B
Barbkw
Guest
Yes, the GLBT lobby is very relevant to DADT. Throughout the world.
So you have some evidence of a world-wide gay conspiracy to allow a few gay folks in the US to risk their lives for their country? Or is it merely the Irish that are behind it all?GLBT advocates are always saying that. No one believes that line of BS anymore.
And if nudists felt it was somehow stifling their freedom of expression to be obliged to wear clothing on base, and if they had the political power to force the military to accept nudism on base, you would be okay with it, one assumes.I think the point is that gay people would be held to the same rules and standards as straight people. Right now, that means benefits would not be affected as the federal government does not recognize gay marriages. If that changes, then I assume gay married people would qualify for housing on the same terms as straight married people.
I don’t see how repealing DADT is any kind of endorsement of homosexuality. The government allows those that are divorced and remarried to serve - is that an endorsement of that behavior? As to your example of public nudity - there is no bar to nudists serving, as long as they follow all the same rules as the non-nudists. The same will be true of gays in the military.
Why would one assume that? Particularly as I specifically said that the fact is that nudists are currently allowed to serve if they follow the same rules as everyone else.And if nudists felt it was somehow stifling their freedom of expression to be obliged to wear clothing on base, and if they had the political power to force the military to accept nudism on base, you would be okay with it, one assumes.
The Church does not take a stance on this issue.“…because I disagree with you on this issue I am not Catholic.”
No, because you continually write in support of the homosexual agenda.
Because you disagree with the Church on this issue.
I gotta ask:gcmwatch.com/5658/retired-military-chaplains-denominations-fight-dadt-repeal/comment-page-1
Retired Military Chaplains; Denominations Fight DADT Repeal
1 The article continues:
No, she does not. The Archbishop has given his opinion, but the Church has no stance on the issue. The Church has never condemned allowing gay people to participate fully in society. The Church has not spoken out against the many other countries that allow gay people to serve. Nothing in Church doctrine or teaching requires Catholics to restrict the employment of gay people to certain types of jobs.*“The Church does not take a stance on this issue.” *
Yes, She does.
Catholic Archbishop Tries to Stop Pro-Gay Military Policy
By Cliff Kincaid | June 7, 2010
"Although some news organizations have suggested that repeal of DADT is a done deal, the repeal legislation has passed the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee but must still be acted upon by the full Senate.
Reacting to passage of pro-gay military legislation in the Congress, the Catholic Archbishop for the Military Services says repeal of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy would sanction “immoral activity” and “jeopardize morale, good morals, unit cohesion and every other factor that weakens the [military] mission.”
In a late-breaking development that could imperil the ultimate passage of legislation to open the military to open and active homosexuals, Archbishop Timothy Broglio, the chief shepherd of Catholics in the United States Armed Forces, has issued a powerful statement saying that the Bible demands disapproval of homosexuality and that “Under no circumstances can they [homosexual acts] be approved.”
The Church does have a problem with giving scandal, however.No, she does not. The Archbishop has given his opinion, but the Church has no stance on the issue. The Church has never condemned allowing gay people to participate fully in society. The Church has not spoken out against the many other countries that allow gay people to serve. Nothing in Church doctrine or teaching requires Catholics to restrict the employment of gay people to certain types of jobs.
I take the general gist of many commenters to be suggesting they be banned from military service. If they are suggesting they be allowed to serve but forced to continue to lie in order to do so, I do not see any support in Catholic teaching for that position, either.The Church does have a problem with giving scandal, however.
There is no restriction against having homosexuals in any kind of job in this country, other than regarding active homosexuals in the priesthood, and nobody here has, to my knowledge, suggested that they should be restricted from any job. Non-issue.
There is no need to lie. The DoD doesn’t ask, therefore there is no need to voluteer the information.I take the general gist of many commenters to be suggesting they be banned from military service. If they are suggesting they be allowed to serve but forced to continue to lie in order to do so, I do not see any support in Catholic teaching for that position, either.