Christian infantry officer stripped of position, accused of expressing 'hatred' for LGBT people

[RileyG]

Don’t worry! The LGBT activists said their lifestyle and “relationships” won’t affect anyone!

What lies.

This needs to stop, now.

 

[RileyG]

Freedom does not extend to sexual perversion, which is why historically sodomy was illegal.

People scream it’s a loving act and love is love.

Lust is not love.

Period.

 

[Offline4Better.]

Freedom does not extend to sexual perversion, which is why historically sodomy was illegal.

True, I do agree with you on that, but we should not kill or jail those who are gay. If that stuff is in the bedroom between two consenting atheist adults, I do not care. But, as soon as that stuff is let outside into the streets, then yes, any sexual act should be illegal outside their own home. Any gay propaganda should also be kept away from minors. We should also alright ban gender changes.

Not everything is black and white, brother. We can also say that freedom does not extend to people shooting up schools, or killing unborn babies left and right. If we want to make stuff illegal, we should make stuff that directly harms people illegal.

Also, we should get rid of that motto: Land of the free, as the only land with no death, poverty and suffering is Heaven above.

Alright, we are done here. God bless.

 

[Offline4Better.]

There already is a 'war' of sorts between Christians and atheists (one which we are losing, obviously). Remember the Psalmist's observation: "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God.'"

Yep, there is a war going on. Look at the demonic stuff that happened at the Olympics opening ceremony. That stuff should be banned.

 

[The Liturgist]

True, I do agree with you on that, but we should not kill or jail those who are gay

I agree on this point, in that in my view they should be fined and prohibited from voting or possessing firearms. In that way we can ensure that it remains in the bedroom, under wraps.

 

[Offline4Better.]

I agree on this point, in that in my view they should be fined and prohibited from voting or possessing firearms. In that way we can ensure that it remains in the bedroom, under wraps.

I do agree for the second thing, or prohibited from owning anything more than a hunting rifle. That could be a compromise. Also, they could be prohibited from voting on anything dealing with the education system, as we must keep kids away from this stuff.

 

[RileyG]

It does not even belong there. We need to reintroduce laws that prohibit sodomy.

Even for lesbians?

 

[RileyG]

There already is a 'war' of sorts between Christians and atheists (one which we are losing, obviously). Remember the Psalmist's observation: "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God.'"

It’s ok. Christ already won. You can only remain an atheist until your death, then you’re a believer.

The time for grace is now.

 

[A_JAY]

"I agree on this point, in that in my view they should be fined and prohibited from voting or possessing firearms. In that way we can ensure that it remains in the bedroom, under wraps."

Yikes!! To take away basic constitutional rights because some one is a homosexual? Slippery slope. There are less drastic and constitutional steps if States want to go that route.

 

[RileyG]

"I agree on this point, in that in my view they should be fined and prohibited from voting or possessing firearms. In that way we can ensure that it remains in the bedroom, under wraps."

Yikes!! I had to read where the poster lived. To take away basic constitutional rights because some one is a homosexual? Slippery slope.

Marriage isn’t a basic constitutional right. You can’t marry whomever you want. It’s a privilege. It’s sad the SCOTUS changed the definition of marriage in 2015 to appease the masses.

 

[dzheremi]

It’s ok. Christ already won. You can only remain an atheist until your death, then you’re a believer.

The time for grace is now.

Sure. I just meant that we're losing in terms of the zeitgeist in western countries.

 

[RileyG]

Sure. I just meant that we're losing in terms of the zeitgeist in western countries.

That’s ok. They come and go. God is eternal.

 

[A_JAY]

Marriage isn’t a basic constitutional right. You can’t marry whomever you want. It’s a privilege. It’s sad the SCOTUS changed the definition of marriage in 2015 to appease the masses.

I wasn't talking abut homosexual marriage. The article wasn't either So any talk beyond what's in the article is off topic in my opinion. This is a Christian Website in a Christian News and Current Events forum. Talking about the article is kind of basic in this News and Current Events Forum. So that goes beyond reading OP headline and then immediately viscerally reacting to it. It seems like a lot of posters have their responses ready even before The OP posts it to the forum.

There were a lot of gaps in that article. What actually happened? What was really said and done behind the scenes who knows? But apparently some posters know a secret about this case that I don't know. I look at some of the responses after reading the article, and say "huh" .

My views of sodomy and some of the weird letters in the LBQTQ stuff are not my concern on the forum. Some posters have been quite copious on the subject. I don't need to say more.

[But that post seemed to hint that "being homosexual" (whatever that is) was worthy of people losing their constitutional rights. That is a slippery slope here in the United States.

edit: 8:15CDT



And BTW I couldn't get the post to quote in the normal way, so I had to manually do it.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

It does not even belong there. We need to reintroduce laws that prohibit sodomy.

That would be, thank goodness, wholly unenforceable. And considering the only people who may not practice it would be some lesbians, it would be pointless for the persecution purposes you’re advocating.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

An infantry officer who expressed Christian views on human sexuality and other LGBT-related issues faced pressure to resign from the Idaho National Guard and was stripped of his commanding position following a complaint from a subordinate who identifies as homosexual.

Liberty Counsel, a public interest law firm, announced last Wednesday that it had notified Gov. Brad Little earlier this month about the alleged First Amendment violation. While the infantry officer is represented by R. Davis Younts, LLC, Liberty Counsel has added its voice to the man’s case, requesting a response by Friday to avoid further legal action.

According to Liberty Counsel, a subordinate senior enlisted man who identifies as homosexual filed an Equal Opportunity complaint last year against the infantry officer. The officer reportedly expressed Christian viewpoints on human sexuality and expressed opposition to “pernicious practices,” which include prescribing puberty blockers and opposite-sex hormones to children suffering from confusion about their sex.

Continued below.

Christian infantry officer stripped of position, accused of expressing 'hatred' for LGBT people

An infantry officer who expressed Christian views on human sexuality and other LGBT-related issues faced pressure to resign from the Idaho National Guard and was stripped of his commanding position

www.christianpost.com

... I'm not sure I understand why everyone is acting all surprised at the political trajectory the world is on.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I agree. I also think so long as countries have these policies no Western Christian should join these militaries in the first place.

Here’s my opinion on the subject. Sexual orientation doesn’t even need to be discussed in the military. So we shouldn’t say anything about it and neither should they. Now if they bring up the subject and they’re promoting that type of behavior then we should be able to counter that position with our own position. If they don’t bring it up then neither should we. There’s no point in trying to convert anyone who isn’t interested in seeking God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here’s my opinion on the subject. Sexual orientation doesn’t even need to be discussed in the military. So we shouldn’t say anything about it and neither should they. Now if they bring up the subject and they’re promoting that type of behavior then we should be able to counter that position with our own position. If they don’t bring it up then neither should we. There’s no point in trying to convert anyone who isn’t interested in seeking God.

That's a good point. Our job as Christians isn't to hold out a moral hoop for other people to jump through and then offer them the Gospel the moment their feet land on the other side.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Freedom does not extend to sexual perversion, which is why historically sodomy was illegal.

Yeah I can’t imagine why that law was ever repealed.

 

[BNR32FAN]

True, I do agree with you on that, but we should not kill or jail those who are gay. If that stuff is in the bedroom between two consenting atheist adults, I do not care. But, as soon as that stuff is let outside into the streets, then yes, any sexual act should be illegal outside their own home. Any gay propaganda should also be kept away from minors. We should also alright ban gender changes.

Not everything is black and white, brother. We can also say that freedom does not extend to people shooting up schools, or killing unborn babies left and right. If we want to make stuff illegal, we should make stuff that directly harms people illegal.

Also, we should get rid of that motto: Land of the free, as the only land with no death, poverty and suffering is Heaven above.

Alright, we are done here. God bless.

What really makes me mad is that acceptance is being taught in our schools to our children in order to indoctrinate them into thinking that it is acceptable behavior. This is going to have a devastating impact on the next generation.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yeah I can’t imagine why that law was ever repealed.

I know exactly why it was repealed, and opinion of its repeal is the same as that of Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, who had by that time become a Peer of the House of Lords, which I don’t think I can quote here due to him using a word for arsenokoetia that British members would find highly offensive, that at one time was used to refer incorrectly to the Bulgarians, because of the Bogomils, who were suspected of deviance in this regard, but which were in fact in Bosnia and not Bulgaria.