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

[Tropical Wilds]

I don't see the point in debating with someone who holds leftist views, as they often provide unhelpful responses and twist arguments to fit their agenda.

Your question is irrelevant.

So no, you didn’t. Got it.

So… Selective concern for health and safety.

 

[Sunflower39]

So no, you didn’t. Got it.

So… Selective concern for health and safety.

I hope you have a good day

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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.

Since one of the chief aims of American military expeditions is to bring 'democracy' to the four corners of the world, and democracy includes LGBT 'rights', I don't see how you can't avoid discussing it. Part of the price of US military support is LGBT rights. This is why Ukraine has been liberalizing and becoming less Christian.

 

[RileyG]

Sounds like you’re dealing in stereotypes.

Yuck.

Maybe those are my experiences.

 

[RileyG]

Who’s talking about being a victim? You introduced that narrative.

People who are opposed to sodomy and want it illegal do so because they are concerned about the (physical and spiritual) health of the individuals involved.

When people end up getting infections because of their behavior, they aren’t the victims here.

They brought it upon themselves.

 

[RileyG]

Be concerned, but don’t use it as an excuse to be prejudiced.

Not agreeing with an act or calling it sinful or wrong isn’t being prejudiced.

Nor is it shaming anyone.

Be blessed

 

[RileyG]

Since one of the chief aims of American military expeditions is to bring 'democracy' to the four corners of the world, and democracy includes LGBT 'rights', I don't see how you can't avoid discussing it. Part of the price of US military support is LGBT rights. This is why Ukraine has been liberalizing and becoming less Christian.

Is sexual perversion truly rights though? I think not. Grateful for the Eastern European countries who haven’t bowed down to this nonsense.

 

[RileyG]

Either we all run a risk of getting it, or 98% of people who get it are men who have sex with other men. It can’t be both.

If you practice safe sex when having intercourse with men, you minimize your risk of getting Mpox. Problem solved. Considering heterosexual people spread STDs too, should we start cracking down on what heterosexual people do in their bedrooms? Heterosexuals now make up the majority of HIV cases, should we start talking about their sin? Legislating their practices? Or does the “for the common good” argument only exist when you think about sex acts among people that you find gross?

A lot of gay/bi men are infected with monkey pox and continue to sleep around and cheat on each other at an alarming rate.

The LGBT activists want the public want to think they’re just like clean, regular folk.

Yeah right.

Filthiest lifestyle there is.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And, frankly, it really is nobody’s business how many people somebody has sex with. The government shouldn’t legislate people’s sex lives. If somebody wants to have sex with 0, 1, 100, or 1,000 people, that’s their prerogative.

A better option is to shame and socially ostracize said people.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Is sexual perversion truly rights though? I think not. Grateful for the Eastern European countries who haven’t bowed down to this nonsense.

Well, no, it isn't. But that's how the current Western regimes understand Democracy and Liberalism. It isn't a coincidence that Western influence changes social norms.

 

[RileyG]

A better option is to shame and socially ostracize said people.

Careful, it’s important to be sex positive. Sex shaming is wrong according to the liberal agenda.

 

[RileyG]

Well, no, it isn't. But that's how the current Western regimes understand Democracy and Liberalism. It isn't a coincidence that Western influence changes social norms.

Sad.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A better option is to shame and socially ostracize said people.

Do you have any good examples of this sort of ostracizing being done by the Lord or His Apostles outside the contexts of the Church?

I'm straining my brain to think of some, and ............................. for the life of me, I can't really recollect any clear examples in the New Testament writings that would fit the bill.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Do you have any good examples of this ostracizing being done by the Lord or His Apostles outside the contexts of the Church?

I'm straining my brain to think of some, and ............................. for the life of me, I can't really recollect any clear examples in the New Testament writings that would fit the bill.

Our Lord called Saint Peter Satan. Saint Paul called into question the Galatians and the Corinthians to get them back on track. Do you think shameful behavior should not be considered shameful? That our actions should have no consequences?

Why should shaming only be within the context of the Church?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

A better option is to shame and socially ostracize said people.

Thankfully the people who feel that way are being lost to attrition and a less obnoxious generation will take its place.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Thankfully the people who feel that way are being lost to attrition and a less obnoxious generation will take its place.

Is promiscuity not shameful?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Maybe those are my experiences.

Maybe you need to meet a few more gay men.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

People who are opposed to sodomy and want it illegal do so because they are concerned about the (physical and spiritual) health of the individuals involved.

When people end up getting infections because of their behavior, they aren’t the victims here.

They brought it upon themselves.

Again, you brought up victims, not me.

If people get infections because of their behavior, or experience any other consequence related to their own personal choices, they’ll get the treatment they need for it and move on with life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Our Lord called Saint Peter Satan. Saint Paul called into question the Galatians and the Corinthians to get them back on track. Do you think shameful behavior should not be considered shameful? That our actions should have no consequences?

Shameful behavior is indeed shameful, but seeing it as such doesn't mean we should become a lightning rod for controversy where the Lord and His Apostles said to sow peace in the public square. And you're right to say that actions can have consequences, but that's not for us Christians to necessarily take in hand as if we're some sort of spiritualized vigilantes.

Why should shaming only be within the context of the Church?

Well, if Jesus and His earliest disciples weren't going around talking "smack" in a neo-nazified way, and I know they weren't, then I'd think that the most abrasive example would be that of St. Paul preaching to the Greeks atop Mars Hill. And as far as I can tell exegetically, his message wasn't very acerbic.

In fact, if anything, it was essentially irenic, with a small splash of a call to repentance made via a rational appeal to his audience.

So, while I'm all for being allocated as a socially incorrect voice among the masses---and I assure you I am---I'm still going to go with Jesus' command to be shrewd in what I say and mindful of Paul's admonition to the churches to be wise in how we talk to those still remaining outside of the Church. [... and, yes, I know I've slipped a few times here and there, even here on CF. But I'm trying to do betta ... ]

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Shameful behavior is indeed shameful, but that doesn't mean becoming a lightning rod for controversy where the Lord and His Apostles said to sow peace in the public square. And actions can have consequences, but that's not for us Christians to necessarily take in hand as some sort of spiritualized vigilantes.


Well, if Jesus and His earliest disciples weren't going around talking "smack" in a neo-nazified way, then I'd think that the most abrasive example would be that of St. Paul preaching to the Greeks atop Mars Hill. And as far as I can tell exegetically, his message wasn't very acerbic.

In fact, if anything, it was essentially irenic, with a small splash of a call to repentance made via a rational appeal to his audience.

So, while I'm all for being allocated as a socially incorrect voice among the masses---and I assure you I am---I'm still going to go with Jesus' command to be shrewd and mindful of Paul's admonition to the churches to be wise in how we talk to those still remaining outside of the Church.

So ultimately there should be no social consequence for promiscuity. Interesting.