ROTC

  • Thread starter Thread starter mro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mro

Guest
So this is probably one of the few things I haven’t been kicked out of at my college is NROTC. (See this thread here for background)

I got the scholarship due to my grades at high school and athletic ability…

I know that we’ve kind of already discussed I can’t be a teacher or athletic coach… But does this apply to military service? I mean I’m not really going out and having sex…

And I mean DADT has been repealed now and there’s been no real bad effects…

All I’m asking is when you give your opinion you be charitable… I’ve been going through alot lately and the last thing I need is a bunch of people telling me I’m unfit to serve my country…

😦
 
You can certainly be a teacher. Whoever told you that you cannot is wrong.
 
Pray on it and wherever you are supposed to be you will be. It seems like you are a bright young man that was not surrounded by people that truly represented the loving nature of Catholicism or of Christ. I am sorry this has happened to you.
 
I was once asked unexpectedly, “Are gays bad people?” My instant response was, “No. Gays are built differently and have a different purpose in life.” I added, “God has important work for all of us to do. We just have to constantly ask God for Wisdom and Understanding and be willing to do His Will.” Jockeys don’t compete in basketball, and football players don’t compete in horse racing. Yet, all are good at what they do best with the talent God gave them.

I also think that those who struggle more than others and yet remain faithful to God - faithful does not mean perfect or sinless, but rather acknoweldging that God does love them and they respond to His Love as best they can - for Catholics that is frequently receiving Confession and Holy Eucharist - then I believe their reward in Heaven will be so much greater because more was asked of them and they did their best.

Now the same is true in the US Military. I am a retired E-9. We need smart, athletic men and women. But, much more importantly, we also need them with the proper military bearing - attitude - if you will.

We are mission oriented, complainers and naysayers are loosers. We don’t do the military the civilian way. Trying the Navy way in the Air Force won’t work either. My point is, if one has the proper military bearing and commitment to success in a team and unit environment by pulling his fair share or more when needed, then personal life issues fade far into the background. We are all different in many ways and we all want a area of life that is private.

In ALL things, continue to pray for an increase in WISDOM, UNDERSTANDING, and FAITH. My basic prayer is:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God,
Grant me the Wisdom and Strength to do Your Will.
Not my will, but Your Will be done.
 
I’m in the Army. I’ve been in for 9 years. If you are homosexual then you should NOT join the military forces. Period.

And you should especially not try to join as an officer.

If it sounds like I am being exclusive, I am.
 
Ok, here we go -

I’m long time Army. Repealing DADT was a terrible idea. Gays have been serving honorably for years; there has never been any restriction on that. The only issue has been whether they could do so openly. Problem with that is it is not an acceptable lifestyle to most people, especially within the close living quarters of the military, and with so many families on a post or a base.

I couln’t care less that someone is gay and serving their country. More power to you. Bet I served with many and never knew; wouldn’t care if I did know… However, I *do *care considerably if it is shoved in my face, and that is the concern overall. Look at what happens with gay parades and demonstrations. Being Infantry and knowing Marines as well, I bet it will indeed have a severe impact over time. if - if - gays insist on flaunting it. Tolerance does not mean having to accept it. It means both sides call a truce and leave each other alone.

Politicians did not think this through. It was purely political, that’s all. Has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights. What is already happening is that gays are starting to make demands concerning housing arrangements; chaplains are told to have gay “wedding” services. No one gave any thought to the impact on morale and good order and discipline, and definitely no thought to housing, barracks, public displays of affection, etc.

If you are gay and want to serve your country, I applaud you. We need solid soldiers (of any service); it is as another poster stated - it is character, patriotism, bearing, a love of country - that is needed, officer or not. But you should have no expectation that you should be able to openly declare or discuss your homsexuality and not expect a reaction; you cannot expect to start or get involved in a conversation, have others disagree (if you opened the door to it), and then scream they hate you. If it comes up in a conversation and that is all, no one is going to care, if you are doing your job. If you make a point of demanding acceptance and sticking your lifestyle in other soldiers’ faces, then you will have a problem, as well as the unit.

There is nothing wrong with being a coach or teacher. Now, would I want my child around a gay coach in a gym or locker room? No, not at all. As a parent, I would absolutely be concerned, and would have every right to be. A gay teacher? Couldn’t care less, as long as that lifestyle is not pushed onto my children. There is enough of the politically correct junk in school now.

The unfortunate repeal of DADT does not mean that you have to come out and declare you are gay; no one has to know. But you are the one who has to decide what to do. If you decide to make it an issue, than you have to be prepared for the reaction. More than likely, you can serve honorably, may or may not be seen at a gay club or a bar or hanging out with gay friends, and that will be all there is to it, as well it should be.

Being gay and serving in the military is not the problem, never has been. The problem is going to be if gays insist on others accepting it as an acceptable lifestyle.
 
searching04 said:
Ok, here we go -

I’m long time Army. Repealing DADT was a terrible idea. Gays have been serving honorably for years; there has never been any restriction on that. The only issue has been whether they could do so openly. Problem with that is it is not an acceptable lifestyle to most people, especially within the close living quarters of the military, and with so many families on a post or a base.

I couln’t care less that someone is gay and serving their country. More power to you. Bet I served with many and never knew; wouldn’t care if I did know… However, I *do *care considerably if it is shoved in my face, and that is the concern overall. Look at what happens with gay parades and demonstrations. Being Infantry and knowing Marines as well, I bet it will indeed have a severe impact over time. if - if - gays insist on flaunting it. Tolerance does not mean having to accept it. It means both sides call a truce and leave each other alone.

Politicians did not think this through. It was purely political, that’s all. Has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights. What is already happening is that gays are starting to make demands concerning housing arrangements; chaplains are told to have gay “wedding” services. No one gave any thought to the impact on morale and good order and discipline, and definitely no thought to housing, barracks, public displays of affection, etc.

If you are gay and want to serve your country, I applaud you. We need solid soldiers (of any service); it is as another poster stated - it is character, patriotism, bearing, a love of country - that is needed, officer or not. But you should have no expectation that you should be able to openly declare or discuss your homsexuality and not expect a reaction; you cannot expect to start or get involved in a conversation, have others disagree (if you opened the door to it), and then scream they hate you. If it comes up in a conversation and that is all, no one is going to care, if you are doing your job. If you make a point of demanding acceptance and sticking your lifestyle in other soldiers’ faces, then you will have a problem, as well as the unit.

There is nothing wrong with being a coach or teacher. Now, would I want my child around a gay coach in a gym or locker room? No, not at all. As a parent, I would absolutely be concerned, and would have every right to be. A gay teacher? Couldn’t care less, as long as that lifestyle is not pushed onto my children. There is enough of the politically correct junk in school now.

The unfortunate repeal of DADT does not mean that you have to come out and declare you are gay; no one has to know. But you are the one who has to decide what to do. If you decide to make it an issue, than you have to be prepared for the reaction. More than likely, you can serve honorably, may or may not be seen at a gay club or a bar or hanging out with gay friends, and that will be all there is to it, as well it should be.

Being gay and serving in the military is not the problem, never has been. The problem is going to be if gays insist on others accepting it as an acceptable lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Searching04 we disagree a lot in other threads, so I’m going to take this rare opportunity to applaud this great post 👍
 
I totally agree regarding the openness of homosexuality. But I would add that there are reasons that men and women in the army are not roommates, and do not shower together. Let’s keep it that way, for gays or for anyone else.

As for chaplaincy programs, the military has been working for years to devalued the role if Christian faith in the armed forces by liberally misapplying the term “chaplain” to include wiccans, buddhists, and mohammedans. So it is no surprise that they are forcing acceptance of the gay lifestyle in soldiers. And when I say “force” , that’d exactly what I mean. The mandatory “sensitivity” training, the endless memos, utter indoctrination. More than that, it came from Obama’s office, that soldiers will accept “whatever we tell them to accept”.
 
Not for nothing but are we not kicking a dead horse since the OP is now banned.
 
DasErlibnis said:
I totally agree regarding the openness of homosexuality. But I would add that there are reasons that men and women in the army are not roommates, and do not shower together. Let’s keep it that way, for gays or for anyone else.

As for chaplaincy programs, the military has been working for years to devalued the role if Christian faith in the armed forces by liberally misapplying the term “chaplain” to include wiccans, buddhists, and mohammedans. So it is no surprise that they are forcing acceptance of the gay lifestyle in soldiers. And when I say “force” , that’d exactly what I mean. The mandatory “sensitivity” training, the endless memos, utter indoctrination. More than that, it came from Obama’s office, that soldiers will accept “whatever we tell them to accept”.
Click to expand...
Obama didn’t tell soldiers to “accept whatever we tell them to accept”. You do that when you sign the dotted line, soldier. Don’t like it, get out. You have the obligation to follow all legal orders; we don’t get to pick and choose. You may not think it is moral (this situatiion), but it is not illegal. Murdering civilains or prisoners? You have the obligation to disoeby such an order. Different animal.

Forcing Christianity to the sidelines with the chaplains? Indoctrination of them and soldiers? You bet they are doing it, worse than I’ve ever seen. But the chaplains are fighting as hard as they can.

That said, yes, Obama has pushed this farther than Clinton ever did.
 
searching04 said:
Obama didn’t tell soldiers to “accept whatever we tell them to accept”. You do that when you sign the dotted line, soldier. Don’t like it, get out. You have the obligation to follow all legal orders; we don’t get to pick and choose. You may not think it is moral (this situatiion), but it is not illegal. Murdering civilains or prisoners? You have the obligation to disoeby such an order. Different animal.

Forcing Christianity to the sidelines with the chaplains? Indoctrination of them and soldiers? You bet they are doing it, worse than I’ve ever seen. But the chaplains are fighting as hard as they can.

That said, yes, Obama has pushed this farther than Clinton ever did.
Click to expand...
I’ll look it up and find the article for you.

Of course we all volunteered, and of course we follow orders. That’s what they’re counting on, they are deliberately using that to shove this down our throats. And Obama did say it. But let me see if I can find it for you…this will take some time, its been a while.
 
And ps, its asenine to say something stupid like “don’t like it, get out” to a man whose given nine (9) years. Don’t be a jerk.
 
DasErlibnis said:
I’ll look it up and find the article for you.

Of course we all volunteered, and of course we follow orders. That’s what they’re counting on, they are deliberately using that to shove this down our throats. And Obama did say it. But let me see if I can find it for you…this will take some time, its been a while.
Click to expand...
Cool beans; I’d like to see that. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Sad when we actually expect that from the C in C…
 
GratefulFred said:
I was once asked unexpectedly, “Are gays bad people?” My instant response was, “No. Gays are built differently and have a different purpose in life.”

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God,
Grant me the Wisdom and Strength to do Your Will.
Not my will, but Your Will be done.
Click to expand...
What? Not true.

They’re not ‘born that way’. Gay-ism is behavior. Just because some man loves ballet dance does not make him gay, just because another acts feminine does not make him gay. And its silly behavior for some someone to socially distance themselves from another for those reasons, making them feel inadequate. The only thing that is gay is dudes having sex with dudes. That’s it. And that’s their choice. They weren’t “built that way”.

Some people like to point to the genes, but there is a difference beteween cause and correlation. So the theory fails. In fact, biologically, the pre-frontal cortex in the brain, which manages our physical stimulation from visible cues, is the last part if the brain to develop, and its is not complete until between ages 21-24. So all these young boys walking around high schools and colleges thinking they can’t help that they’re attracted to dudes, they don’t know what they’re saying, they’d just repeating the same non-scientific junk as this, that they must be “built differently”.

But since the brain is still developing, guess what, it is possible to develop those attractions, to form them. They are formed in the same way as good if bad habits, other compulsions, and even addictions. And like those bad habits and tendencies, they can be overcome. It’s called Conditioning.

The same way you condition a soldier to fight, you can also condition the heart to love. At the end of the day, gay behavior can be overcome. Nurture “becomes” nature. And it shall never be said that they’re just “built differently”. So don’t make a boy feel gay just because he’s odd or just interested in different things. Make him feel manly and not inadequate, and make him feel worthy. That sense of inadequacy, that’s what turns them gay. And saying they’re “just built differently” can make them feel deeply inadequate.

Grace and peace
 
searching04 said:
Ok, here we go -

I’m long time Army. Repealing DADT was a terrible idea. Gays have been serving honorably for years; there has never been any restriction on that. The only issue has been whether they could do so openly. Problem with that is it is not an acceptable lifestyle to most people, especially within the close living quarters of the military, and with so many families on a post or a base.

I couln’t care less that someone is gay and serving their country. More power to you. Bet I served with many and never knew; wouldn’t care if I did know… However, I *do *care considerably if it is shoved in my face, and that is the concern overall. Look at what happens with gay parades and demonstrations. Being Infantry and knowing Marines as well, I bet it will indeed have a severe impact over time. if - if - gays insist on flaunting it. Tolerance does not mean having to accept it. It means both sides call a truce and leave each other alone.

Politicians did not think this through. It was purely political, that’s all. Has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights. What is already happening is that gays are starting to make demands concerning housing arrangements; chaplains are told to have gay “wedding” services. No one gave any thought to the impact on morale and good order and discipline, and definitely no thought to housing, barracks, public displays of affection, etc.

If you are gay and want to serve your country, I applaud you. We need solid soldiers (of any service); it is as another poster stated - it is character, patriotism, bearing, a love of country - that is needed, officer or not. But you should have no expectation that you should be able to openly declare or discuss your homsexuality and not expect a reaction; you cannot expect to start or get involved in a conversation, have others disagree (if you opened the door to it), and then scream they hate you. If it comes up in a conversation and that is all, no one is going to care, if you are doing your job. If you make a point of demanding acceptance and sticking your lifestyle in other soldiers’ faces, then you will have a problem, as well as the unit.

There is nothing wrong with being a coach or teacher. Now, would I want my child around a gay coach in a gym or locker room? No, not at all. As a parent, I would absolutely be concerned, and would have every right to be. A gay teacher? Couldn’t care less, as long as that lifestyle is not pushed onto my children. There is enough of the politically correct junk in school now.

The unfortunate repeal of DADT does not mean that you have to come out and declare you are gay; no one has to know. But you are the one who has to decide what to do. If you decide to make it an issue, than you have to be prepared for the reaction. More than likely, you can serve honorably, may or may not be seen at a gay club or a bar or hanging out with gay friends, and that will be all there is to it, as well it should be.

Being gay and serving in the military is not the problem, never has been. The problem is going to be if gays insist on others accepting it as an acceptable lifestyle.
Click to expand...
As the CDF stated back in the 1992:
  1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

The Church does not support unjust discrimination. Paragraph 11 shows that there are some areas of discrimination that do not violate justice.
 
markomalley said:
As the CDF stated back in the 1992:
  1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

The Church does not support unjust discrimination. Paragraph 11 shows that there are some areas of discrimination that do not violate justice.
Click to expand...
Amen! “Justness” heard… Glad someone found a supportive quote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top