Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sabby

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.

That is a good point. They do have the right to serve.

[Sam]

This is from newsmax.com (so consider the source) Dec. 26, 2010

Two-thirds of U.S. Marine combat forces believe that placing gays in their units would hurt their effectiveness in the field, according to a survey the Defense Department ordered.

Westat Corp., a polling firm, surveyed more than 115,000 active duty service members, including 989 men serving in Marine combat units.

The survey was conducted before Congress voted on Dec. 18 to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law barring homosexuals from serving openly in the military, and President Barack Obama signed it into law on Dec. 22.

One question asked: “If don’t ask, don’t tell is repealed and you are working with a service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission?”

The results: 42.6 percent of the Marines in combat units said it would affect the unit’s effectiveness “very negatively,” and 23.9 said “negatively,” for a total of 66.5 percent negative.

Another 18.8 percent chose “equally as positively as negatively,” while just 2.9 percent chose “very positively,” 3 percent selected “positively,” and 8.7 percent said it would have no effect.

Another question asked how a gay or lesbian soldier would affect a unit’s effectiveness in completing its mission “in an intense combat situation.”

Thirty percent of respondents said “very negatively,” 17.8 said “negatively,” and 28.4 percent chose “equally as positively as negatively.”

Just 3.2 percent said “very positively.”

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, former commander of all U.S. forces in Korea, told Newsmax in a recent interview he is “100 percent against” the change in the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.

“In my view, and the view of every combat officer that I know,” he said, “it is a terrible mistake to change the law.”

[OnTheFritz]

Originally Posted by DAII

I wonder why Jason isn't this adamant about advocating laws for other heart issues ... in a society in order to preserve principles which "remain the bedrock of civil government-that of order, authority, personal and property right (sic),etc"

The works of the flesh are just as sinful, heinous, abominable, putrid to His nostrils and found to be in violation of the Word of God .... and yes, cause disorder in a society ....

Where is the righteous indignation from fire-brands like Jason to protect his family and posterity concerning those who will not cede the civil rights of these workers of the flesh .... Maybe a march on Washington is necessary for those who practice these as well?

fornication
pornogaphy
lust
all forms of lying
gossiping
anger
revilers
those who practice witchcraft
envy
idolatry
hatred
pride
(Galatians 5)

For most apostolics we can include:
drinking
smoking

It's no wonder homosexuality, a sin, like all sins, is the whipping boy of those who in one breathe speak of "limiting the role of big government" while spiritualizing politics with doom and gloom..

it's too easy ... and allows the legalists to thump their chests like Pharisees and spit hate rhetoric OR QUESTION ANY WHO DISAGREE WITH THEIR POSITION OF CIVIL RIGHTEOUSNESS

No one in this thread is advocating any of these sins ... but to say that none of these people have the right to lay down their lives for their country ... is absurd ...

Squawk ... hee-haw, posture, make fallacious appeals to authority and color-code sin all you want ... you don't know any person's heart ... it's complex, hidden, wicked and perverse without Christ ...

the guy showering at the gym or army barrack may be a Oneness Apostolic ... married, with kids but is a closet, struggling "bi-sexual" who may lust over the atheist Wiccan fully dressed passing through ... but so may it be ... I will not legislate over it. I will preach and teach the Word and allow Him to give the increase.

As a Christian ... I can declare his sin is wrong ... as a libertarian I refuse to allow the puritanical or tyrannical to infringe on our civil rights.

Moreover, I find those who bellyache about Sharia law as the reason to infringe on the right for houses of worship to be built to practice their own brand of Sharia law here in our own country ... THEY ARE A REAL DANGER TO OUR BLOOD-BOUGHT FREEDOM AS WELL.

These are the same moral people who war monger and believe we need to spend our tax dollars on more weapons of mass destruction and nuclear proliferation and shrug their shoulders and don't even wince when collateral war damage nukes 120,000 innocents in Nagasaki and Hiroshima or massacres women and children in Vietnam or Iraq or when animal tranquilizers are used to execute another human being in our own country.

Yes, your hypocrisy scares me. And I don't want you to be in positions of influence and power but will not advocate you not having the right to.

You speak of the rule of law ...

as a society we have agreed that those who break the law, i.e. murderers, tax cheats, can be incarcerated and their liberties infringed as a consequence to their actions ... yet as long as homosexuality is not a crime or against the law ... nor is idolatry ... or witchcraft ... I cannot in good conscience ... take away their CIVIL LIBERTY to serve in the military ... or shower in any designated men's or women's only area ... or equal access to our rights as American citizens.

Yet, you'd trample on gays not being allowed to serve while allowing the Wiccan, atheist, fornicator, reviler with appeals to selective authority and tacit, wanton stamps of approval.

Your form of rule of law is demagogic, flippant and counterfeit ... those who consent to it ... the same.

Wrought with San Hedrin AND HOMOPHOBIC thinking. (And I will say it again and again .. and again.)

We will agree to disagree.

I guess I too, like you, will take the moral high road.

GREAT post.

[canam]

Anyone that is in favor of the repeal of DADT, is like someone who is against murder, but favors your right to choose whether to do it or not !

[houston]

Originally Posted by canam

Anyone that is in favor of the repeal of DADT, is like someone who is against murder, but favors your right to choose whether to do it or not !

yeah, I don't see how that... ...fits. more detail, please.

[Jason B]

I am on my mobile right now, which is good for browsing but not for posting. dan your post is completely off base though consistently pompus.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

This doesn't make a lick of sense. When did we start talking about different genders combined in the same bathroom???? Do you not understand the difference between the anatomy of a man and a woman?

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.

Again....what another person's sexual attractions are isn't my business. I'm going to worry about me, not worry about everyone else.

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.

Do you REALLY believe that???? "Now that it has entered the fray..."? It's been around for a long time, it's just now being talked about.

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?



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.

You're talking in circles and not making any useful points. Can you keep your answers to, maybe, a short novel instead of "War & Peace" quantity? I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by DAII

You live in a ficticious theocracy ... this is not a Christian nation or a re-incarnation of Israel.

Be consistent ... please.

EXACTLY!!!! I fear the day this becomes a "Christian government". Can you imagine all the religious crazies in control? There has only been on Christian government in world history....South Africa during Apartheid.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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."

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


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."




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

Again, this is WAY too long for my attention span at the moment, but no matter, it's just a bunch of pointless diatribe. Can you condense your stuff, please?

But.....don't tell me I 'm wrong, when you've jumped into the discussion that started strictly as a government policy dialogue. This isn't about what you believe or teach in your church. This has nothing to do with eternity or sin or anything spiritual. It's about the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy of the U.S. Military. I don't need to hear your pompous theological beliefs. We already know them.

[Jason B]

Before I answer this post, notice that Dan didn't answer any point I made about the word of God and homosexuality, or the consequences it will have in society. Dan you took what I said and made a strawman and knocked it down so you would feel like the liberal hero. You also painted me as an "apostolic legalist", when in fact you know very well that neither label applies to me.

Here is my response:

Originally Posted by DAII

I wonder why Jason

While you wonder why I am so adamant here, I likewise wonder why christians, such as yourself, smith, and others are so adamant about protecting the homosexuals right to OPENLY practice homosexuality LEGALLY.

Originally Posted by DAII

I wonder why Jason isn't this adamant about advocating laws for other heart issues ...

This is why your logic and postition fail, because you start out with a faulty premise you reach a faulty conclusion. While homosexuality is a heart issue, DADT is not. We cannot control the hearts of people, but we don't have to clear the way for them to express all the evil desires of their hearts.
I will touch on this more in a moment.

Originally Posted by DAII

I wonder why Jason isn't this adamant about advocating laws for other heart issues in a society in order to preserve principles which "remain the bedrock of civil government-that of order, authority, personal and property right (sic),etc"

Dan everyone has a basic sense of right and wrong. These things are God given through conscience, see Romans 2:14-15a For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts."

We know that murder is wrong, lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, fornication is wrong, adultery is wrong. We know these things naturally, because God has given us consience. The knowledge of these things has ALWAYS been the bedrock of any society and civil law. Throught history there have been abuses in many societies, the moral standards have fallen in many societies, and all of those societies have something in common, they always crumble. However no society, no matter how ungodly ever completely legalized murder, adultery, stealing, and the such with no penalties. While some have legalized form of murder (religious persecution, genocide, abortion,etc) no society has ever had a whole sale legalization of murder, because it would be the end of that society. In a similar way legalizing homosexuality will eventually destroy our society, I believe it will take many years, I don't even think we'll see it in our life time, but the results will be sure nonetheless, UNLESS there is repentance. One thing is for sure, if we legalize homosexuality through DADT, then homosexual marriage, and the steps that would follow those things in public school, and therefore sucessive generations, morality will continually plummet. You may say, "Yes, but that is the morality of the world, not the church." Well said, but the problem is those such as yourself who are supposed to be the body of Christ, the church, are speaking the loudest IN FAVOR of such freedom for immorality.

Man is depraved and will always eventually fall further and further into sin (see Romans 1), and in many times the last restraint on society is civil law (Romans 13). If there were no civil law, absolutely no earthly punishment for ANY sin there would be total debauchery. What restrains sinful man who doesn't fear God is the punishment by the government.

Why are people in prison DAN? Is not not because they SINNED? You may say they "broke the law", but what law did they break, God's laws, which are the bedrock of human government. They robbed a bank, they broke the law, why because stealing is agianst the law. Why is stealing against the law, because God has put it into conscience of men that it is wrong. Same with murder, same with lying (perjury), etc. etc. etc. People are imprisoned because ultimately, they break the laws that God has ordained, and all of this through natural revelation, not to mention those societies (such as ours) which have special revelation by the Word of God.

This is not my point, Romans 1(mans sin), Romans 2 (conscience),and Romans 13 (civil laws role in restraining depraved man) form the backdrop of my upcoming points.....