Would you want him in your back seat?

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:15 pm

Ryan,
Personally, I do believe that there are moral issues with homosexuality, and I neither support its spread nor wish to encourage its lifestyle. But having said that, my country and its ideals come before any lifestyle or individual choice that I or any other person who serves makes. You , having never served yourself, don't know what it means to have a cohesive unit and to be in combat. What that truly means is that you put your religious views, your personal preferences, your individual goals aside and contribute to the health of your unit, because the survival of the unit leads to the survival of your country. This unit starts with the guy's (now gals too) to your left and right. You respect them because they will (in most instances) give their life for you so you can continue to give your all, which ultimately will allow your country to prevail. History has shown, in many cases, that not respecting your fellow soldiers leads to breakdown of discipline and the deterioration of fighting capability of any military organization. This core of this discussion, from a military standpoint, is about good order and discipline. As I said earlier, this is a critical point in our country's history and it may not be the time for integrating homosexuals into military service.

But this discussion is going to happen. And if the US Military begins eliminating the codified regulations discriminating against homosexuals, what are you going to do? Did you fill out a Selective Service Registration? If so, that makes you eligible for service, and are you going to refuse to serve your country if it calls? It already has acknowledged that it has an estensive homosexual population, so how are you going to go about segregating yourself and your beliefs from them? If you are drafted, you will be committing an act of disobedience under current regulation if you ask the first person if they are homosexual- are you willing to do that for your beliefs? And are you willing to violate your duties as a citizen to the ideals of your country, in order to further your individual beliefs? That is a hard question, but that is what you are talking about when you ask for that equal standard you describe to be applied- what you are saying, if you refuse to serve on the grounds that homosexuality is a sin, is that you are willing to let a gay man die for your right to have your own beliefs.

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:15 pm

Ryan,
Personally, I do believe that there are moral issues with homosexuality, and I neither support its spread nor wish to encourage its lifestyle. But having said that, my country and its ideals come before any lifestyle or individual choice that I or any other person who serves makes. You , having never served yourself, don't know what it means to have a cohesive unit and to be in combat. What that truly means is that you put your religious views, your personal preferences, your individual goals aside and contribute to the health of your unit, because the survival of the unit leads to the survival of your country. This unit starts with the guy's (now gals too) to your left and right. You respect them because they will (in most instances) give their life for you so you can continue to give your all, which ultimately will allow your country to prevail. History has shown, in many cases, that not respecting your fellow soldiers leads to breakdown of discipline and the deterioration of fighting capability of any military organization. This core of this discussion, from a military standpoint, is about good order and discipline. As I said earlier, this is a critical point in our country's history and it may not be the time for integrating homosexuals into military service.

But this discussion is going to happen. And if the US Military begins eliminating the codified regulations discriminating against homosexuals, what are you going to do? Did you fill out a Selective Service Registration? If so, that makes you eligible for service, and are you going to refuse to serve your country if it calls? It already has acknowledged that it has an estensive homosexual population, so how are you going to go about segregating yourself and your beliefs from them? If you are drafted, you will be committing an act of disobedience under current regulation if you ask the first person if they are homosexual- are you willing to do that for your beliefs? And are you willing to violate your duties as a citizen to the ideals of your country, in order to further your individual beliefs? That is a hard question, but that is what you are talking about when you ask for that equal standard you describe to be applied- what you are saying, if you refuse to serve on the grounds that homosexuality is a sin, is that you are willing to let a gay man die for your right to have your own beliefs.

michaelharadon · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:25 pm

RyanShort1 wrote:

At a bare minimum, I would ask you to show those of us who believe as I do that it is "wrong" the same "tolerance" you want us to show them. Otherwise, the First Amendment means nothing

Ryan

You got it from me, even as I think it is a "moral issue" only for those who choose to make it so.

As I recall, those "unalienable rights" include THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, however it is that each individual chooses to define it.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:32 pm

1. About unit cohesion, no, I haven't been there. However, I think I do have a decent concept of it and understand what you are saying.
2. I have filled out a SS card and am willing to defend my country, though I would have some significant issues (and have considered such) if I believed it to be a seriously unjust war. I would probably have a major and very serious decision to make.
3. I do not make it a practice to ask folks what they practice in their bedroom, and frankly, I don't think that's what I'm asked to do by Scripture either, it's those who come out in the open that should come under civil sanction, so no, I don't think that would be a reason not to serve in a just cause. There'd be a much greater issue at stake.
4. Referring back to my earlier post, I find it personally offensive that Christians I know of currently in the military are being told to stuff it (in violation of the First Amendment) when they voice their belief that it is a moral issue, not genetic. That doesn't help unit cohesion either.

Ultimately, I it's going to remain an issue because of the antithesis between the two beliefs. You just can't have it both ways unless one or the other compromises. I suspect my side will continue to lose ground for a time, but not forever :wink:

. I'm saddened because I don't believe those who align with what I believe are often living principled lives themselves. We all open ourselves up to be hypocrites at times, and that doesn't help. Just remember that one who breaks the law he supports or advocates does not invalidate a legitimate law.

Ryan

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:36 pm

michaelharadon wrote:

As I recall, those "unalienable rights" include THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, however it is that each individual chooses to define it.

Even liberals generally have some line that they draw on that. They usually draw the line at murder, child molestation, or somewhere like that. Just because yelling "fire" in a theater may make you happy, it probably won't keep you out of trouble with the law.

Also, if you go back and study the history of those words, it was more closely related to property, and I suspect a careful reading of the founders writings and the debate over the wording of the document would make their intentions clear. It's not as "each individual chooses to define it." Otherwise we'd have a real mess.

Ryan

michaelharadon · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:40 pm

[quote="RyanShort1... Christians I know of currently in the military are being told to stuff it (in violation of the First Amendment) when they voice their belief that it is a moral issue, not genetic. That doesn't help unit cohesion either.

Ryan[/quote]

And what, then, if it does prove to be genetic?

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:45 pm

michaelharadon wrote:

And what, then, if it does prove to be genetic?

That'll be the day. :wink:

Ryan

warbirdcrew · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:18 am

Ryan,

Quote:

it's those who come out in the open that should come under civil sanction

Could you enlighten us as to what "civil sanction" you think the state ought to enforce on people with a paradigm differing from that of your own?

Last time I looked, it was not an offense against the state (in your country or mine) to be homosexual. The scripture that you so literally interpret also says to cut off the part of your body which causes you to sin... [Matthew 5:30] We would have a lot of amputated people if we started removing limbs from every sinner.

Furthermore, before we start passing judgement on other people, we ought to analyze our own lives: "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone" [John 8:7]

muddyboots · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:21 am

Ryan, the Koran teaches muslims how women are to be treated. You are basically saying that Moslim soldiers have a right to dmand that no women be soldiers, since your moral code is based on your religious views. You can't have it both ways. Either the military follows one fiar code of ethics which allow any belief, or you adopt a military code which only allows one belief. This being America, you get to keep your mouth shut around me, the atheist. That allows me to live my life free of persecution from you, the Christian. It's obvious you dont think it's fair. However, if you were a chirstian and the military was majority moslim, you'd feel differently.

Always the majority whining about how they have to kowtow to the minority. They never seem to notice that we spend most of our lives living with their rules. Sort of like a tall person moving into a dwarf's house: You don't notice how much of your sugar we put up. :wink:

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:37 am

warbirdcrew wrote:

Could you enlighten us as to what "civil sanction" you think the state ought to enforce on people with a paradigm differing from that of your own?

Last time I looked, it was not an offense against the state (in your country or mine) to be homosexual. The scripture that you so literally interpret also says to cut off the part of your body which causes you to sin... [Matthew 5:30] We would have a lot of amputated people if we started removing limbs from every sinner.

Furthermore, before we start passing judgement on other people, we ought to analyze our own lives: "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone" [John 8:7]

Regarding a civil sanction - see Leviticus 20:13. This WAS and has historically been the law for a LONG time here until overturned by the US Supreme Court not too long ago. They did not enforce the law, but instead chose to make a decision based on their feelings and beliefs. The Texas case was particularly annoying because it was a deliberate challenge to the law where the law was clear.

Ryan

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:47 am

muddyboots wrote:

This being America, you get to keep your mouth shut around me, the atheist. That allows me to live my life free of persecution from you, the Christian. It's obvious you dont think it's fair. However, if you were a chirstian and the military was majority moslim, you'd feel differently.

Always the majority whining about how they have to kowtow to the minority. They never seem to notice that we spend most of our lives living with their rules. Sort of like a tall person moving into a dwarf's house: You don't notice how much of your sugar we put up. :wink:

It's interesting how some folks don't realize that it is Christian principles that have made it possible for folks to have such diversity as we have here in the US, yet want to blame them when the don't like some aspect of it. I would NEVER advocate majority rule, neither do I think that we currently have a true majority. The difference between the Christian teachings and the Moslems are pretty vast. There's a LOT of room for atheists like you to live freely in a nation that truly follows Christian principles, so long as you abide by a fairly limited set of laws (remember I believe in strictly limited, preferably local government...). What matters is truth, justice, and consistency. BTW, one of the best arguments against majority rule is Nazi Germany or Revolutionary France - or places where the Church has departed from Scripture and adopted ungodly, worldly principles and heresies and imposed things such as the Inquisition - which not only was unjust, but often killed true Believers who were harming no one. Believe me, the "church" has often been wrong, departed from Scripture, and committed atrocities that bring shame to Christ's name - but it's not HIS fault.

Ryan

warbirdcrew · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:15 am

Quote:

Regarding a civil sanction - see Leviticus 20:13. This WAS and has historically been the law for a LONG time here until overturned by the US Supreme Court not too long ago. They did not enforce the law, but instead chose to make a decision based on their feelings and beliefs. The Texas case was particularly annoying because it was a deliberate challenge to the law where the law was clear.

We could apply this same logic to Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (I'm sure you're familiar with it). This WAS and [had] historically been the law for a LONG time [in the US] until overturned by the US Supreme Court [in 1954]. They did not enforce the law, but instead chose to make a decision based on their feelings and beliefs. The Kansas case was particularly annoying [to some] because it was a deliberate challenge to the law where the law was clear.

Your argument is exactly the same as that used by people to critical of B vs. BoE who think that black people didn't deserve to go to school. In the present day, I think you would be hard-pressed anywhere to find someone who still believes a black person doesn't have the right to go to school.

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 1 John 2:9

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:52 am

warbirdcrew wrote:

We could apply this same logic to Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (I'm sure you're familiar with it).

Your argument is exactly the same as that used by people to critical of B vs. BoE who think that black people didn't deserve to go to school. In the present day, I think you would be hard-pressed anywhere to find someone who still believes a black person doesn't have the right to go to school.

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 1 John 2:9

Yeah, but the moral argument against racial discrimination is quite easy to make from Scripture. I may be a Southern boy, but I know that's wrong. It's clearly wrong. And I don't "hate" them. There's a difference between condemning a crime and having compassion for the criminal.

Ryan

warbirdcrew · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:24 pm

Quote:

see Leviticus 20:13

Quote:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. [Leviticus 20:13]

Quote:

having compassion for the criminal

Sounds incredibly compassionate to me. But then again your state has the highest number of capital executions annually of any other state in the Union.

Quote:

condemning the crime

Unless you actually believe that a homosexual wanting to serve his country is as haneous and morally reprehensible as Derrick Lamone Johnson, the last person executed in Texas (found guilty of Aggravated Murder).

muddyboots · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:50 pm

Ryan, can you give me any reasons why homosexuality should be outlawed in the military which don't either depend on religious views or "you're gross and I don't want you to see my pecker,"?

Warbird Information Exchange

Would you want him in your back seat?

Who is online