choice at all but to accept a homosexual “partnership” in that context.
And, of course, the Church would consider the expression of one’s active homosexuality, let alone the demonstration of it, to be scandalous. It would be scandalous as to the others in the military as well as to the young people who would inevitably be exposed to the grave immorality presented by such expressions. As a moral relativist, one would not be bothered by that, particularly, any more than he or she would be bothered by overtly lewd conduct on the part of a heterosexual soldier. But as a Catholic, one should be bothered by it, and oppose it.
Finally, the military has historically been inconsistently tolerant of lewd and lascivious behavior on the part of heterosexuals. I say “inconsistently” because it will often tolerate in enlisted personnel in some branches (particularly during the draft years) what it will not tolerate among officers or in other branches. Regardless, to the extent heterosexuals overtly engage in such conduct overtly, they are committing scandal and we, as Catholics, should not condone it. Nor should the government which at least pretends to have some degree of respect for the commonly held moral beliefs of the citizenry. Active homosexuality is, of itself, lewd and immoral behavior in the eyes of the Church (and among many other religious groups) and should be at least as objectionable as overt heterosexual fornication or adultery.
In officially condoning homosexual conduct carte blanche while (at least in some branches and among officers) not condoning overt heterosexual lewdness and fornication, the government is essentially saying homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships, so long as both are circumscribed within whatever bounds the military deems reasonable. But they will be the very same bounds.
And it is impossible to believe that repeal of DADT will will result in further moves to engage the governmental units in endorsing homosexuality as “just a variant of normal”. Does anyone really entertain doubt that homosexual activists will use the military as “Exhibit A” in every further governmental endorsement they want and every pro-homosexuality propaganda piece they wish to offer the young? Only a fool could have such doubts. The very title of this thread tells you there is no room for such doubts.
S
stanmaxkolbe
Guest
Yes they can volunteer and compromise security what if they have a high security clearance? Don’t you think spies from other countries will go after them for that?
They did during the Cold War; this is a security problem and an integrity problem.
You need to look at some of the U.S. Military leadership ethics and traits:
*Ethics are principles or standards that guide professionals to do the moral or right thing. *
*There are the four elements of the professional army ethics: *
Loyalty, Duty, Selfless service, and Integrity.
These are the character traits of a leader:
Bearing, Courage, Decisiveness, Endurance, Initiative, Maturity, Will, Candor, Competence, Commitment, Self-discipline, Flexibility, Confidence, Integrity, Justice, Tact, Coolness, Improvement, Assertiveness, Empathy/compassion Sense of humor, Creativity, Humility.
I guess I need to post this again:
The purpose of the military is to kill the enemy period.
It’s about the mission and the mission comes first—fact!
The mission is to kill the enemy until they surrender—fact!
From my experience homosexuals can kill the enemy just as good as heterosexuals—fact!
When you are side by side with a fellow trooper you’ll defend that trooper with your life and that trooper will do same for you—you don’t care about their sexually. The bottom line is you complete the mission and the mission is killing the enemy.
When that first round zings by your head you don’t care about; think tanks, lowered life expectancy, government, morals, and trust me it depends on the fire-fight you don’t even think about God—because it’s so fast.
All you think about is those troopers on each side of you, your team, your crew, your squad—that’s what’s it about baby.
The closest thing to the military is Law Enforcement Officers in the United States and homosexuals have been putting their lives on the line for years in Police Departments all over this country and a lot are veterans—fact!
If homosexuals have the guts to put their lives on the line for ours and theirs freedom—HOOAH!
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Amen and Amen!
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Are you really saying the government should endorse homosexuality because some homosexual might be a traitor to his country because of it? That doesn’t really work, because it’s an argument for endorsing every other human flaw that could be imagined. Should the government endorse stealing because some intelligence officer might be blackmailed for stealing if it doesn’t?
Again, this is not about homosexuals’ ability to serve in the armed forces. It’s about the government adopting a policy by which the government endorses homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality.
As I have said before, this government is going to repeal DADT. No question in my mind about that. The question for Catholics is whether we should, in conscience, support the government’s endorsement of overt homosexual expression and behavior.
While it may vary, a military man could not reasonably expect advancement or even to remain in the military if, say, he made it plain, repeatedly and openly, that his exclusive sexual activity was sodomizing women. His behavior and expression would be considered scandalous, if not by the military, at least by the Church. The homosexual, whose lifestyle is the very same thing, would have every expectation of having it fully accepted and no barrier to his presence in the military or even his career. And yet, we are instructed that we must accept that. The secular relativist society is willing to accept it. But its attitudes are not mandatory on me. There comes a point, when a Catholic is still free (for now) to express his disapproval of overtly scandalous behavior. That’s my point. This is not at all about whether homosexuals might “take a bullet” as you say.
- Status