Pentagon Study: Low Risk to Ending 'Don't Ask'

[edwest2]

Once again, Rich, you miss the point. When a black lesbian comedian appears on TV and during her “comedy” act, she says: “This is who I am.” she doesn’t mean black or a comedian. What she is saying is this: “I am a married lesbian. That is who I am.”

So Rich. This isn’t about firing a weapon, this is all about gay married couples in the US Armed Forces using the institution to promote their social experiment. And this isn’t about Congress either. Who will be advising Congress about DADT? Experienced military professionals with combat experience maybe?

And what message will this send to Catholics with Same Sex Attraction? That it’s OK to act on it? I can no less, as a heterosexual, act on any sexual desires I have outside of marriage either. The call to chastity for unmarried men and women is universal.

Peace,
Ed

 

[colmywaykurtz]

You claim they are morally equivalent, a patently racist proposition in my opinion.

I don’t think he’s claiming they are morally equivalent, Bob. Just existentially so.

And I don’t believe that that contradicts Church teaching, either. The Church prescribes an end to homosexual activity to obtain a state of grace within Christ and His church. Not an existential change of orientation.

Since the latter kind of change is not prescribed, it is an implicit recognition that it is impossible. Being immutable as such, how could it not be existentially equivalent with another immutable attribute such as race?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

I say yes, and that only begins it for me.

What if I am the senior enlisted advisor and I am having a unit cookout at my military housing unit. Do I not invite the gay soldier and his boyfriend if I don’t want my kids exposed to what I believe is gross immorality? If I do, will I be reprimanded for excluding him (or her, whatever). Do I have to stop having these events altogether, putting a hindrance on unit morale and cohesion? This doesn’t end anything, but only opens up a huge cans of worms.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I don’t think he’s claiming they are morally equivalent, Bob. Just existentially so.

And I don’t believe that that contradicts Church teaching, either. The Church prescribes an end to homosexual activity to obtain a state of grace within Christ and His church. Not an existential change of orientation.

Since the latter kind of change is not prescribed, it is an implicit recognition that it is impossible. Being immutable as such, how could it not be existentially equivalent with another immutable attribute such as race?

A same sex attracted man who is living a chaste life in proscription with Church teaching doesn’t need a policy like don’t ask don’t tell, or care about its repeal. We aren’t talking about homosexual people who are living morally chaste lives, however. We are talking about people who are actively pursuing the cause of their attraction, and all of the social baggage that goes with it.

 

[estesbob]

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…

why would there be any comparison whatsoever between a discussion based on race and discussions about the advisability of regulating deviant sexual behavior in the military? One of the things we always see from homosexual apologist is an attempt to separate the issue from the behavior. As I said any comparison between the plight of African Americans and the plight of a people whose only distinguishing characteristic is the manner in which they engage in sex is patently racist

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I say yes, and that only begins it for me.

What if I am the senior enlisted advisor and I am having a unit cookout at my military housing unit. Do I not invite the gay soldier and his boyfriend if I don’t want my kids exposed to what I believe is gross immorality?

I doubt that those either one of those is going to sodomize the other in front of your kids any more than some heterosexual is going to do the deed with his girlfriend in front of your kids.

 

[edwest2]

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.

And homosexuals in the armed forces as of a few weeks ago could not do that? I think emotion is overshadowing your judgement here. You’ve said nothing convincing. In fact, none of that made sense.

You ignore the clear social engineering project going on at your peril. This is all part of the Sexual Revolution. Since 1968, perverts and sexual deviants have wanted (1) To be left alone, and now, part (2) to be affirmed by everybody.

They have been sold the lie that all sexual behaviors are A-OK. “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.” So regardless of their sexual “tastes,” we’re just told to look away? “Move along, Nothing to see here.”

Wake up my fellow Catholics. A few years ago, the gay/sado-masochist Folsom Steet Fair was sponsored by a certain beer company and issued a poster that posed various gay men at a table in imitation of the Last Supper painting. The table had various sex devices on it.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08092204.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

why would there be any comparison whatsoever between a discussion based on race and discussions about the advisability of regulating deviant sexual behavior in the military? One of the things we always see from homosexual apologist is an attempt to separate the issue from the behavior. As I said any comparison between the plight of African Americans and the plight of a people whose only distinguishing characteristic is the manner in which they engage in sex is patently racist

Put it this way, then. Specious arguments in 1948, specious arguments in 2010.

 

[estesbob]

Put it this way, then. Specious arguments in 1948, specious arguments in 2010.

So again you are contending that the African-American experience is no different than the experience of those who define themselves by the manner and with whom they engage in sex? Is it your contention that the military should have no right whatsoever to regulate any kind of sexual behavior among the troops?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Put it this way, then. Specious arguments in 1948, specious arguments in 2010.

Put it this way, being black is not immoral, actively engaging in same sex behavior is.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think emotion is overshadowing your judgement here. You’ve said nothing convincing. In fact, none of that made sense.

I’m not the final word. Agreed.

If I make no sense to you, and that seems to be the case, there are others who make a better argument than I am capable of, and I’m willing to stand on the sidelines and let those better litigators than I make the argument that changes the policy.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I say yes, and that only begins it for me.

What if I am the senior enlisted advisor and I am having a unit cookout at my military housing unit. Do I not invite the gay soldier and his boyfriend if I don’t want my kids exposed to what I believe is gross immorality? If I do, will I be reprimanded for excluding him (or her, whatever). Do I have to stop having these events altogether, putting a hindrance on unit morale and cohesion? This doesn’t end anything, but only opens up a huge cans of worms.

No you will not be reprimanded I’ve had many a barbeque and if I didn’t like another a trooper I didn’t invite that trooper.

As you rise your kids if you don’t want them around certain people then don’t invite them into you home.

If it’s a unit function supported by the command all troops will be invited just don’t take your kids. I have not gone to some NCO Balls because the CSM was a real jerk and I don’t hang around jerks—I may have to work with some people doesn’t mean I have to like or socialize with them.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Put it this way, being black is not immoral, actively engaging in same sex behavior is.

Fighting for our country, regardless who you are, is not immoral either.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Fighting for our country, regardless who you are, is not immoral either.

I never said it was. I have also said that if allowing same sex attracted people to serve were the end of the issue, then I wouldn’t care. But if you think that it IS the end of the issue, then you are either tone deaf or intentionally ignoring it.

 

[estesbob]

Fighting for our country, regardless who you are, is not immoral either.

Of course nobody ever contended that it was. Again are you contending that the military has no right to have any rules regarding the sexual behavior of the troops?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Is it your contention that the military should have no right whatsoever to regulate any kind of sexual behavior among the troops?

When you put it so absolutely, there’s no response possible. Otherwise, you are saying that the military can regulate the sexual behavior between a male SMSgt married to a female MSgt in their quarters Would that please you?

 

[estesbob]

I never said it was. I have also said that if allowing same sex attracted people to serve were the end of the issue, then I wouldn’t care. But if you think that it IS the end of the issue, then you are either tone deaf or intentionally ignoring it.

The whole homosexual rights argument collapses like a house of cards unless one can successfully separate issue from the behavior. As homosexual apologist never want to discuss exactly what it is that makes one a homosexual, the core argument of homosexual apologist is that anal sex and other forms of same-sex behavior are morally equivalent to race, creed, gender, and country of national origin.

As a side note I think this thread has once again shown how hard it is to reconcile modern liberalism with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The whole homosexual rights argument collapses like a house of cards unless one can successfully separate issue from the behavior. As homosexual apologist never want to discuss exactly what it is that makes one a homosexual, the core argument of homosexual apologist is that anal sex and other forms of same-sex behavior are morally equivalent to race, creed, gender, and country of national origin.

As a side note I think this thread has once again shown how hard it is to reconcile modern liberalism with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

They are generally irreconcilable, from my observation.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The whole homosexual rights argument collapses like a house of cards unless one can successfully separate issue from the behavior. As homosexual apologist never want to discuss exactly what it is that makes one a homosexual, the core argument of homosexual apologist is that anal sex and other forms of same-sex behavior are morally equivalent to race, creed, gender, and country of national origin.

That may well be their argument. I’m not arguing that.

My point, however, is simply this - a homosexual ought to be able to serve his or her country in uniform openly.

As an aside, anal sex, cunnilingus, and fellatio are also opposite-sex behaviors. You’ve made it sound, in this and other posts, as if “anal sex and other forms of behavior” are exclusive to homosexuals.

 

[edwest2]

That may well be their argument. I’m not arguing that.

My point, however, is simply this - a homosexual ought to be able to serve his or her country in uniform openly.

As an aside, anal sex, cunnilingus, and fellatio are also opposite-sex behaviors. You’ve made it sound, in this and other posts, as if “anal sex and other forms of behavior” are exclusive to homosexuals.

Just visit the Folsom Street Fair site Rich. You are missing the point by a mile. Sex acts in public? You just don’t want to face it.

Already, a relative of mine had an encounter with a cashier at a store. A bulky man with a wig, makeup and heels. Oh yeah, Rich. You focus on “serving the country” and you miss the “Gay Day” coming up at your local Army base. Fantasy on my part? Just go to the Disney web site for their version of Gay Day. Or you can check out the various meet my gay married partner days at Massachusetts public schools.

Respectfully, you have blinders on and imagine a fantasy version of serving openly.

Peace,
Ed