Gays in military: Do allies' experiences matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is Only an attempt by homosexual activists to rearrange the social furniture. That’s it. So Bob can serve with his husband Ted. Just one more reason for American society to think, “Hey. What’s the big deal?” And to help convince Catholics to be indifferent to the whole thing.

Privacy means privacy. I’m sure my parents had sex but they never talked to me about it.

"Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos. Amos had said that with forces fighting in Afghanistan and still deployed in Iraq, now is the wrong time to lift the ban.

“This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness,” Amos said Saturday."

It should not matter at all what experience our Allies have. Military life is not Constitutional.

God bless,
Ed
 
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Please reread my post I said it’s a security risk.
 
stanmaxkolbe said:
Please reread my post I said it’s a security risk.
Click to expand...
The logic here seems to be that if we (society) all just got over our hang ups and affirmed gay behavior, then gays would cease to be a security risk to the military because then no one could blackmail them or threaten them with exposure or their secret. Openness would make them less of a threat.

The problem I have is that outside the military, we do have an open society, homosexuality is very much tolerated (tolerated by not accepted by all, Gene Robinson - call your office!) and yet many homosexuals (still) choose to hide their proclivities. (It’s like they were ashamed or something? Mark Foley - call your office!). Call me skeptical, but I don’t see this changing - despite orders from Washington that we should all be more accepting.

The counter argument will be that we are not yet “open and accepting” enough - we always need more and more acceptance (just like the soviet union was never really communist, just working towards it). But, this argument seems to me like blaming the rest of us for the homosexual spy’s bad behavior.
 
JHow said:
The logic here seems to be that if we (society) all just got over our hang ups and affirmed gay behavior, then gays would cease to be a security risk to the military because then no one could blackmail them or threaten them with exposure or their secret. Openness would make them less of a threat.

The problem I have is that outside the military, we do have an open society, homosexuality is very much tolerated (tolerated by not accepted by all, Gene Robinson - call your office!) and yet many homosexuals (still) choose to hide their proclivities. (It’s like they were ashamed or something? Mark Foley - call your office!). Call me skeptical, but I don’t see this changing - despite orders from Washington that we should all be more accepting.

The counter argument will be that we are not yet “open and accepting” enough - we always need more and more acceptance (just like the soviet union was never really communist, just working towards it). But, this argument seems to me like blaming the rest of us for the homosexual spy’s bad behavior.
Click to expand...
You cannot seriously read the things that are said about gay people on this thread and a hundred like it on this forum and still wonder why some gay people would rather not have everyone know that they are gay. I agree that society is geting more tolerant, but even setting aside the fact that you can still be fired for being gay in many places (including discharge from the military), there is still significant prejudice against gay people in many areas.
 
TMC said:
…setting aside the fact that you can still be fired for being gay in many places (including discharge from the military), there is still significant prejudice against gay people in many areas.
Click to expand...
Other than discharge from the military, which is what we were discussing, where do you see gays getting fired for being gay? Unpaid boy scout leaders? Some states have “sexual orientation” as a protected employment category already. You are only arguing a matter of degree. My point is that sometime soon gay freedom under law and in practice will be maximized, and I’ll be willing to bet that when that time comes some gays will still be “in the closet”. (And, no doubt, some gays will still be complaining of persecution - just as some blacks do today as well - Michelle Obama, call your thesis advisor!).
 
JHow said:
Other than discharge from the military, which is what we were discussing, where do you see gays getting fired for being gay? Unpaid boy scout leaders? Some states have “sexual orientation” as a protected employment category already. You are only arguing a matter of degree. My point is that sometime soon gay freedom under law and in practice will be maximized, and I’ll be willing to bet that when that time comes some gays will still be “in the closet”. (And, no doubt, some gays will still be complaining of persecution - just as some blacks do today as well - Michelle Obama, call your thesis advisor!).
Click to expand...
Yes, there are “some” states that prohibit discrimination against gay people, which means most do not. I am still amazed that you think that the fact that gay people don’t announce their orientation to all and sundry is evidence that there is something wrong with being gay. Do you discuss your sexual activities with everyone you meet?
 
TMC said:
You cannot seriously read the things that are said about gay people on this thread and a hundred like it on this forum and still wonder why some gay people would rather not have everyone know that they are gay. I agree that society is geting more tolerant, but even setting aside the fact that you can still be fired for being gay in many places (including discharge from the military), there is still significant prejudice against gay people in many areas.
Click to expand...
It may well be that, eventually in this society, homosexuality will be viewed by everyone as perfectly normal, not as a sexual perversion. Well, there would be those whose religions teach that it’s gravely disordered or an “abomination”, per the Bible or the Koran. But if they are in the minority perhaps they can be ignored by a relativist society.

Still, unless the society becomes so debased that “anything goes” is the way of thinking. Many acts of sodomy would be viewed with revulsion even if they took place between persons of the opposite sex. Certainly they are today. Other forms of sexual perversion, such as pedophilia, necrophilia, etc, are as well. Even polygamy, which does involve sodomy necessarily, is viewed with disfavor by most. So, it strikes me as unlikely that full acceptance of homosexuality will become the norm unless, as I said, the society becomes totally debased.
 
It is a generational thing, which means as Glen Beck’s audiance dies peacefully of old age, even fewer people will be intolerant of gays and lesbians, though that will never go away completely, any more than racism will. The people who worry about it are generally old, like Senator McCain. The pockets of viralent intolerance which remain generally map onto politically conservative areas where kids repeat what they have heard.

The acceptance of gays by the military pretty much mirrors he general population. The more people who come out, the more people realize that they know someone who is not the stereotype they were taught to fear. Or is a relative that they care about a lot more than some clown on TV. Gays in the media have come very far in the last generation in moving beyond “traditional” stereotypes, and that has hurt efforts to maintain those stereotypes.
 
Phil_Stone said:
It is a generational thing, which means as Glen Beck’s audiance dies peacefully of old age, even fewer people will be intolerant of gays and lesbians, though that will never go away completely, any more than racism will. The people who worry about it are generally old, like Senator McCain. The pockets of viralent intolerance which remain generally map onto politically conservative areas where kids repeat what they have heard.

The acceptance of gays by the military pretty much mirrors he general population. The more people who come out, the more people realize that they know someone who is not the stereotype they were taught to fear. Or is a relative that they care about a lot more than some clown on TV. Gays in the media have come very far in the last generation in moving beyond “traditional” stereotypes, and that has hurt efforts to maintain those stereotypes.
Click to expand...
I agree. The notion of gays as corset-wearing drag queens addicted to “Over the Rainbow” is being put paid to by young people and some of the old who have met gays, who might have some in their own families, and who see that they aren’t predators who are going to follow young boys into the restrooms. To be sure, there will always be some such, just as there will always be some of those prejudiced against them, but I can’t see but that nearly all will be fully integrated into the general populace like everyone else and will serve our country like anyone else. The sooner the stereotypes are gone, the better.
 
Hear, hear! Being an active homosexual or an active heterosexual fornicator/adulterer are equally sinful in the eyes of the Church.
 
That’s a bit hard for me to understand. It seems to me that a mortal sin is a mortal sin and my sleeping with my neighbor’s wife is as bad as my sleepng with my neighbor’s brother. Damnation could follow from either act as I see it. :confused:
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
That’s a bit hard for me to understand. It seems to me that a mortal sin is a mortal sin and my sleeping with my neighbor’s wife is as bad as my sleepng with my neighbor’s brother. Damnation could follow from either act as I see it. :confused:
Click to expand...
Rich, You are still ignoring Church teaching. Up to 1973, being homosexual was listed as a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. Look it up. This is fact. Gays were not just discriminated against in the way you think. I’m sure the psychiatrists weren’t sitting around thinking about different ways to make life harder than it already was for gay people.

You are also ignoring a detailed statement from the Catholic Medical Association that gays are not born that way. I suggest you also read about the Catholic group Courage:
couragerc.net/ I was listening to a spokesman from the group on Catholic radio. He indicated that homosexual tendencies could be treated.

No one should be abused or mistreated for being gay. And I worked with a lesbian and bisexual and they weren’t in the closet about it either. No one bothered them, although one did try to become amorous with the other.

Apparently you are not concerned about what the Church has to say about this issue or gay adoption either. Why is that?

If DADT is repealed, there will be incidents. Gays will claim suspected promotion discrimination. There will be increased “sensitivity training,” which can be good. But what about a married gay couple on base with kids? No big deal?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
You are also ignoring a detailed statement from the Catholic Medical Association that gays are not born that way. I suggest you also read about the Catholic group Courage:
couragerc.net/ I was listening to a spokesman from the group on Catholic radio. He indicated that homosexual tendencies could be treated.
Click to expand...
And what about the 99% of actual scientific studies that show gays are born that way? What about the 99% of gays who claim they have always held same-sex attractions? What about the 99% of those gays who tried to change but could not because it was obviously biologically hardwired into them? And I would love to hear how the homosexual giraffes and penguins and chimpanzees “chose” their lifestyle :rolleyes:
 
edwest2 said:
Rich, You are still ignoring Church teaching.

Apparently you are not concerned about what the Church has to say about this issue or gay adoption either. Why is that?
Click to expand...
This thread hasn’t a single post about gay adoptions, so naturally I’ve said nothing about them. As neither has anyone else on this thread.
My remark was to wonder how heterosexual mortal sin is lesser than homosexual mortal sin (see my previous post).
If DADT is repealed, there will be incidents.
Click to expand...
As there were in 1948, yes.
But what about a married gay couple on base with kids? No big deal?
Click to expand...
No big deal. I don’t expect that couple to do sex acts where their neighbors and the neigbors’ kids can see them any more than I would expect a heterosexual couple to get it off in public. And, if either couple does do that, then there are laws against such.
 
jerryson said:
And what about the 99% of actual scientific studies that show gays are born that way? What about the 99% of gays who claim they have always held same-sex attractions? What about the 99% of those gays who tried to change but could not because it was obviously biologically hardwired into them? And I would love to hear how the homosexual giraffes and penguins and chimpanzees “chose” their lifestyle :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Please provide a reference to any study that claims that.

Animals do not have free will or human cognition.

Peace,
Ed
 
TMC said:
Yes, there are “some” states that prohibit discrimination against gay people, which means most do not. I am still amazed that you think that the fact that gay people don’t announce their orientation to all and sundry is evidence that there is something wrong with being gay. Do you discuss your sexual activities with everyone you meet?
Click to expand...
What will happen then, if gays are allowed to serve openly? They won’t tell anyone? No one in their unit will know? If so, what’s the point of serving “openly”?

Or will it go like this:

“Oh by the way, guys, I’m gay.”

Followed by: “Really? No kiddin’.” And everybody just goes back to what they were doing?

Peace,
Ed
 
Everybody here and in this whole debate seems to miss the obvious point: Gay people pay federal taxes, taxes fund the military, hence the military is a tax payer funded institution. If gay people pay taxes for the military, then they have every right to join it. Now, if you believe so strongly that gay people should not join the military, then at least be consistent and demand that gay people be exempt from paying military taxes then.
 
edwest2 said:
What will happen then, if gays are allowed to serve openly? They won’t tell anyone? No one in their unit will know? If so, what’s the point of serving “openly”?

Or will it go like this:

“Oh by the way, guys, I’m gay.”

Followed by: “Really? No kiddin’.” And everybody just goes back to what they were doing?
Click to expand...
I believe it will be just like that, if not at first, then soon enough. And, soon enough can’t come soon enough! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top