Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I've never denied that, my position is that such service should continue under the DADT policy.

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

WHY?????? Why is there a need to set up a secret code for gays in the military??

Your ignoring my point which is To give homosexuals recognized and approved military status is to pave the way for them to further push their agenda. If this were ONLY DADT and it was going to stop there, I could see your point a little bit more. But its not. Sin is never satisfied, and the homosexual activists haven't kept it secret what their goals are-they want open and full acceptance on every level of society, from the military, to the elementary school, to the church, etc. Do YOU really think this is ONLY about the military, and nothing whatsoever will ever come out of it again?

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Good grief, the shower issue hasn't even entered my posts. But I will be the first to say I don't want to shower with a gay person. Not everyone who showers in prison is gay. Believe me, it only takes ONE person who is homosexual for something immoral to happen.

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Well, like I've said before, I don't do public showers. But if I did, I wouldn't mind a gay person being in there. Why should I care? That's his issue, not mine.

Like I said there are some hetero sexuals in jail that can testify that the homosexuals "issue" didn't become theirs.


I'm all for reaching out to all people. Incarcerated, homeless, abused, addicts, and even homosexuals. I'm not afraid of their sin, anymore than when I go to the county jail and preach to rapists, theives, and murderers, and there's probably some homosexuals there.

Just because I don't speak for their right to sin and the government make me approve of it, doesn't mean I don't love them.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I love your zeal for people. Please don't think or accuse me of not loving someone because I don't approve of them having free reign to practice their sin. The more sin is suppressed and considered shameful the better. They already practice homosexuality, its sin and they need repentance, they don't need us to remove the stigma from it.

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

I didn't say you didn't love them, but if you do, act it out, don't just say it. The last 12 Sundays or so, a young man who is gay has sit next to my family at church. It's his first pursuit of God since his teenage years when he was put on the street by his family. You should try it sometime....it just might have an incredible impact on the way you see people like him.

Smith, what makes you think I would do anything different? What do you think I would do, tell Him God hates him and unless he repents this moment he's burning in hell forever?

I'd do much the same, we've had gay people visit our church, though I'm appalled by their lifestyle, I go out of my way (I'm pretty shy in person) to make them feel welcome and shake their hand. They need God, just like I needed (and still do) need God. I'm not against loving the homosexual any more than loving the murderer. I AM against making their sin (and any sin) more convienient, and see their sin as particulary dangerous to society because obviously if everyone was homosexual the human race would die out in a genereation. This is not a debate on the sinner, but on the sin.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Your ignoring my point

Ok, I can't take it anymore. Can you start using, "You're"? Acccckkkkk!!!!

which is To give homosexuals recognized and approved military status is to pave the way for them to further push their agenda.

That is SO ridiculous, paranoid, and the words of a conspiracy theorist. It's about allowing them to serve in the military!!! No "Agenda" is being pushed. It's about allowing all people to serve. Period. What about those who practice bondage and discipline sex? Should we develop a DADT policy for them too? You're stuck and you need a tow truck.

If this were ONLY DADT and it was going to stop there, I could see your point a little bit more. But its not.

YES IT IS!!!!!! Aaaaaacccckkkkkk!!!!!! I'm ready to beat my head against the wall.

Sin is never satisfied,

STOP IT, preacherman, it's NOT ABOUT THAT!!!! It's about equal rights. There is NO MILITARY POLICY restricting the admission of people who practice other sins, just this one!!!!!

and the homosexual activists haven't kept it secret what their goals are-they want open and full acceptance on every level of society, from the military, to the elementary school, to the church, etc. Do YOU really think this is ONLY about the military, and nothing whatsoever will ever come out of it again?

Yes, I do.

Like I said there are some hetero sexuals in jail that can testify that the homosexuals "issue" didn't become theirs.

This is the MILITARY, NOT A PRISON!!!!! THERE IS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO!!!! I'm resorting to yelling now. This is getting goofy.


I'm all for reaching out to all people. Incarcerated, homeless, abused, addicts, and even homosexuals.

"EVEN" homosexuals????? I think you just proved my entire point. Thank you.

I'm not afraid of their sin, anymore than when I go to the county jail and preach to rapists, theives, and murderers, and there's probably some homosexuals there.

Just because I don't speak for their right to sin and the government make me approve of it, doesn't mean I don't love them.

I'm not speaking for anyone's right to sin. Jason, stop saying that I'm doing this and I'm finished talking to you.....for good. That means personally, as well. You need to apologize for saying that I'm "promoting homosexuality." You know that's a lie. Make it right or we're done. I won't have it.


Smith, what makes you think I would do anything different? What do you think I would do, tell Him God hates him and unless he repents this moment he's burning in hell forever?

I'd do much the same, we've had gay people visit our church, though I'm appalled by their lifestyle, I go out of my way (I'm pretty shy in person) to make them feel welcome and shake their hand. They need God, just like I needed (and still do) need God. I'm not against loving the homosexual any more than loving the murderer. I AM against making their sin (and any sin) more convienient, and see their sin as particulary dangerous to society because obviously if everyone was homosexual the human race would die out in a genereation. This is not a debate on the sinner, but on the sin.

You know what....that last insinuation you made is it for me until you make it right. Stop saying I'm promoting sin. I'm sick of you saying that and I don't want to hear it again. Correct those statements or I'm finished.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I am simply giving you scripture. Am I out of context, am I wrong, then show me with scripture. While your doing it show me where homosexuals have "rights" to openly practice their homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

So what would you like for us to do, Jason?? Would you like for the United States to pass a law that all gays must die? Should we exterminate them? If gays do not have a so-called "right" to practice their sin, should we pass laws against the practice and then imprison them if they break the law? Just what are you suggesting with this comment? I don't get it.

Mr. SMith you haven't responded with scripture, or shown where I have taken scripture out of context, so I assume you agree with my scirptural points, but choose to ignore them.

As for "what should we do with the homosexuals" we should discourage that activity as much as possible. If I'm not mistaken it was against the law about 30 years ago. Making a law on sin doesn't annihilate sin (see murder, stealing, perjury, etc) but it does discourage it to some extent. Making a law, or simply legalizing sin ALWAYS leads to an increase of such sin.

What do we do with the homosexuals, we should discourage their sin, keep the social stigma on it. They will continue to do so, but let them continue to do so, the same way cocaine addicts do their cocaine, in secret. Legalizing it, recognizing it, and encouraging it (the govt, not you) only will lead to the increase of it.

Furthermore NO ONE has the right to practice their sin, it is ALL disobedience. However the Bbile does teach the equality of all men. Not the right to practice sin, but that man created in the image of God is to be treated with dignity, man is not to shed mans blood, man is to love his neighbor as himself, etc. The BIBLE IS THE AUTHORITY.

The Declaration of Independance recognizes that GOD (the creator) is the source and authority of mens rights, and that he has given to all men the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Bible is the authority, and defines who has rights and who does not. All homosexuals have basic rights. They are not caged, they are not strved, they are not sold into slavery, they don't have thier own drinking fountain, or bus, or school. They enjoy the same freedoms we all do, EXCEPT to practice their sexual sin with the full support of the state. To say they don't have rights is ridiculous. To say we HAVE TO ACCEPT their sin is arrogant, and infringes on my rights as a God fearing, tax paying citizen. They get the same freedoms, and I no more have to recognize their "right" to be homosexual [and marry] than anyone has to accept my right to murder. They don't have to accept my sin, and I don't have to accept theirs.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

What points have you made? I don't think I've seen you actually make a point, you've just offered your opinions.

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

I've made quite a few and you've answered hardly any of them. This is still a discussion about allowing gays to serve in the military. Nothing more, nothing less, and your attempt to make it otherwise is useless. In the framework of this discussion, that's the only angle I'm going to really discuss.

The only point you've really made is that gays should be allowed to serve in the military. To which I agreed, but under the current (as of last week) policy of DADT. You have made no other point that I am aware of.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No need to feel sad for me. Your feeling sad for me because you think I am steeped in legalism, will never truly love people, and will miss out. I can assure you God is doing amazing things in my life by His grace, and I have been able to reach out to lost and hurting folks more and more, and look forward to greater oppertunties in 2011 to work on the streets, hopefully homeless shelters, and many such venues. You are not rightly discerning between a love for [all] people, and a desire to see the nation hold onto the last little bit of fidelity we have as a culture. I can assure you there is ZERO hate in my heart for homosexuals, God will judge me, knowing the secrets, intents, and thoughts of my heart and mind. However to promote ANY activity which is ungodly is a terrible mistake. Did you miss my points to DA about porn and abortion? You said you didn't read certain posts of mine. I'm not arguing only against homosexuality, I am arguing against LEGALIZING any sin.

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Some of your posts are just too long. Sorry, I can't stick with them. If you publish a book of your opinions, I'll consider buying one. But here? Too long. And again, to repeatedly accuse me of "promoting any activity which is ungodly" is a LIE and you should make that right. I DO NOT appreciate you continually making that misstatement. It's a flat out untruth.

Mr. Smith, allow me to clarify, I am not saying you promote it from the pulpit (or stool). You have said that you believe it is a sin, and so I assume you preach against it as sinful.

I really want to apologize, but how am I to take your position? It SEEMS like a promotion or at least approval of those things. Once again, I'm not saying that you approve of sin, I am just at a failure to reconcile your stance on this issue with those scriptures I've quoted earlier. I do not view you as a promoter of sin. I simply do not understand nor see your point ofg view on this topic as it seems to me to be completely at odds with scripture.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Do YOU really think this is ONLY about the military, and nothing whatsoever will ever come out of it again?

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Yes, I do.

This is the heart of the debate. You think it will lead to nothing, that DADT has ZERO consequences, no chain reaction in the coming years, while I clearly believe it is only another hurdle to clear for full acceptance of homoseuxality culminating in marriage, and the crumbling of America. You appearently don't take the lessons of history to heart.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Mr. SMith you haven't responded with scripture, or shown where I have taken scripture out of context, so I assume you agree with my scirptural points, but choose to ignore them.

As for "what should we do with the homosexuals" we should discourage that activity as much as possible. If I'm not mistaken it was against the law about 30 years ago. Making a law on sin doesn't annihilate sin (see murder, stealing, perjury, etc) but it does discourage it to some extent. Making a law, or simply legalizing sin ALWAYS leads to an increase of such sin.

What do we do with the homosexuals, we should discourage their sin, keep the social stigma on it. They will continue to do so, but let them continue to do so, the same way cocaine addicts do their cocaine, in secret. Legalizing it, recognizing it, and encouraging it (the govt, not you) only will lead to the increase of it.

Furthermore NO ONE has the right to practice their sin, it is ALL disobedience. However the Bbile does teach the equality of all men. Not the right to practice sin, but that man created in the image of God is to be treated with dignity, man is not to shed mans blood, man is to love his neighbor as himself, etc. The BIBLE IS THE AUTHORITY.

The Declaration of Independance recognizes that GOD (the creator) is the source and authority of mens rights, and that he has given to all men the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Bible is the authority, and defines who has rights and who does not. All homosexuals have basic rights. They are not caged, they are not strved, they are not sold into slavery, they don't have thier own drinking fountain, or bus, or school. They enjoy the same freedoms we all do, EXCEPT to practice their sexual sin with the full support of the state. To say they don't have rights is ridiculous. To say we HAVE TO ACCEPT their sin is arrogant, and infringes on my rights as a God fearing, tax paying citizen. They get the same freedoms, and I no more have to recognize their "right" to be homosexual [and marry] than anyone has to accept my right to murder. They don't have to accept my sin, and I don't have to accept theirs.



The only point you've really made is that gays should be allowed to serve in the military. To which I agreed, but under the current (as of last week) policy of DADT. You have made no other point that I am aware of.



Mr. Smith, allow me to clarify, I am not saying you promote it from the pulpit (or stool). You have said that you believe it is a sin, and so I assume you preach against it as sinful.

I really want to apologize, but how am I to take your position? It SEEMS like a promotion or at least approval of those things. Once again, I'm not saying that you approve of sin, I am just at a failure to reconcile your stance on this issue with those scriptures I've quoted earlier. I do not view you as a promoter of sin. I simply do not understand nor see your point ofg view on this topic as it seems to me to be completely at odds with scripture.

So you want to apologize for saying I promote sin, but you're not apologizing. Do I have that right? That's what I'm reading. Until this is cleared up, there's nothing else to discuss.

[DAII]

Jason,

I have read your continued fallacious, zealous appeals and your orgasmic eisegetic frenzy where you have convinced yourself of your bigotry yet do not address fundamental errors in your thinking.

I refuse to get in a tit for tat about "promoting" sin as everyone here has acknowledged homosexuality is a sin like the scores of other sin ... and one of many of the works of the flesh that you continue to color code.

I will address some of your prooftexting of Romans 1, in a bit, as you believe it seems to exclusively be a condemnation of homosexual behavior only or primarily .... while its context in the entire chapter and in chapter 2 deals with all sin from lying to dishonoring parents ... INCLUDING SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS ... from thinking that showing kindness to being circumcised makes us right with a holy God ... culminating with the conclusion HOW WE ALL FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.

In Paul's biblical treatise, not Jefferson's deist one .... he tells us NONE OF US HAVE RIGHTS BEFORE A HOLY GOD AND HIS LAWS ... not a single one ... (an equality indeed) ....other than death under the law of sin ....

our access to Him is through our justification by faith through Christ ... a major theme of his Roman letter.

But I digress ....

Here are some facts that you have failed to address, imo:

1. The authority that we use in a civil context is not the bible. It is the rule of law ... and that little thing we call the Constitution.

(Point of civic interest ... The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land ... as it is written under the rule of British monarchy and a decade and a half before the Constitutional Convention.)

Do not appeal to the rule of law, limiting the power of big gov't ... or speak of strict constructionism if you are not going to recognize its authority in this discussion as well.

Yes, murder, stealing, et al are sins but one goes to jail or is punished for breaking the law of the land ... Just as one does not go to jail for having another God other than Jehovah, practicing witchcraft, looking at adult pornography, adultery, fornication, lying or dishonoring your parents, not sharing, etc ... ALL SINS ALSO

Allowing such things is not a stamp of approval but rather a mutually agreed upon contract between citizens and gov't and a guarantee of protection.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. At this time, employers and unions should be particularly sensitive to potential discrimination or harassment against individuals who are – or are perceived to be – Muslim, Arab, Afghani, Middle Eastern or South Asian (Pakistani, Indian, etc.) ...

Did we as Christians and our gov't legitimize or promote witchcraft, Wicca, Islam, idolatry in the workplace with its passage? *gasp* All stark contrasts to the Word of God and sins before God. No, of course not, it simply protects their right to exercise their faith openly, privately, or both ... simply maintaining their right to disclose their "sinful" behavior without penalty.

Be that as it may, unless you are advocating that homosexuality be a crime as it was decades ago ... you cannot limit a homosexual access to equal rights based on their behavior, habits or lifestyle. This is the very definition of civil rights and liberties.

It is a protection not a license or a decree to flaunt. As it stands the bulk of these behaviors are to practiced out of sight, or privately ... as there are laws about nudity and copulation in public that adulterers, fornicators, and other deviants must follow.

We COLLECTIVELY "allowed" ... or in the true sense "protected" this behavior along with a slew of others like fornication, pornography, etc. civilly decades ago. Thus, I continue to believe your beef is not with a repeal of DADT.

The military in instituting DADT in the 1990's continued to bar equal access to the serve based on their legal lifestyle if they disclosed this in anyway ... and I don't mean flaunting it like a "pinup" girl in an Army barrack ... or the fellas speaking of their sexual trophies from the night before.

... the federal gov't continued in their ban to equal access just as if it had barred Wiccans from serving because of their religion (a lifestyle) but could serve as long as they didn't take out a Wiccan bible or if it had banned fornicators (part of lifestyle) from serving as long as they didn't brag about the night before.

DADT said this:

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)).

[DAII]

2. I understand you make "allowance" for gays serving in the military under DADT primarily under moral and theological grounds rather than pragmatic or practical ones ... which I believe would be your best defense, btw. It would be unfair to characterize this allowance as tacit approval of sodomy ... or is it ... under your proposed litmus test?

However, you also have made the strawman argument that repealing the language of this law is an endorsement of "open homosexuality sponsered by the state". Please point to the specific language in the repeal where our state endorses or sponsors "open" homosexuality, fornication, Wicca or any other legal sin for that matter? I'll be waiting ... anxiously.

Allowing an individual homosexual to disclose his/her orientation if they so desire is the issue... but most importantly it allows them to remain without penalty if they exercise their right to do so ... a guarantee of equal protection under the law. This is not about flaunting or brazen endorsement but rather allowing equal access without excluding for something that is not illegal as agreed upon through our legal process and the democratic ideals you pontificate yet adulterate.

Again, unless you are advocating for it to be a crime as it was decades ago ... or limit their rights to equal protection under the law (the 14th amendment).... all this does is takes away a discriminatory barrier to exercise a right all law-abiding citizens have to serve and in serving .... EVEN IF IT MEANS THE INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES TO DISCLOSE THEIR LEGAL LIFESTYLE.


... A holy kiss for my homophobic brother.

[DAII]

Now to Romans 1 ... and Romans 2 ... and the general theme of the letter ... IN CONTEXT of course ...

[canam]

Ill say it flat out, he is promoting sin and the exceptance of it ,you cant be against something and then promote the acceptance of it and say your against the sin, and you cant disguise it as human rights either, it is what it is,a lifestyle choice that you want to be acceptable ,so they dont have to hide from their superiors, you cant preach against abortion and say your in favor of a womans choice to abort,you are giving your tacit approval to it, if you do.If this is wrong(dadt) then go tell your superiors how you feel, mr smith, like the superintendant, you wont, because you know what will happen.This isnt some lovely debating point in high school pretend classes,this is the real deal, your in favor of gay rights period and then you try to tell us you preach against that which you favor. What a farce!!!

[DAII]

Originally Posted by canam

Ill say it flat out, he is promoting sin and the exceptance of it ,you cant be against something and then promote the acceptance of it and say your against the sin, and you cant disguise it as human rights either, it is what it is,a lifestyle choice that you want to be acceptable ,so they dont have to hide from their superiors, you cant preach against abortion and say your in favor of a womans choice to abort,you are giving your tacit approval to it, if you do.If this is wrong(dadt) then go tell your superiors how you feel, mr smith, like the superintendant, you wont, because you know what will happen.This isnt some lovely debating point in high school pretend classes,this is the real deal, your in favor of gay rights period and then you try to tell us you preach against that which you favor. What a farce!!!

Canam's a closet Wiccan and Islamist ... he believes in freedom of religion and that they should be allowed to disclose their faith.

BTW, Smith is not UPCI ...

What a goofball.