Homosexuality in Military

[Bethesda]

Sodomy should be treated the same way in society as idolatry, thievery, covetousness, drunkeness, swindling, abortion, fornication and divorce for reasons other than adultery should be treated. In other words such people should be excluded until and unless they repent of their sin (just as all of us should).

Excluded from what? The military? If you did that you'd have a pretty small military. Excluded from society? what does that mean? How could Christians exclude other people from society. If you mean the church well that's not the same as society is it?

 

[Bethesda]

AtheistVet
Good, so you don't think homosexuals should be barred from serving.

I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to serve period in fact I have seen many get discharged for homosexuality. Since the homosexual community has filed so many law suites that has jamed the court system that the Government caved in to all of this idea, along with many Homosexuals that are in places of the federal Court system. Liberials, atheist, agonistics and Homosexuals Don't believe in God any way and have no objections to any kind of Marriage, sexual relation or belief system.

The values and standards are not the same. The Military has had a Long tradition of Honor and respect in God we trust was on the money that we spent, many of the places in Washington DC and the monuments reflected are Christian Hertiage, but now we have all this being changed by a bunch of homosexuals, Atheist and Liberals you may think this is fine but it does not fly with me , I see it as the beginning of the end for America, and as for are Military I can't see how this will improve our Military and unit integrity.

I served the United States Army for 45 years honorably, when I heard about Homosexuals being able to serve openly in the Military, I could not believe what I was hearing? the UCMJ I also heard that was being changed to allow open Homosexuality. I was outraged I thought who would do this to the Military? Then I read about the ACLU, I realized that this government had lost there Minds, and common sense.

The Military will suffer to find people that will want to serve.

Whilst i give due respect to your service, surely on your argument then atheists, agnostics and liberals should be excluded too. You''ll surely be aware that esp in an era of conscription/the draft then many men and women who were gay served and lost their lives defending their country. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't there - the Royal Navy had a long tradition (notwithstanding the severe punishments that existed) of a % of officers and men being gay - it didn't stop them kicking the US Navy's butt! (only joking of course as probably at sea in 1812 the USN outfought the RN - but on land it was a different story). read any account of 18th and 19th century naval life and its clear that it was tacitly tolerated and action (severe action) only taken when it came to light for some reason. If the UK arm of service military nursing services took your line then they wouldn't have many staff (that why Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps - aka the QUARANCs - was known for many years as the Queer Angels). If the issue is sin then why is it OK (well not OK but no-one is proposing that those with a g/f in every posting are kicked out) to have soldiers who prove every w/e that the uniform is very attractive to the fairer sex and take full advantage of that (and if there was an army in history that didn't have a significant number of womanisers then I'd like an example - certainly it can't be claimed that the US Army when stationed in the UK in WW2 wasn't 'overpaid, oversexed and over here' - there probably were not many womanisers in the Spartan Sacred Band though)
Of course if we did go down that path then the service police would expand to be the biggest branch and the military would spend all its time investigating itself - personally knowing both some gay ex service people and ex services police/provost nothing (to me as someone working in the criminal justice system) sounds less appealing than raiding people's lockers and looking through letters and emails (as used to happen) and pruriently questioning young men and women about their sex lives for evidence of unnatural attachments. Personally i do not agree with homosexuality but the way it was dealt with - on the same level as proper military crime with interviews and the full deal - was pathetic and waste of trained service police officers time.
Surely for some here, they should be glad that gays serve as therefore they can be the cannon fodder and get killed off (thus reducing their numbers) whilst those wanting families can stay home in safety.

 

[briareos]

AtheistVet
Good, so you don't think homosexuals should be barred from serving.

I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to serve period in fact I have seen many get discharged for homosexuality. Since the homosexual community has filed so many law suites that has jamed the court system that the Government caved in to all of this idea, along with many Homosexuals that are in places of the federal Court system. Liberials, atheist, agonistics and Homosexuals Don't believe in God any way and have no objections to any kind of Marriage, sexual relation or belief system.

The values and standards are not the same. The Military has had a Long tradition of Honor and respect in God we trust was on the money that we spent, many of the places in Washington DC and the monuments reflected are Christian Hertiage, but now we have all this being changed by a bunch of homosexuals, Atheist and Liberals you may think this is fine but it does not fly with me , I see it as the beginning of the end for America, and as for are Military I can't see how this will improve our Military and unit integrity.

I served the United States Army for 45 years honorably, when I heard about Homosexuals being able to serve openly in the Military, I could not believe what I was hearing? the UCMJ I also heard that was being changed to allow open Homosexuality. I was outraged I thought who would do this to the Military? Then I read about the ACLU, I realized that this government had lost there Minds, and common sense.

The Military will suffer to find people that will want to serve.

That's what the senior enlisted and officers said when the draft was stopped too... "and the Army keep's rolling along"

You have to understand that most people in our country don't believe homosexuality will send you to a place called hell or that Christianity should determine our governments rules... they don't. I am still serving and I have seen no outrage, either in person or through the grapevine or on official military forums.

 

[Bethesda]

That's what the senior enlisted and officers said when the draft was stopped too... "and the Army keep's rolling along"

You have to understand that most people in our country don't believe homosexuality will send you to a place called hell or that Christianity should determine our governments rules... they don't. I am still serving and I have seen no outrage, either in person or through the grapevine or on official military forums.

that does (for me as someone in the UK who studied US history and govt at university - do people do British Studies in the US btw as my degree is in American Studies - with 2 other subjects) raise that interesting point on the separation of church and state which is obviously one of the core principles of the US. I know now that perhaps many take that to mean religion having no place in the secular side of official life (hence I believe you do not have religious assemblies in school unlike the UK certainly used to have) . I've always thought though that that principle was more aimed at avoiding the sectarianism that many going to the New World were fleeing in Europe (and esp in England where Non-Conformists were persecuted heavily)- rather than meaning a blanket ban on religion impinging into the world of govt - since to my reading most of the Founding Fathers were Christians albeit of many different hues (from Maryland Catholics to New England Puritans etc)

 

[briareos]

I also agree that that term for one, doesn't exist in the U.S Constitution... and two it DOES NOT mean that Christians suddenly have no place in the social square, it does not mean that religious values and ideas and people suddenly become second class and deserve no hearing... it doesn't mean that all.

But does mean religious texts are not in anyway grounds for establishing laws.

 

[briareos]

I though this video may interest you, it really enlightened me on the true nature of that subject. It's not a cheap wizbang video, it's a two hour debate between some experts on the subject

Is Christianity Good for American Politics? - The Debate - YouTube

 

[Bethesda]

I also agree that that term for one, doesn't exist in the U.S Constitution... and two it DOES NOT mean that Christians suddenly have no place in the social square, it does not mean that religious values and ideas and people suddenly become second class and deserve no hearing... it doesn't mean that all.

But does mean religious texts are not in anyway grounds for establishing laws.

Yes I quite agree and I did avoid saying anything about the Constitution - how it interests me esp is that the phrase is often used (at least in the UK) to give grounds for a movement towards a much more secular country (and in effect pushing Christianity out of that social Town Square by commentators saying in effect "look at the USA, they have separation of the church and state" whilst completing missing the context (to me anyway) of what it meant when the USA was(were) founded

 

[Bethesda]

I though this video may interest you, it really enlightened me on the true nature of that subject. It's not a cheap wizbang video, it's a two hour debate between some experts on the subject

--------------------
Thanks - I'll have a peruse

 

[briareos]

yes. It's become a byword for Christians suddenly having no place in government period.

 

[Leap]

Excluded from what? The military? If you did that you'd have a pretty small military. Excluded from society? what does that mean? How could Christians exclude other people from society. If you mean the church well that's not the same as society is it?

Excluded as in shunned and no business done with them. Unrepentent sin should not be accepted and we should distance ourselves from such people, so a Christian society should exclude people who unrepentently carry out those things which I listed.

 

[Bethesda]

Another point I find interesting in this kind of debate is the conflation of ideas such as that the USA is being brought low by some sort of alliance of liberals, atheists, agnostics, gay people etc. This kind of viewpoint seems to me to ignore that these are not formed caucus groups but just labels - there will be liberal atheists, conservative atheists and extreme right wing atheists (as the history of other countries like Germany has showed). Similarly with any other group - i think it'd be a bit silly for people to imagine that all gay people are left leaning liberals. Equally even in the past how many say ACW generals etc were genuine as opposed to nominal Christians. I think that in different eras the Church and Christians have their own blind spots or hobby horses - today both in the US and UK, it seems that, for some, homosexuality is the sin above all sins almost and any deviation from their view point unleashes comments about judgement of those other Christians who do not take their point of view - yet in the past in the US, surely in Southern states esp, there was blindness amongst people who would otherwise seem to be entirely devout and genuine Christians over the matter of slavery. We looking back (as did the Abolitionists at the time) could be in no doubt that the holding of another in human bondage is a sin too. We can ascribe it to social conditions of course (like the fact that many in South Africa who were genuine Christians were in effect complicit in the Apartheid state by serving in its armed forces or just be doing nothing to protest) but I don't believe there is a Biblical justification for racism or putting people into slavery or holding them in it.

 

[Bethesda]

Excluded as in shunned and no business done with them. Unrepentent sin should not be accepted and we should distance ourselves from such people, so a Christian society should exclude people who unrepentently carry out those things which I listed.

But thats pre-supposing that something called Christian society exists. Who runs it. We don't (either in the UK or US) live in a theocracy with religious police patrolling the streets as in Saudi etc. Individual Christians or even groups of them can if they decide choose to distance themselves from 'the world' (as they did in the past by going into monasteries etc). I think what you mean is the Church and even then i am confused - are you talking about shunning those people in the Church who engage in such or anyone who does. if the latter how do you then engage with people to tell them the Gospel if you are shunning them for engaging in something which by their lights they may not even see as a sin. Just standing in the street btw and bellowing at people that unless they change their ways they are going to hell isn't likely to be hugely impactive (though on occasions it has some place but i think far more people have come to faith through the witness of another's life than such techniques), though I know that perhaps people who take an ultra Calvinist pov will say why not, as anyone who doesn't respond was clearly not chosen anyway. And what does being 'excluded' entail - not allowed to have a passport, to not attend church (which as per my earlier point only really works if what you mean is in relation to persons who claim to be Christians but are involved in such activities), not to use church facilities for weddings etc (I'd tend to agree that the church being used for births, marriages and funerals by people who otherwise never darken its doors is not on), not to serve in the military (you are going to have an army of about a few low strength brigades at most as you will not have any/very few non-Christians in it - though quite a few conservative Muslims might qualify - do you know what soldiers are like on the whole - I imagine you do as that's what is says your occupation is?). In the days (England under Cromwell and then through most of the 18th century) when people might argue there was such a thing as a kind of Christian society in the UK (certainly the period under Cromwell and the Commonwealth when there was very much a ethos - under what amounted to military rule - of creating a supposedly Bible based civil society (from the perspective of the Puritan groups who held power in the army and parliament), we had as you will know the Bloody Code with something like 70 capital offences and pederasty if it came to official light in the navy (even though at the same time it was tacitly tolerated in many way) resulted in those involved being 'turned off' and even in the 19th century those in the forces or outside were sent to jail (putting gay men in an all male jail never seemed like a good idea to me - you'd punish them, if you were so inclined, by sending them an all female one!)

 

[pgp_protector]

Excluded as in shunned and no business done with them. Unrepentent sin should not be accepted and we should distance ourselves from such people, so a Christian society should exclude people who unrepentently carry out those things which I listed.

Would that list include worshiping other gods or not worshiping the one true God?

 

[IanCG]

It's the Christian Taliban trying to destroy the American way of life, not the liberals and atheists. You don't see us running around saying "SHUN THE NON BELIEVER!"

 

[Bethesda]

Excluded as in shunned and no business done with them. Unrepentent sin should not be accepted and we should distance ourselves from such people, so a Christian society should exclude people who unrepentently carry out those things which I listed.

on the 'no business' does that imply checking the moral, religious etc position of the staff of every shop and business someone does business with - ie no shopping at Asian corner stores or places run by 2 men or 2 women or by a couple if they can't prove they are married - thing is you could buy from a shop by a single bloke who could be a member of the EDL or a married couple who are pagans. You'd need a huge religious intelligence service to keep tabs on what all these people were up to in their bedrooms and what they read and watched and thought (actually i think a certain Geo Orwell wrote on that theme in 1948 albeit coming at it from the political angle)

 

[briareos]

Leap,

Actually that's completely contradictory to the bible. Paul made it absolutely clear to the Corinthian church to NOT distance yourself from those outside the faith, but rather only those call themselves a brother in the Lord but insist on unholy living.

If they aren't christians and don't claim to be, you cannot and should not distance yourself from them, Paul said this was innapropriate and simply not a reasonable expectation in this life. He also said it was not his place to judge those outside the church.

You need to leave those non-christians alone.

 

[Bethesda]

I'd agree with Briareos point - yes of course drunkeness etc within the church should be challenged but I simply can't see how we can expect or get society to shun/exclude/do no business with people who are not in the church. There are lots of things we may disagree with/not be happy about that happen in broader society and we are free to have an opinion like anyone else is but we are being very unrealistic to expect that those things will change eg many Christians might wish that Islam didn't exist, that alcohol didn't exist, that no horror films were made, that guns stopped being produced, that sex outside marriage stopped, that people were not allowed to criticise Christianity or promote atheism (add your own topics) - we could spend time campaigning on such or actually through our witness etc seek to spread the Gospel. The one time that the UK had a govt that was theocratic (under Cromwell and the Commonwealth) it made itself so unpopular ultimately that the monarchy was eventually restored with ease.

 

[Leap]

Leap,

Actually that's completely contradictory to the bible. Paul made it absolutely clear to the Corinthian church to NOT distance yourself from those outside the faith, but rather only those call themselves a brother in the Lord but insist on unholy living.

If they aren't christians and don't claim to be, you cannot and should not distance yourself from them, Paul said this was innapropriate and simply not a reasonable expectation in this life. He also said it was not his place to judge those outside the church.

You need to leave those non-christians alone.

Actually, no it isnt. We are called to bring the Gospel to the world but where it is rejected we are called to not be with those people. Unrepentant sinners, and that first word is key here, are rejecting the gospel, often repeatedly so, and should not, in a Christian society, be treated as full members.

We used to have a society that would take a moral stand against people who acted immorally. Not by using the courts and throwing them in jail, although that happened as well, but simply sending them to coventry until they repented of their ways and made good. So an adulterer would not be tolerated, nor would someone known as promiscuous or deceitful.

But today pretty much anything goes (except, ironically, saying that anything does not go, which of course instantly attracts the censure of the liberal guardians of the wasteland ), and so we have a society that is disintegrating because the structure is attacked as infringing liberty.

Toleration has not given space for people to repent. Its given them licence to sin all the more.

 

[briareos]

Leap

1 Cor 5.9-13
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people, not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

You being convoluted doesn't make this any more complicated than it is. It is all too clear. You consider that those non-believers need permission from us to live sinful lives, you're great arrogance and imposition into their lives is part of the problem. But I wont give many more opportunities to be more confused, the scripture is clear.

 

[Bethesda]

Actually, no it isnt. We are called to bring the Gospel to the world but where it is rejected we are called to not be with those people. Unrepentant sinners, and that first word is key here, are rejecting the gospel, often repeatedly so, and should not, in a Christian society, be treated as full members.

We used to have a society that would take a moral stand against people who acted immorally. Not by using the courts and throwing them in jail, although that happened as well, but simply sending them to coventry until they repented of their ways and made good. So an adulterer would not be tolerated, nor would someone known as promiscuous or deceitful.

But today pretty much anything goes (except, ironically, saying that anything does not go, which of course instantly attracts the censure of the liberal guardians of the wasteland ), and so we have a society that is disintegrating because the structure is attacked as infringing liberty.

Toleration has not given space for people to repent. Its given them licence to sin all the more.

I find your rational very odd
'where it is rejected we are called to not be with those people' - I can't see where the Bible says we witness to someone once or 2 times or 5 times or whatever and if they still are not interested then move on. That seems to be the redolent of the kind of headhunting approach that sees people as targets and notches on Christian's belts (and which non Christians are very quick to pick up on and resent). Of course if one comes at it from a Calvinist etc pov then such a logic fits in since anyone who is not interested after 1 or 2 or 5 times is obviously not chosen - which seems to miss out the many cases where people have over the course of years, often numerous years, been drawn to God - by people who did not take an attitude of: you've heard it, you had your chance, I'm on to the next.

'We used to have a society that would take a moral stand against people who acted immorally...... but simply sending them to coventry'
I not sure where in history you get this from - it might be that in some small villages this happened but it certainly wasn't the case on a wider level - try reading 17th century accounts by a Puritan vicar in Gloucester where he said he was shouted at in the streets by locals who disagreed with his views etc. It was certainly not the case in the armed forces (which was the original context of the discussion) that this happened as the British Army would have been mainly based in Coventry if that was the case. I think, with respect, that you have a rose tinted view of British society in the past (a society where child labour, sexual abuse, racism and cruelty were rampant - unless you think a criminal code that hangs a man for stealing a few loaves is just). What we had in many ways was an intensely hypocritical society where class and status protected the rich and powerful and came down on the poor with an iron fist. As to toleration of deceit etc - well I'd suggest for example that the reaction of the media and public to the deceit practised re Hillsborough by the police and MPs expenses etc shows that people do not take an attitude that its ok to lie.