Gays In The Military

[edwest2]

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

Your statements indicate a distorted view of the black civil rights movement:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Why don’t you go to a Pentagon web site to get their reasons? Nothing will be solved here.

God bless,
Ed

 

[jbowler]

This was published at the time of the first debate over DADT in 1993. Its common sense is so clear, and its prescience so stunning it bears repeating.

Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable

By Barry M. Goldwater

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn’t exactly nothing, but it’s pretty damned close.

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country’s economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It’s no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there’s no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found out that wasn’t true. Then they decided gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn’t so – in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan’s man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense under President Bush called it “a bit of an old chestnut.”

When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it’s time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in Congress think I’m wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose, Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that’s just stupid.

Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential – period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man – our own Gen. Colin Powell.

Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well it has, and despite those who feared the worst – I among them – we are still the best and will continue to be.

The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight, but we seldom have that luxury. That’s why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that’s what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it’s high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy like “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” That compromise doesn’t deal with the issue – it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It’s time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It’s time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It’s time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s lives. Government governs best when it governs least p and stays out of the impossible task or legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our Commander in Chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the legal wording that indicates the reason for excluding gays from military service:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[benny_f]

We are digressing into something more broad, but so be it.

ERose:
This thread isn’t about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it’s about whether sexual orientation discrimination is acceptable within the military, but nonetheless…

Some people are homosexual, and they cannot, not even through fasting, prayer, self-denial or baptism change this fact: they love men not women, or they love women and not men. It would be the same if I tried to deny my heterosexuality. I could pray, fast, abstain from sex, but I would still be heterosexual because I would still have the urge to cohabit with men.

I don’t look upon them as anything less than Christians because I am not Christ and cannot judge who is Christian and who is not.

However I will state again, that the Church does not view homosexuality as a sin, but the act of intercourse between homosexuals.

Again I would call on everyone to desist from using the word gay. It is extremely offensive and I feel disheartened to see it used amongst Christians

In relation to edwest2, I accept that certain men and woman, who were involved in the Civil Rights movement, may be uneasy with the comparison given there faith, but I won’t be moved. Rights are rights, and legally you are entitled to every single one. It’s a movement to secure rights, and I will readily compare it to any rights campaign, as they share solidarity through persecution. I wasn’t asking for an answer, it’s a debate, the outcome is never resolved, but the I don’t need answers for clear discrimination on the basis of maintaining cohesion within an armed forces.

This thread has clearly gone off topic, and I’ve already said my piece on the matter.

God Bless,
B

 

[ERose]

We are digressing into something more broad, but so be it.

ERose:
This thread isn’t about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it’s about whether sexual orientation discrimination is acceptable within the military, but nonetheless…

Some people are homosexual, and they cannot, not even through fasting, prayer, self-denial or baptism change this fact: they love men not women, or they love women and not men. It would be the same if I tried to deny my heterosexuality. I could pray, fast, abstain from sex, but I would still be heterosexual because I would still have the urge to cohabit with men.

I don’t look upon them as anything less than Christians because I am not Christ and cannot judge who is Christian and who is not.

However I will state again, that the Church does not view homosexuality as a sin, but the act of intercourse between homosexuals.

Again I would call on everyone to desist from using the word gay. It is extremely offensive and I feel disheartened to see it used amongst Christians

In relation to edwest2, I accept that certain men and woman, who were involved in the Civil Rights movement, may be uneasy with the comparison given there faith, but I won’t be moved. Rights are rights, and legally you are entitled to every single one. It’s a movement to secure rights, and I will readily compare it to any rights campaign, as they share solidarity through persecution. I wasn’t asking for an answer, it’s a debate, the outcome is never resolved, but the I don’t need answers for clear discrimination on the basis of maintaining cohesion within an armed forces.

This thread has clearly gone off topic, and I’ve already said my piece on the matter.

God Bless,
B

The legal definition for homosexuality is sexual contact and between two persons of the same sex as man and man or woman and woman. Homosexuality is an act. You are not a true homosexual until you have taken part in the act of homosexuality.

Yes we as Christians cannot judge our neighbor and you will not find me doing so in any of my posts on this topic.

Also gays and lesbians have the exact same rights as I do, and yet they want more. This is not a civil rights campaign, like in the 50-60s. You cannot compare the two. African Americans where fighting for the rights that were due to them as human beings. They were not asking to be made special they where asking to be viewed as normal. The gay movement is asking to be special, which is displayed in their parades and protests.

Gays and lesbians at this time can join the military. They are asked not to proclaim it but rather be like everybody else and keep it to themselves.

Concerning one point you made which are correct in. The church views the act as sin for the only situation where sexual intercourse is allowed and accepted is between a husband and a wife. Any type of sex outside the marriage is a sin and a mortal one at that.

 

[solemnwarrior]

America is about the last Western Nation whose military still cares whom their soldiers legally have sexual relations with.

In America, they’ll let a 17 year old join the army and kill other people.

But they won’t let that same 17 year old kill the enemy if he tells his boss that he’s gay.

That same 17 year old, although can kill people in combat, can’t legally drink a beer either.

Talk about bizarre priorities.

 

[JoeNY]

If you are not of “my religion”, what the Hell are you doing on this Catholic Forum website? This site is designed for Catholics to understand their Faith so they can follow the teachings of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. We don’t need apostates, non-believers, and anti-Catholics spreading their falsehoods and venom here. Go find an atheist website you can foul up.

 

[Christopher68]

If you are not of “my religion”, what the Hell are you doing on this Catholic Forum website? This site is designed for Catholics to understand their Faith so they can follow the teachings of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. We don’t need apostates, non-believers, and anti-Catholics spreading their falsehoods and venom here. Go find an atheist website you can foul up.

I am quite surprised by the apparent anger of above post. I always thought the forum rules stated that people of any religion may participate in the forum. As a Catholic, I welcome the questions asked by non-Catholics.

 

[JoeNY]

TO: benny f, who stated: “However I will state again, that the Church does not view homosexuality as a sin, but the act of intercourse between homosexuals.”

What planet are you from? From its inception, the Church has ALWAYS condemned homosexuality. It is condemned throughout the Old Testament, which calls it “…filthy enjoyments…” which “…dishonor their own bodies.” It further condemns it as
“an abomination”, “…a perversion…”, and actually calls homosexuals to be “…put to death.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THEY BE APPROVED.” (2357)

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith teaches that homosexual behavior is “…in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.” Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict called the inclination towards homosexuality and “objective disorder”, and homosexual behavior “AN INTRINSIC EVIL”.

A person living a homosexual life cannot receive any of the Church’s sacraments except Penance (Confession). Homosexual behavior is a MORTAL SIN, which, unless confessed and repented, will send you to Hell. You can’t be that ignorant of these Catholic teachings on homosexuality, especially if you have visited this website. Are you in denial, and trying to seek validity for your destructive lifestyle? You won’t get if from the Catholic Church.

TO: Christopher68, who stated: “I am quite surprised by the apparent anger of above post. I always thought the forum rules stated that people of any religion may participate in the forum. As a Catholic, I welcome the questions asked by non-Catholics.”

This is the MISSION STATEMENT from Catholic Answers, which runs the Catholic Forum:

"Catholic Answers is an apostolate dedicated to serving Christ by bringing the fullness of Catholic truth to the world.  We help good Catholics become better Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead non-Catholics into the fullness of the faith.  We explain Catholic truth, equip the faithful to live fully the sacramental life, and assist them in spreading the Good News."

This forum is was created to explain the Faith and to evangelize the Faith throughout the world, as Christ commanded. It is not a platform for apostates, atheists and enemies of the Church to spew their poison and condemn its Teachings. If you have joined this forum to complain about and challenge our Teachings, you are wasting your time. The Church’s teachings on Faith and Morals will never change – IT IS INFALLIBLE.

If you are one of those cafeteria catholics who doesn’t like what the Church teaches, you can join any one of the 30,000+ Protestant Christian churches in this country. I’m sure you can find one that will satisfy your beliefs. There are also numerous world faiths that will welcome you.

If you are one of those who to seek undermine the Church’s credibility with the ultimate goal of destroying it, good luck; Christ said, “…the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

Yes, Chris, I am angry, but it is a justifiable anger, because I am witnessing, first hand, a concerted, world-wide effort to destroy the only True Church, the Church that Jesus Christ founded, a trial not seen since the times of the early Christian martyrs. But I am not as angry as Christ when he called His enemies, “frauds”, “liars”, “hypocrites”, and “a brood of vipers”. And not as angry as when He went into the Temple and “overturned the money changers’ tables and the stalls of the dove sellers”, and “drove them out”. And certainly not as angry as God when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

I have chosen to engage in this site because it the foremost place to find and understand Catholic orthodox teachings. If anyone is sincere in learning about the Church, its Teachings, and the Truth which Jesus Christ provides through the Pope and the Magesterium, then you have come to the right place.

 

[Christopher68]

TO: Christopher68, who stated: “I am quite surprised by the apparent anger of above post. I always thought the forum rules stated that people of any religion may participate in the forum. As a Catholic, I welcome the questions asked by non-Catholics.”

Yes, Chris, I am angry, but it is a justifiable anger, because I am witnessing, first hand, a concerted, world-wide effort to destroy the only True Church, the Church that Jesus Christ founded, a trial not seen since the times of the early Christian martyrs.

I still don’t understand the specific comments or post that precitipated your earlier comments. However, to your most recent post, whether your admitted anger is justified or not isn’t really a concern of mine. However, if there are non-Catholics who are visiting this forum, that is an excellent opportunity to make them feel welcome and attempt to answer their questions. By contrast, telling them to leave the forum isn’t likely to convert anyone.

 

[mansr27]

No, it’s not homophobia.

Imagine that the Army started assigning women to live in the same quarters as men, to share the same shower facilities and toilets.

Would be surprised that substantial numbers of women would complain, or at least feel uncomfortable with being forced to share shower space with men?

Would we simply accuse the women of being heterophobic? Of course not.

Well, there is really no substantial difference in asking a man to share shower space with a homosexual.

Sure, the homosexual is probablly well capable of controlling themselves, but then again, the same could be said for the men showering with the women, would it not. But the simple knowledge that the men assigned to their quarters will not make passes at them isn’t exactly a comfort when stepping into the shower, now is it.

In the military, especially the Navy and certain other elements of the land arms ( armor, etc…) require very close quarters with little privacy. Since we would not expect mixed genders to share things like bunks and showers, why expect it introduce the same with homosexuals.

I have served in the Army and could not agree more withe the above. If you want gays to serve I would be able to accept it if privacy issues were addressed.

 

[paulG3vcn]

Hello,

I haven’t posted a comment for some time. However, I am not homosexual (I don’t like the term Gay, it’s silly and is such a nice word miss- used). I served for a number of years in the Royal Navy when homosexuality was an offence under the Naval Discipline Act. As a result any serving homosexuals were “undercover”.
I came across very few instances of homosexuality and when discovered were dealt with by MI5 and the individuals were dismissed from the service. This was during the cold war when homosexuals were considered to be a security risk due to possible blackmail. The individual that I served with was a great guy, conciencious, loyal, ambitious, patriotic, however, he was found in a compromising situation ashore and subsequently dismissed the service.

I have spoken with a homosexual recently and he told me that he knew of two homosexuals who served on the same ship during this era and were very careful not to acknowledge each other during their time onboard. They would meet when appropriate ashore in a clandestine manner and do their thing.
This is very sad, especially as these guys were in a serious relationship and afraid of the results of their relationship becoming known.
Times have moved on, now I believe the attitude is don’t ask, don’t tell.
As a catholic I cannot condemn and know that we have a God father of love and forgiveness, he created homosexuals and lesbians, it is for us to accept and encourage them to behave in a manner acceptable to “normal society.” Please don’t enter into a discussion about sexual normality.One has to realise that procreation only occurs in one way!
Most catholic priest that I have met are homosexual. Celibacy has caused this. It is unatural for a male to want to be celibate, however, if a person has reached a degree of spirituality where he/she feels that it is for them to give their human life to one in the church then that must be respected.
Apparently, celibacy does not result in paedophilia but there is a link with homosexuality.
So we are left with a situaltion where currently most RC priests are homosexual and married priests are prohibited by the church (unless you are a married anglican convert).
The conclusion I come to is that the church will have to allow married priests to prevent further scandal (they hate the word scandal!)

Well that has given you a lot to think about!

Dominus vobiscum

paul.

 

[anns82]

Apparently, celibacy does not result in paedophilia but there is a link with homosexuality.
So we are left with a situaltion where currently most RC priests are homosexual and married priests are prohibited by the church (unless you are a married anglican convert).
The conclusion I come to is that the church will have to allow married priests to prevent further scandal (they hate the word scandal!)

Well that has given you a lot to think about!

I just want to address this real quick - there are high rates of pedophilia among teachers and married protestant ministers. The abuses by Catholic priests are horrendous, and it is good that it is coming to light because it is better to air the dirty laundry than allow these problems to hide under the carpet, but it is not something that is only happening within the priesthood, or even at higher rates within the priesthood. Child predators have more to do with access to children than access to marriage.

BTW - apparently there is also a problem with nuns - should we be advocating to allow nuns to marry as well?

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/06/lcwrs-long-standing-coverup-of-sexual-abuse-of-children-by-nuns/

There are plenty of ways in which a married person can serve God and the Church. People need to honor the vows they take and learn some self-discipline.

 

[sedonaman]

…
The conclusion I come to is that the church will have to allow married priests to prevent further scandal (they hate the word scandal!)
…

There is a problem with this. If heterosexual priests were allowed to marry, then the homosexual priests would be demanding they be allowed to marry other homosexuals, forcing the Church to recognize homosexual “marriage”. Do you think this will happen in view of the Church’s stated position that homosexual “marriage” is an intrinsic evil?

 

[kennethf]

I appreciated the earlier posts that quoted biblical references for why we should not promote anything sinful in the eyes of Almighty God. As a veteran, I do not want my son to be in an open-bay barracks environment with homosexuals.
This may seem, off-topic, but I am especially concerned about even the questions raised here after recently reading, “The Third Secret of Fatima” by Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity, CRC.

 

[edwest2]

Celibacy causes homosexuality? How did you determine this? So, prospective priests, knowing well in advance that they were required to be celibate, became priests anyway?

Second. Apparently, some cannot control their own sexuality. One of the biggest myths in the world is that practically no one can control their sexuality. Who decides when you have sex? Who makes that decision?

God bless,
Ed

 

[gdabreo]

But what would Jesus have done?
Who cares about Leviticus? We have a New Commandant, remember?
Leviticus is old testament. It’s called old because of the new testament… and the new commandant.
Jesus loved the guy who hammered the nail into his right hand, do you think he would condemn anyone for any human frailty.
Isn’t promiscuity the bad thing here? Isn’t over emphasizing sex the bad thing here?
Sex shouldl be reserved for two things and those things only.
First to share the most intimate part of yourself with a life partner who you love enough to give your life to save and to procreate.
Unfortunately we sexualize everything. High schools proms are sexualized. Clothing is sexualized. Kids are taught about sex at younger and younger ages. They are not allowed to be innocent kids any more.
It seems as though Americans cannot get sex of their minds…

 

[sedonaman]

…
Unfortunately we sexualize everything. High schools proms are sexualized. Clothing is sexualized. …
It seems as though Americans cannot get sex of their minds. …

I’m told that sex sells.

 

[edwest2]

I’m told that sex sells.

Very funny. Prior to the 1970s, when this country was flooded with Adult Bookstores and topless bars, people got along much better, and more normally.

“WE” had nothing to do with it. The media allowed itself to become more and more corrupt.

God bless,
Ed

 

[bmadamsberry]

But what would Jesus have done?
Who cares about Leviticus? We have a New Commandant, remember?
Leviticus is old testament. It’s called old because of the new testament… and the new commandant.
Jesus loved the guy who hammered the nail into his right hand, do you think he would condemn anyone for any human frailty.

So why not just throw out the entire Old Testament? Some things are no longer applicable, such as abstaining from certain foods. Other things, such as do not murder and do not steal, are still applicable. Or are you saying that they aren’t?
Sure, Jesus loved the guy who hammered the nail into his hands, just as he loves every homosexual, the prostitute brought before him, and all humankind. That does NOT mean that he gives us permission to do as we please. By-the-way, there are times in the New Testament that St. Paul speaks against homosexuality. It’s not just the Old Testament.