Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by freeatlast, Sep 23, 2011.
Now that this policy has been done away with what are your feelings about it?
I never have understood the sense of this law. I wish someone could explain to me why it was a good thing. Maybe I have been gone from the US too long.
Don't get me started.
Putting the homosexuals in with all the heterosexual men will be like putting a heterosexual man in an open barracks full of women. A bunch of dimwits and it's all for the liberal vote.
There were already there - they just couldn't tell anyone. How is that better?
Think it was the PC way to have practicing Homosexuals remain/come into the US Military, it is just another way the PC police tried to have all of us accept homosexuals as being "same" as Blacks were once "officially" welcomed into the US military!
While I believe homosexuality is a sin, I do not think government should dictate such actions. I find it out of the realm of decency and scope of government to ask such questions.
Because at least forcing them to stay in the closet was some sort of restraint. Now there is none. Gay officers are marrying one another in public. Now they can do whatever they want in public and you'll be breaking the law to say anything about it.
I agree this is a sin... that is not the point. I do not think Government should be dictating this to their people in our Republic. I preach against homosexuality from a Biblical perspective, but I see that our system is not designed to force such morals on individuals.
Do we really expect the US military to be bound by our Christian standards? Telling people to lie was a good law? Not knowing is somehow better? I think I would like to know which guys in the barracks showers were '[email protected]
My understanding was that they weren't telling them to lie. They just didn't ask them if they were gay. (I could be wrong though)
I believe the sense in which it was done was to compromise and pave the way to what it has become today. It was a "break the ice" law.
It wasn't a good and it helped accomplishing exactly what is was intented to. (fulfill an agenda)
That's just obviously not the case.
...and the law wasn't actually rescinded, if it was it certainly didn't go back to the way it was, the law (agenda) was upgraded to more liberal values.
There is no doubt this fulfilled an agenda of some on the left. Yet, this doesn't mean it was wrong. While fulfilling an agenda, I still think it was right to do.
Should we also ban engaging in pornography for those in our military? I agree it is wrong and a deadly addiction, but I think this is beyond the scope of our Government. What if our Government banned homeschoolers? All these I believe are beyond the scope of government because they are private choices. While homosexuality and pornography is immoral and evil, they are beyond the scope of government and the role of government.
Couple of point...
US Military ALWAYS was under a seperate code of conduct, in some ways not same as in 'civilian life"...
So the Govt would let them pretty much "run their own ship", one noticble exception forcing them to intergrate Blacks and Women into Military...
2 big problems with active gays in Military...
DOES break down the cohesive bond of the unit, would be like having to allow women out on battlefront in war zone...
Also, this allows PC to dictate, again, that homosexuality is to be seen as JUST same as one being female, male, black etc
That we need to fully embrace/accept as being 'just the same" just different!
And that is exactly why our country is such a Godless mess. The church is afraid to step up and call sin sin.
Is it the government's business to ban polygamy, consentual under-aged s3x, incest etc? Are these things wrong? Your argument falls back on where does one draw the line. But morality exists, and in a social civil society these laws must be inforced. Again, morality and government of it does and must exist.
I served in the military and some of these are obstacles, but I still think they do not give an excuse to keep the old policy.
When in the military, I opposed something others, including some superiors, were engaged in from a Christian/moral perspective. I was told I was harming the cohesion of the unit. However, my opposition was based upon my Christian beliefs and I stood firm.
I still worked together with the men in my unit and still maintained my adamant disapproval of their actions. When we had to put differences aside to work together, you put those differences to the side.
While Military Sexual Trauma (MST) is an issue in our modern military, I disagree with the idea that DADT solved the issue and the new policy will make it worse. Rather, I think the culture in the military makes MST a problem. Like guns, our freedom to have arms does not mean that guns cause other problems. Because you have homosexuals in the military does not mean MST will increase. Rather, MST will increase because the men and women in the armed forces need the Lord.
I do believe government does have a role in defining marriage. I do not believe it has a role in defining personal, non illegal behavior. What is the difference?
First, the Bible! The Bible gives marriage as defined by God but given to both the Church and State. The Church upholds marriage and blesses marriage being from God and the state recognizes the unique role our religion places on marriage (marriage is both a religious and social contract). The definition of marriage is defined by God.
However, there are personal choices that religion speaks to directly but the state should not infringe upon. I often use homeschooling as an example. The government should not and is out of it's jurisdiction to legislate or regulate homeschooling. This is a private act of a family that has no God given role to the state. Thus, it is wrong for the state to legislate what has been given to the family and is a personal decision.
Homosexuality, not homosexual marriage, is a private decision. The church has an obligation to speak to the sin of homosexuality (as it does for smoking, obesity, and immodesty) where the Government should not legislate.
Thus, I can disagree with the homosexual but still see they have a right to be immoral.
Well, I disagree... I do not think we accurately proclaim the Gospel but we proclaim moralism. However, we should preach the entire counsel of God and I believe that is solved by expository preaching through the entire Bible, verse by verse.