Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

I understand what you're saying and I completely agree with your statement that I bolded. I also understand where "they" are coming from, and that simply is, attempting to gain access to the mainstream. For this, I don't blame them. If I were in this position, I would be doing the same.

Do some take it too far and become too objectionable? Of course.

As for arriving at the place where it becomes a crime to proclaim from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin.....first of all, I rarely yell out from the pulpit identifying sins. My job is to feed, encourage, and lead people to a place of desiring a spiritual journey. I'm confident of this...if I can introduce people to Jesus Christ, He will take care of all the sins, infirmities, and issues that I'm unable to resolve in the first place. I have far more faith in Jesus than I do in myself and my ability to make someone aware of things in their lives that need to change.

Second...call me naive, but I don't see that happening (making it illegal to speak against that particular issue). I could go into all the reasons, but if pulpit speech were ever limited in this country, I can't imagine the uprising, even from groups like the ACLU. But even if you're right...so be it. The power of the gospel doesn't depend on our governments restrictions or potential restrictions.

I would have said exactly the same thing a mere 2-3 years ago. But we are headed that way.

And I also concur with your last statement. There is a time for civil disobedience for me it would come under just such a scenario.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by houston

anyone see that movie bout the guy in the army who falls in love with a tranny? a homophobic soldier takes a baseball bat to his head while he is sleeping. based on a true story.

I was in the USMC when that happened, but we heard about it.

It all started over the fact that the guy dating the transgenedered human actually beat another guy in some fight/competition. Basically, the murderer was embarassed by a "homo" and so he killed the "homo".

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by canam

Nice try, BTW your avatar is racist,cant believe JD hasnt picked up on that,Just saying !

huh?

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

I would have said exactly the same thing a mere 2-3 years ago. But we are headed that way.

And I also concur with your last statement. There is a time for civil disobedience for me it would come under just such a scenario.

I reserve the right to be completely wrong, but I don't see it. I wouldn't fear it even if it were on the horizon....it's just not the way I minister....but the idea that an American church would be prohibited to say a particular issue is a sin seems impossible to me considering all the side ramifications.

But if you're right, I'm confident the gospel is more powerful than any restriction that can be placed on it and The Church will simply be required to find the inspiration and creativity to do what it should do best, which is, bring people into a redemptive relationship with Jesus Christ.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

I reserve the right to be completely wrong, but I don't see it. I wouldn't fear it even if it were on the horizon....it's just not the way I minister....but the idea that an American church would be prohibited to say a particular issue is a sin seems impossible to me considering all the side ramifications.

But if you're right, I'm confident the gospel is more powerful than any restriction that can be placed on it and The Church will simply be required to find the inspiration and creativity to do what it should do best, which is, bring people into a redemptive relationship with Jesus Christ.

Smithy, I think you are naive. Do you think it is possible in Canada? Huge strides have been made towards accomplishing just that.

I too am confident the Gospel will not be hid... but I would much rather it not be spread underground in catacomb reminiscent atmospheres.

[canam]

The thing we have here of course is the constitutuion (although that doesnt mean anything to obama)we do have freedom of speech, unlike some countries, such as canada, where i know of a recent case where the minister marked a man, whose wife attended his church and he sued and won.How ever it doesnt seem to be a blanket freedom so you do have to use wisdom when it comes to getting personal with someone ! Naming sin would seem to have a little more latitude but not names.

[canam]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

huh?

DA"s avatar !

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Smithy, I think you are naive. Do you think it is possible in Canada? Huge strides have been made towards accomplishing just that.

I too am confident the Gospel will not be hid... but I would much rather it not be spread underground in catacomb reminiscent atmospheres.

I suppose if the question is, "Will it EVER happen?" Who knows. Maybe so. I guess anything is possible if one looks hundreds of years into the future. But I don't see it under our current civil structure.

I know we value our religious freedom in this country, but has the gospel ever depended on a nation's freedom to be heard? I don't think so. In my flesh, I'm concerned about my freedoms. In my spirit, I don't care.

[*AQuietPlace*]

"Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the term commonly used for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal the sexuality of closeted homosexual or bisexual servicemembers or applicants, while barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibits people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." (10 U.S.C. § 654(b)) The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specifies that service members who disclose they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct shall be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" (10 U.S.C. § 654(e))."






Has the military changed their mind about the bolded portion?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

This post grinds it all down to the simplicity of the argument. Dan's Romans post is brilliant and a theological masterpiece. Yet, when we drill to the center of this, it's as simple as you final instruction (the bolded).

Dan does all right, doesn't he?

He can get a little caustic at times and can be a real gadfly,
but he thinks for himself and will not just parrot the party line.