R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I think I know what arguments were put forth for opposing racial integration of the Armed Services, and they are not much different than those being put forth for opposing gays in the Services.
- Status
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Of course, he isn’t. Just as I am not, and I would at least hope that none of you are bothered by racial integration in the military. But, the same sort of voices we hear today about gays in the Army are the same sort of voices we heard about integration of the Army back then in 1948.
E
estesbob
Guest
\
So you** Do** believe that engaging in sodomy and being an African American are morally equivalent.???
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I’m talking about the Armed Services. In 1948, any number of arguments were put forth about why it was a very, very bad idea to integrated the Army. Today, there are any number of arguments - mostly from those who do not or have never served - being put forth about why it will be a very, very bad idea to let gays serve openly.
Those arguments didn’t hold water then, and the modern arguments won’t hold water today.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Don’t be coy. You know as well as anyone that this is about more than allowing someone with a SSA disorder to openly serve in the military, because someone with a SSA, but is living chaste, doesn’t need DADT or need it repealed. This is about ALL of the baggage that goes with the gay right agenda. This is about letting Same Sex married couples from Massechussetts be allowed to procure military housing, go to social events, and behave in any public forum free and open without fear of disciplinary action. While that sounds all shiny and nice, you do realize the impact that it will have on the 95%+ (proably closer to 99%) of hetero couples with kids who are now going to have to explain to their kids the in an outs of gay marriage and how they are going to have to tolerate it, even when their moral authorities teach them that it is wrong. It goes back to what someone tried to explain earlier, is the military just about people in foxholes blowing foreign nationals to smithereens, or do people serve in the armed forces for a higher purpose, namely, the defense of a nation that is grounded in a few moral absolutes. This is about politically correct politicians bowing to the whims of a few vocal constituents to “Europeanize” the military, because they cannot do it through the elective processes of their states. So, they use they courts. That is the Progressive way, if you cannot get society to go along with your morally bankrupt ideas, get the progressive courts to force it down everyone’s throats.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
That’s bad?
We have to tolerate abortion, even as our moral authorities teach us that it is wrong. So?
What nation are you talking about that is “grounded in a few moral absolutes”??
Bet that it will happen - through the Congress, not the courts.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Yes
I don’t tolerate abortion. Sad to see that you do.
This one. That we have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Bet it won’t, since it hasn’t happened in any state its been tried.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
But Rich, this absolutely is not the same argument. You might as well say that since women were once barred from the marines, convicted murderers should not be barred from the marines.
Never did the Church say racial integration is immoral, and no valid moral argument could be mounted by a Catholic from that standpoint against it. It does say that homosexual sex is extremely immoral. The government’s official acceptance of overt homosexuality, which is essentially equating it with heterosexuality, is scandalous in itself and facilitates further scandal by allowing for “I’m a proud, gay Marine” advertisements aimed at the young, and so forth.
Yes, I know. The civil society is not obligated to follow the teachings of the Church. But I am. Just because we are Americans, it does not mean we are thereby obliged to assent to the society’s descent into endorsement of moral depravity. How does that thing in the bible go? “It would be better for him if he hung a millstone around his neck than to lead one of my little ones astray” (paraphrase).
And yes, I also know this government will repeal DADT. But just because it will do so does not obligate me as a Catholic to assent to the approval and advertisement of grave immorality, and particularly not for the sake of some soldier feeling deprived because he can’t presently slow dance with his boyfriend at a post social event or announce his “marriage” to his “partner” with total assurance that it won’t be treated the same as if he had danced with his girlfriend or announced his engagement to her. A couple of the previous posts suggest that he wouldn’t even be drummed out of the service for that, but only that it’s uncertain.
If the previous posters about Article 125 are right, all we’re really talking about here is the opportunity a service person might have to march in uniform in gay pride parades or be on “I’m a proud gay Marine” ads in the high school yearbook, or be charged with sodomy but only in connection with, say, a rape or murder. And to do that, we’re willing to have the government endorse homosexuality as an official position.
What this really is all about is getting the government to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality as the official position of the government.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Until RvW is overturned, we all have to tolerate it. Not accept it, but tolerate it.
Which should be denied to homosexuals who have the same strong desire to defend our nation as any heterosexual?
Integrating gays into the Armed Forces has nothing to do with the states, who haven’t the power to do so. It’s a federal decision.
E
estesbob
Guest
.
*“That line of reasoning denigrates and throws dirt on the blood of blacks who have suffered through slavery, Jim Crow and bigotry, and have died because of the color of their skin,” Davis says. “That the homosexual radical agenda would use the blood of our ancestors to justify their immoral cause and bring guilt and manipulation upon others is an atrocity.”*Rev. Phil Davis
*“When I talk to most people of African descent, many of them are absolutely appalled by any comparison to the civil rights movement, simply because we cannot take off our blackness,” * Rev. Patrick Walker
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Just so.
The sooner the better, for me. All else from folks like you or from folks like Stanmaxkolbe or myself is no more than commentary as far as I’m concerned.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Two opinions from two black men. Fine.
There are also blacks who will have no problem with allowing gays to serve openly in the Armed Services.
E
estesbob
Guest
Can you quote some black men who. like you, equate anal sex with being black?
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Please cite my post wherein I said that performing anal sex, or fellatio for that matter, is the same as being black?
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Sure, every time you equate the struggles of segregation with the social convulsions of the gay rights movement.
E
estesbob
Guest
You have repeatedly said that objections to allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military are equivalent to the objections to allowing blacks to serve in the military. As as the black ministers I quoted pointed out point out being black is inate characteristics-homosexuality is a description of a disordered deviant sexual behavior You claim they are morally equivalent, a patently racist proposition in my opinion.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Tolerate:
- to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
- to endure without repugnance; put up with:
I have no problem with Same Sex Attracted people serving our nation in whatever capacity they wish. Its the rest of the baggage that the gay rights movement will bring with it that I reject.
The people who will be making this “federal decisions” come from where, exactly? Canada? Britain? Mars? Uranus (pun, ha ha
)?
E
edwest2
Guest
Rich,
I really think you are giving black people less credit about understanding this issue than you should. They understand the implications. The issue is not about Same Sex Attraction, it’s about gay sex and the documented proclivity for having multiple partners. I think a blunt statement is necessary. If you think I’m not looking at that correctly, I suggest you visit a few gay web sites. You’ll be subjected to various ads promoting sexual encounters.
And I should be very clear here: At one time, the issue was - Leave us alone. Mind your own business! All we want is privacy! It’s not private anymore, Rich.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/african-american-pastors-warn-against-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/
Peace,
Ed
I really think you are giving black people less credit about understanding this issue than you should. They understand the implications. The issue is not about Same Sex Attraction, it’s about gay sex and the documented proclivity for having multiple partners. I think a blunt statement is necessary. If you think I’m not looking at that correctly, I suggest you visit a few gay web sites. You’ll be subjected to various ads promoting sexual encounters.
And I should be very clear here: At one time, the issue was - Leave us alone. Mind your own business! All we want is privacy! It’s not private anymore, Rich.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/african-american-pastors-warn-against-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/
Peace,
Ed
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
No. I said that in 1948, arguments were made against racial integration and about how disastrous it would be to the Armed Forces. Few accept those arguments today.
Similarly, arguments are made against the integration of homosexuals into the Armed Forces. Yes, the arguments aren’t quite the same, but specious arguments are being made that hold no more water than those worthless arguments of 60 years ago.
And, even if you think that homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior, tell me how that prevents a man or woman from serving his or her country in the Armed Forces given that so many do so already…
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Yes, and there are similar site for heterosexuals - wife-swapping, “lonely wives,” etc.
The matter has nothing to do, as far as I’m concerned, with what sexual things one does. It has all to do with - can a homosexual serve his or her country with the same devotion and sense of patriotism as a heterosexual? Can a homosexual go into battle with the same vigor as a heterosexual? Can as homsexual be as brave as a heterosexual?
I say, YES, and that ends it for me.
- Status