Gays In The Military

[edwest2]

being gay is entirely “natural”

no more “unnatural” than being a red-head

what’s the problem with being around a gay? Will somebody please explain? All of us live and work with them and always have.

Here is the explanation from the Catholic Medical Association:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

the yeses still lead in the poll here, and this continues to surprise me. But perhaps Catholics are not as conservative about accepting gays in the military as I had thought.

 

[larkin31]

Here is the explanation from the Catholic Medical Association:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

God bless,
Ed

Where does this address “being around gays”?

 

[edwest2]

the yeses still lead in the poll here, and this continues to surprise me. But perhaps Catholics are not as conservative about accepting gays in the military as I had thought.

This is the internet. Do you honestly believe all the yes votes are from Catholics? Pick up a copy of the book, The Cult of the Amateur. Just like ballot box stuffing, less than scrupulous individuals can sign on here and give a false impression.

Also look up the term “astro turf” as it applies to the internet. These are people who are paid money to go to internet forums and pose as regular folks to argue for or against something based on the wishes of whoever paid them.

This issue should be left entirely up to the military based on actual, real world experience.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

This is the internet. Do you honestly believe all the yes votes are from Catholics? Pick up a copy of the book, The Cult of the Amateur. Just like ballot box stuffing, less than scrupulous individuals can sign on here and give a false impression.

Also look up the term “astro turf” as it applies to the internet. These are people who are paid money to go to internet forums and pose as regular folks to argue for or against something based on the wishes of whoever paid them.

This issue should be left entirely up to the military based on actual, real world experience.

God bless,
Ed

I distrust you as much as anyone you distrust. Just saying, I figured there would be a different outcome.

How about my question about the link you provided. I just read it and did not see anywhere there an answer to my question. But perhaps I missed it.

 

[bmadamsberry]

You don’t even know my point. What do I have to cite to tell you that you are using the terms “abnormal” and “unnatural” as slurs? What, a dictionary?

Don’t pull any holier-than thou stuff with me after that “I-showed-your-post-to-my-professor” ****. That was a silly thing to do and to mention. But I forgive your youth. It was also kind of funny trying to picture it.

ps: “unnormal” is not a word

pps: I am very familiar with religioustolerance.org. I have no idea why you are referring to that site. My point has been that you do not understand all the “natural” processes that go into population growth and evolution. You don’t need “studies”; you need a textbook on population dynamics. As a starter, you should understand that disease, death, infertility are all “natural” parts of population growth dynamics. To call infertility “unnatural” is to misuse the term. THAT is my repeated point here.

I gave you the website because you requested studies. That website has studies that prove my point. So… you asked for something, forgot you asked, attacked me for giving it to you because you asked… seems like someone’s getting old. Asking you to give me evidence to help prove your point was in reference to the discussion of if homosexuality is normal or not. Natural or not.

I hath never said that I art holier than thou. If, purchance, thou tookest something that I said in that wayith, then I apologizeith. That’s why I don’t like arguing over posts. Misunderstandings are so easy (for example, the misunderstanding about if we were discussing unnatural being a slur or if homosexuals were, indeed, unnatural). Anyway, he did laugh. He’s an extremely critical thinking mind. He’d the worst when it comes to essays. Anyway, he thought you seemed a little angry.

Here’s what I think and suggest:

1. This has gotten off topic. This is no longer about gays in the military, but rather about gays in general. Therefore, in the interest of not derailing this thread, let’s get back on topic or stop our discussion altogether.
2. A huge misunderstanding of what we are talking about has occured. I am duscussing one thing and, I believe, you are discussing quite another.
3. I’ll let you have the “last word” in this off-topic conversation that we’ve had. So enjoy it. Call me names, quote evidence up the wazoo, and/or create a perfectly written refute of what I’ve talked about. Either way, I promise to let it be the “last word” about the topic that is not about gays in the military.

 

[larkin31]

I gave you the website because you requested studies. That website has studies that prove my point. So… you asked for something, forgot you asked, attacked me for giving it to you because you asked… seems like someone’s getting old. Asking you to give me evidence to help prove your point was in reference to the discussion of if homosexuality is normal or not. Natural or not…

Homosexuality occurs at a rate (estimated) far below the statistical norm. EVERYONE knows this. That it occurs continually, every generation, for hundreds of generations, that it is not the result of an ingested chemical or alien space ray or implantation of man-made product or result of surgery or other medical process, that it appears to have some sort of higher incidence rate among twins and in certain male-gender studies, that same-gender erotic play also occurs in places in the natural world around us all STRONGLY suggests that the orientation is “natural” and not an “artificial” or man-made in the same way that heterosexuality is “natural” and not man-made. This does not mean that cultural and environmental factors have NO effect, but simply a recognition that the gay orientation has occurred and does occur “naturally” in the human population at very low rates.

This is common knowledge. Are you not aware of these things?

 

[portarica]

Homosexuality occurs at a rate (estimated) far below the statistical norm. EVERYONE knows this. That it occurs continually, every generation, for hundreds of generations, that it is not the result of an ingested chemical or alien space ray or implantation of man-made product or result of surgery or other medical process, that it appears to have some sort of higher incidence rate among twins and in certain male-gender studies, that same-gender erotic play also occurs in places in the natural world around us all STRONGLY suggests that the orientation is “natural” and not an “artificial” or man-made in the same way that heterosexuality is “natural” and not man-made. This does not mean that cultural and environmental factors have NO effect, but simply a recognition that the gay orientation has occurred and does occur “naturally” in the human population at very low rates.

This is common knowledge. Are you not aware of these things?

But homosexuality is still disordered because it doesn’t conform to the catholic ideal that there are only two accepted definitions of ordered: males who mate with females and females that mate with males.

Despite a percentage of births that fall outside the accepted lot of ordered people, they are not to be considered in the discussion, as technically they don’t exist in the eyes of the church.

Peace

 

[larkin31]

But homosexuality is still disordered because it doesn’t conform to the catholic ideal that there are only two accepted definitions of ordered: males who mate with females and females that mate with males.

Despite a percentage of births that fall outside the accepted lot of ordered people, they are not to be considered in the discussion, as technically they don’t exist in the eyes of the church.

What, exactly, are you saying does “not exist in the eyes of the church”? Are you saying that gays don’t exist in the eyes of the church?

 

[portarica]

What, exactly, are you saying does “not exist in the eyes of the church”? Are you saying that gays don’t exist in the eyes of the church?

I’m saying that the physical sexual function or lack of function isn’t one of the ordered functions of humans in the eyes of the church.

Peace

 

[larkin31]

I’m saying that the physical sexual function or lack of function isn’t one of the ordered functions of humans in the eyes of the church.

Peace

Well, of course not. What the CC defines as wrong it defines as wrong. “Disordered” means “not following order” with a connotation of dysfunction. The CC calls “ordered” heterosexuality. So, of course, anything else they call “disordered.” Natural life has many forms of “disorder” in this sense, all of which are fully “natural” even if they are to be lamented. Some “disorder,” like high intelligence or musical genius, or religious calling, are actually valued! Being over 7-feet tall is “disordered” and dysfunctional in some important ways. You could even call them “mutants.” Should we?

 

[benny_f]

I don’t think “gays” should be used in the title of this thread, as many homosexuals and lesbians find it offensive as it is used as a derogatory term to belittle and demean. It is also being banded around amongst younger generations as a negative term i.e. something is gay, therefore we shouldn’t encourage it’s use.

Aside from that, any man or woman whether heterosexual or homosexual should be allowed to join the US army, or any army for that matter. I am studying law, and while I am a Catholic, I have for along time struggled to reconcile the human rights violations perpetrated againsts homosexuals with my beliefs. I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, adopt, e.t.c, but my beliefs on these matters are not up for discussion here, rather I think we should view any form of discriminatory action against a man or woman as wrong.

Those of African descent struggled for a long time trying to obtain rights, I view homosexual rights campaigning in a similar light. Sexual orientation should not have to be disclosed to qualify for a job, as it does not matter.

God Bless,
Belinda

 

[Livingthedream]

I know a gay guy whose in the army. He’s pretty tough and he’s been an infantry soldier for 7 years.

I don’t think his being gay affects how good he is at killing the enemy or affects his fellow soldiers in how good they are at killing other men.

Just my two cents, but then again, Canada has openly allowed gay soldiers for 20 years or so, to no ill effect.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think “gays” should be used in the title of this thread, as many homosexuals and lesbians find it offensive as it is used as a derogatory term to belittle and demean. It is also being banded around amongst younger generations as a negative term i.e. something is gay, therefore we shouldn’t encourage it’s use.

Aside from that, any man or woman whether heterosexual or homosexual should be allowed to join the US army, or any army for that matter. I am studying law, and while I am a Catholic, I have for along time struggled to reconcile the human rights violations perpetrated againsts homosexuals with my beliefs. I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, adopt, e.t.c, but my beliefs on these matters are not up for discussion here, rather I think we should view any form of discriminatory action against a man or woman as wrong.

Those of African descent struggled for a long time trying to obtain rights, I view homosexual rights campaigning in a similar light. Sexual orientation should not have to be disclosed to qualify for a job, as it does not matter.

God Bless,
Belinda

An African-American woman said the following: “I know people who used to be gay but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”

What are your beliefs, as you call them, based on? Are they meant to be applied to real world situations? The military, and only the military, is competent to decide if gays should serve.

God bless,
Ed

 

[larkin31]

An African-American woman said the following: “I know people who used to be gay but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”

What are your beliefs, as you call them, based on? Are they meant to be applied to real world situations? The military, and only the military, is competent to decide if gays should serve.

God bless,
Ed

Congress has the constitutional oversight, if you care about following the Constitution:

from Article I, section 8:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[benny_f]

An African-American woman said the following: “I know people who used to be gay but I don’t know anyone who used to be black.”

What are your beliefs, as you call them, based on? Are they meant to be applied to real world situations? The military, and only the military, is competent to decide if gays should serve.

God bless,
Ed

Well I honestly worry about anyone who believes that you can change who you are fundamentally. I don’t believe in the vein of thought which states you can re-mould what God has made.

They are based on Love and Equality, all of which are pillars of Christianity and of Humanity. Applied to real world situations? Strange that you ask, but where else would they be applied. I expect no less from my fellow man than he treat others with respect and dignity whether black, white, homosexual or heterosexual.

Yes you are right, the military does decide who can join, but deciding on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong. What is their argument against homosexuals and lesbians based upon? Because they might infect others with homosexuality, offend others by their presence? The same was argued during the Civil Rights Movement in America. An African-Americans presence may offend a white woman, or they may be a bad influence to younger white children if they attend the same school. Whether you believe it is morally right to allow a homosexual man to join the military, is of course your own opinion, but make no mistake, it is legally wrong to discriminate on foot of sexual orientation, whether your country has realised that yet is another matter.

To be honest, if someone inquired as to my sexual orientation at an interview I would get up and leave. My sexual orientation does not affect my ability to do a job. Simple as that.

Reading the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, it states at page 505, in the Popular and Definitive Edition that “every sign of unjust discrimination in…regard [to homosexuals] should be avoided” (of course the Church promotes discrimination in the sense they can never be treated in the eyes of God as a married couple, or consummate their relationships, this is the only discrimination they speak of which may be justified in the opinion of the Church.) They are called to “chastity” by the Church. Doesn’t say anywhere they must be inflicted on a daily basis with human rights violations.

Just my thoughts on the matter, but I accept everyones opinions, whether I agree with them or not.

God Bless,
B

 

[ERose]

We are talking about behavior here. A black man is a black man and will always be a black man. But someone who has a certain behavior can change or suppress his or her behavior. I do not believe that one who is genetically inclined to think and act like a woman has to be gay and should be gay. Many gay individuals are gay by choice not by genetics anyway so behavior is the primary issue.

I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that we are giving individuals minority rights because of “sexual” behavior. They are not a minority. They are a group of people that are involved in a sexual fetish and nothing more, whether they are genetically inclined to this behavior or not trully does not matter.

DADT policy is the right policy period. Why because the majority of people do not want to here about your exploits nor do they want your sexual behavior thrown in their faces as well. I know there are alot of people who are involved in all types of sexual fetishes from bestiality, homosexuality, bondage, greeking, etc. and personnally I do not want to hear about someone’s behavior nor do I want it forced upon me either. Keep whatever you do in your bedroom to yourself and keep me out of it. And stop thinking that people who enjoy same sex sex are some type of minority for they are not.

 

[larkin31]

We are talking about behavior here. A black man is a black man and will always be a black man. But someone who has a certain behavior can change or suppress his or her behavior. I do not believe that one who is genetically inclined to think and act like a woman has to be gay and should be gay. Many gay individuals are gay by choice not by genetics anyway so behavior is the primary issue.

I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that we are giving individuals minority rights because of “sexual” behavior. They are not a minority. They are a group of people that are involved in a sexual fetish and nothing more, whether they are genetically inclined to this behavior or not trully does not matter.

This is an oversimplification of human sexual orientation.

DADT policy is the right policy period. Why because the majority of people do not want to here about your exploits nor do they want your sexual behavior thrown in their faces as well. I know there are alot of people who are involved in all types of sexual fetishes from bestiality, homosexuality, bondage, greeking, etc. and personnally I do not want to hear about someone’s behavior nor do I want it forced upon me either. Keep whatever you do in your bedroom to yourself and keep me out of it. And stop thinking that people who enjoy same sex sex are some type of minority for they are not.

If this were enforced EQUALLY for heteros who broadcast their sexuality, I would agree. But it isn’t. So you don’t really have a point.

 

[ERose]

Well I honestly worry about anyone who believes that you can change who you are fundamentally. I don’t believe in the vein of thought which states you can re-mould what God has made. B

What? What do you think the purpose of Christianity is? We are called to change our ways and fundamentally change our behavior and our beliefs to follow in the footsteps of Christ. If you do not believe that you are not a Christian. We live in the world and we are called to leave the world and follow Christ. That means following his commandments, living a life of charity, loving our enemies, etc. I know that before I became Christian I didn’t do any of these things and it took years of changing who I am to be more Christ like. And I am still working on changing who I am fundamentally until I am what God wants me to be.

Are there certain things that I am “genetically hardwired” to do that is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ? Yes. But this cannot be an excuss but a challenge to do and resist. That is what we are called to do. We all have thorns in our sides that lead us to sin and these thorns must be removed or resisted with the grace of God and prayer.

 

[ERose]

This is an oversimplification of human sexual orientation.

If this were enforced EQUALLY for heteros who broadcast their sexuality, I would agree. But it isn’t. So you don’t really have a point.

Wrong on your first comment. Sexual orientation is by and large a choice, whether someone is genetically hardwired or not he or she still makes to choice to follow that lifestyle. There is no such thing as sexual orientation. You are either male or female. Being homo or hetero or into bestaility or pedophilia or rape is ultimately a choice.

On your second comment it is equally enforced. If someone is caught or found out they are in any type of behavior that is not conducive to the discipline of the military is dealt with, whether it is sex addiction, pedophilia, drugs, etc.