Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

I seriously, seriously, can only shake my head in shock over what some of you will say. Unreal.

Ain't it the truth!

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Some statistics about the Homosexual lifestyle:

The Gay Report, published by homosexual researchers Jay and Young in 1979, revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger.5 (5. K. Jay and A. Young, The Gay Report (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275. ) http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils...statistics.htm


* One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3)
* One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime
* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7)
* Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior" (16)
* Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex
* 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20)
* Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities" (10)
* Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals" (10)
* 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10)

* 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7)
* There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE." This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States
* Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19)
* 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9)
* Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" (22)
* Because homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their homosexual parades. A group called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print "WE RECRUIT" on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren't as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.


More statistics:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

Mr. Smith, to act like it is unusual for homoesxuals NOT to have multiple partners in a year is ridiculous. While there may be SOME (a small minority) who do have long and monogomaous relationships, this is clearly the [very rare] exception, and not the rule. You are also convientenlty ignoring that such sexuality often times includes child molestation. And often times in adults is the RESULT of being mistreated (sexually) at some point as a youth.

It's not normal, it's not natural, and we as Christians should not be their John the Baptist saying "clear the way".

And for you to act like I said something that I didn't even come close to saying, is even MORE ridiculous. I scoffed at the idea of 300+ partners being common. Go read what I said, for crying out loud.

And again...this discussion has NOTHING to do with sin, eternity, salvation, or anything of the such. We're taking about basic human rights in America.

As for your research.....do you have anything that was done more recently than 21 years before the end of the last century?

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Ain't it the truth!

Yep. I got a headache shaking my head at your stuff.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Yep. I got a headache shaking my head at your stuff.

The feeling is definitely mutual. What are your thoughts on this...?

(Aside from the sinful issue about it all... )

Originally Posted by mfblume

...homosexuals showering with straight men in an open shower would cause the homosexuals to be in a situation that a straight man would be in with females in an open shower, knowing one member of the opposite among many would not be attractive to some of the opposite sex, etc. It does not matter if everyone in the shower is gay or not.

...It does not have to be mutual attraction to make it wrong.

My point is there WILL BE SOME MEN ATTRACTIVE TO GAYS in such a situation, so the entire concept should be canned. It is illogical to say men and women can shower together so long as SOME are not considered attractive to each other, making the point for ignoring gays in such a situation totally moot.

How on earth can anyone argue FOR your position considering that? It's like straight men being allowed to shower with lesbians. What is the difference?

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The feeling is definitely mutual. What are your thoughts on this...?

(Aside from the sinful issue about it all... )



How on earth can anyone argue FOR your position considering that? It's like straight men being allowed to shower with lesbians. What is the difference?

What are my thoughts on what?

First, I have never showered in an open shower with anyone. Don't like them, never have never will. But as for the difference between showering in front of guys (of any orientation) and girls (of any orientation), the issue isn't how they'll see me....because I really don't care if a gay guy is attracted to me. That's HIS issue, not mine. Why should I be concerned with HIS feelings? That has nothing to do with me.

And for goodness sake, you really want me to describe the difference between showering with men and women??? If you need me to, I'll go into detail about the anatomical differences. If you're not aware of those things, I'll try to help you.

But that's the point.....the issue is in how you see THEM, not how they see you. You need to take care of yourself and stop worrying about their potential dysfunctions.

I'm comfortable with who and what I am so I have zilch to fear if someone is looking my way.

[houston]

thas a new one. "Gays... they're looking our way!" at the next upc gen conf

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

And for you to act like I said something that I didn't even come close to saying, is even MORE ridiculous. I scoffed at the idea of 300+ partners being common. Go read what I said, for crying out loud.

Does the number matter that much? If some have 300, some have 100 is that a big difference? The point is that that DO NOT normally have long, committed, faithful, monogamous relationships, as you yourself admit here, in a round about way by saying "read what I said."

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

And again...this discussion has NOTHING to do with sin, eternity, salvation, or anything of the such.

WRONG! DADT is not couched in a religious context, I agree, but to say it has NOTHING to do with sin is outrageous. Homosexuality has alot to do with sin, and anytime a government LEGALIZES, APPROVES, and MAKES CONVIENT/REWARDS sin, it is only going to come back and damage society more and more. Does you Bible still say "sin is a reproach to any people?" Proverbs 14:34

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

We're taking about basic human rights in America.

HOWEVER, the discussion we are currently having is about DADT AND the REPROCUSSIONS. This isn't only about the military, it is about society as a whole. IT IS ABOUT THE AMERICA MY [and yours] CHILDREN AND GRAND CHILDREN WILL GROW UP IN.

I'm all for basic human rights. Those things were settled in the 1960s & 70s. That was a human rights issue, and a cause that was more than justified. This is a different animal, and for people to think that the gay/straight issue is the black/white issue of this generation is total, complete, and willful ignorance.

What right does a homosexual person have to flaunt their homosexuality, to have it sanctioned by the state? Based on what authority? And do you think they will stop with the military? Will they not come back to the central issue-gay marriage? Will they not make the argument, "you will allow us to openly serve as gay soldiers, and give our lives and blood for this country, but won't let us choose who we want to marry?"

And if they are openly allowed to marry, then the stigma continues to fade from homosexuality, it will be more and more widely taught in schools, and essentially children will be evanglized for their cause, legally and with the school systems and federal governments stampr of approval.

I'm not saying everyone will become gay, it will never happen, but I am saying that it will continue to grow amongst the populace, wreak havoc of familes and homes, and further decay american society.

Again I ask, WHAT AUTHORITY DO WE BASE THE ASSERTION THAT HOMOSEXUALS HAVE "RIGHTS" TO OPENLY PRACTICE THEIR HOMOSEXUALITY?

Even if most people don't live by the word of God, its principles remain the bedrock of civil government-that of order, authority, personal and property rigts, etc. There is NO, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH authority or source which gives homosexuals "rights" you want to give them.

"Rights" all it takes is considering the filth of a homosexual parade to see they don't want rights, they want justification of their sin in society.

My thoughts are they practice their free choice in their private lives, it is sin, yet they are free to sin. Fine. I don't like it, but I cannot make other peoples life choices. However, to allow them to practice those things with the federal governments stamp of approval now makes it no longer a practice with stigma attached to it, but it is forced upon all citizens to accept as "normal" or in the very least "alternative."

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

As for your research.....do you have anything that was done more recently than 21 years before the end of the last century?

I just googled it, I don't care that much. The 300 number came from John MacArthur. My point doesn't stand on research, my main points are

1)homosexuals have multiple partners quite regularly, and DO NOT normally have a relationship that is comprable to marriage
2)homosexuality is directly related to child molestation
3)For the Fed Govt to endorse homosexuals openly serving in the military
will only result in further approval and accetance at the federal level of all homosexual activities
4)this will have widespread affects that most are not even taking into consideration

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

What are my thoughts on what?

First, I have never showered in an open shower with anyone. Don't like them, never have never will. But as for the difference between showering in front of guys (of any orientation) and girls (of any orientation), the issue isn't how they'll see me....because I really don't care if a gay guy is attracted to me. That's HIS issue, not mine. Why should I be concerned with HIS feelings? That has nothing to do with me.

Then you can only say that there should be no thoughts against both sexes being together in public washrooms, open showers in gyms, etc., nor any restriction whatsoever along similar lines, because many straight people in such situations would not be concerned as others over who is watching them. The point is the reason it is commonly accepted that there are men's and women's washrooms, and men's and women's open showers is because of the obvious sexual attraction issue, regardless if SOME would not be affected that way. And now that homosexuality has entered the fray in society, it is illogical to not apply these same reasons for the other to this new issue in society.

In other words, if there is to be no concern over gays watching you in a shower, whether they are attracted to you or not, then there should be no concern over any combination of situation of straight folks from opposite sexes or the variables involving gay people. But no one is stepping up and saying, "Well, as far as this issue in general goes, there should not be restrictions against any other situation involving any variable of how sexes and sexual lifestyles when considering washrooms, open showers, etc., including group settings involving the opposite sexes of heterosexual people."

Would you apply your argument above to these other situations as well, and not care whether it was all open regardless of variation of the combinations of lifestyles involved?

And for goodness sake, you really want me to describe the difference between showering with men and women??? If you need me to, I'll go into detail about the anatomical differences. If you're not aware of those things, I'll try to help you.

But that's the point.....the issue is in how you see THEM, not how they see you. You need to take care of yourself and stop worrying about their potential dysfunctions.

I'm comfortable with who and what I am so I have zilch to fear if someone is looking my way.

My major point here is that it has nothing to do with how I see THEM, although I certainly am concerned over that as well. But the illogic I have been trying to show recently has to do with the general concept of whether it is okay for those of whatever sexual preference to be involved in open showers, for instance, with the sex to whom such people are sexually attracted. I am not talking about anatomical differences. lol. Do not get away from my point. I am talking about the common denominator of the focus of sexual attraction. If gay people can mix with those of the sex to which they are attracted in such situations, then what is wrong with straight people mixing in the same situations with those of the opposite sex? Whether the anatomy to which one is sexually attracted is different from one's own anatomy or not, the point is the sexual attraction. Again, what is the difference in that respect?

If you think straights from both sexes should mutually shower in the same spaces, then that is one thing, and you are at least being consistent, but yet wrong in my opinion. But if you would forbid that, and yet condone gay people showering in the same spaces with straight people of the same sex, then you are contradicting yourself. THAT is my point.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

There is a world of difference between their rights as citizens and whether or not their lifestyle will lead to hell Jason.

Excellent point, James!

They have always had the right to serve. Sexual impropriety (according to the regs) will be dealt with as it always has been. The difference is now they aren't threatened with being drummed out of the service. A secondary consequence is that it won't be as easy to get out as it was prior to the repeal of DADT.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

And I'm considered a charasmatic compromiser

Then consider me one too.
Where is God in all of this discussion on a Christian forum? Is He to be excluded? If His view and Word doesn't settle an issue, then why bother with anything Christian?

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
This thread, and the advocacy of such things reminds of the reason that so many have decided to take their postings elsewhere.

Some folks are on here all but beating the drum, "clear the way for the homosexuals! Don't infringe on their "rights". Bless God, let them teach homosexuality in schools to our children, what's wrong with that, we're all for equality and rights, correct? Not to mention that allowing gays to legally and openly serve in the military will eventually open up the gates for gay "marriage" and result in an societal and governmental stamp of approval on a lifestyle that in the end causes nothing but damnation, through deteriation of society, morals, and sin.

Rarely will we really take a stand for something that will bring offense for the gospels sake, but if its a homoxexuals "How to " pedophile book, if its building a mosque on ground zero, if its allowing open gays in the military (and nowdays the ministry), showering with homosexuals, suport a womens "choice" then by all means lets not let the Word of God stand in the way.

Hits. Nail. On. Head. Again.