Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Should polygamy laws be deemed unconstitional? Who is gov. to micromanage adult relationships?

It is my opinion that if polygamy and same-sex marriage ever get to the U.S. Supreme Court, and if the Court actually acts upon them without side-stepping and bouncing them back, both will become legal and acceptable.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by DAII

I find the treatment of the beginning of Paul's treatise of our justification by faith through Christ to be distorted and warped by those who take a few verses in isolation as if he is color coding sins in Romans 1 ... or prioritizing. This would be far from his authorial intent.

To prooftext exclusively as it being 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 ... is a violation of the treatise's purpose.

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.

As Paul begins to lay out his argument ... he makes a case for what happens to man when he focuses on self ... and submits to the desires of his lusts and ALL UNGODLINESS.

Among those unrighteous things is homosexuality ... indeed ... but also he is just as adamant against those who love their selves over Him .... Showing how the fruit of carnality all men ... not just homosexuals ... leads to God's wrath ... WHILE OFFERING THE HOPE OF SALVATION FROM THESE THINGS IN CHRIST JESUS.



After including those in humanity (men) who have entered into all forms of licentiousness ... including deviant sexual behavior ... he is sure to include other sins the ungodly engage in ...



That's a long list of ungodly sinning ... dontcha think?

In full context he is making a case, the thesis of his treatise per se, for why ALL MEN are sinners and deserve DEATH, imo.

verse 32 boldly states:

Quote:


Yet ... He does not stop there with the ungodly ... He continues his thought in Chapter 2 .... (never knowing we'd separate his words into chapters) .... declaring that we can judge others for their sins but that we are guilty of THE SAME THING!!!!!!

In Romans 2:1, he projects a spear into the heart of the moral living man ...
Quote:


The ASV says:


Essentially ... Do you think your self-righteousness or morality makes you holier? You're just as guilty, Jason and Daniel, according to Paul ... an equality indeed, my friend.


The fact is God has no favorites !!!!



He then tells the Jews that their circumcision and law obeying still does not make them any better than a Gentile ... see end of Chapter 2.

Then in Chapter 3 more rhetorical questions but finally drives the thought home:

Quote:

Paul answers his own question saying ... with words that reverberate in the consciousness of man

Quote:


He finally proclaims who makes us ... ALL SINNERS ... just before God ...

Quote:


We are made right by JESUS CHRIST.

The wages of sin, DEATH ... but the gift of God ... eternal life.

Dan this proves absolutely NOTHING for your point. In fact I am in agreement with you anylasis of Romans chapters 1-4 (in a nutshell). I am a propenent of justification by faith. I agree that the point of 1:18-3:23 is to prove that the whole world stands guilty before God, whether the immoral pagan (ch.1) the moral (ch.2:1-5), the self-righteous Jew who seeks to be jsutified by the law (remainder of chapter 2) and a wholesale condemnation of all people (chapter 3) which leads into Pauls point on how we can exscape the wrath of God (ref. 1:18) beginning in 3:21.
NEVER at one time did I say homosexuality was the "only" or primary sin of Romans 1. Never did I "ignore" chapter 2, I simply didn't feel like it factors into the discussion. Never did I say that homosexuality is an unforgivible sin (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11-such were some of YOU-Corinthians).

So what is your point with Romans, or more specifically how do you think I took it out of context?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Jason the problem is with applying this to DADT, which is a governmental policy decision.

For same sex marriage to be legal it will require affirmation by a majority of the citizens of the state which recognizes it.

Big difference policy vs legislation.

And if the majority of citizens approve, then what can you say except God Bless the Republic.

It still won't affect what I preach.

James the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES says that this repeal of DADTwill "inevitibly" lead to homosexual marriage. THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Read the article, watch the interview.

[sandie]

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.

Or having to parse words.

I still wonder what ministers would do if faced with having to marry a homosexual couple or face the law?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Race is alot different then perverted lifestyle.

Some here do not understand that point.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by sandie

Or having to parse words.

I still wonder what ministers would do if faced with having to marry a homosexual couple or face the law?

depends on how they view "choice."

Some Christians support abortion because it is a "choice" by a woman and they would be able to perform a wedding for a same sex couple because it is a "choice" of the two people involved.

Both abortion and same-sex marriage are legal
If a couple comes to you with a legal document (marriage license) and asks you to perform the ceremony and sign the license, what choice do you have? Doesn't the same principle apply if they are different races or different religions?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

James the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES says that this repeal of DADTwill "inevitibly" lead to homosexual marriage. THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Read the article, watch the interview.

I never knew Joe Biden was numbered among the prophets.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Sam

depends on how they view "choice."

Some Christians support abortion because it is a "choice" by a woman and they would be able to perform a wedding for a same sex couple because it is a "choice" of the two people involved.

Both abortion and same-sex marriage are legal
If a couple comes to you with a legal document (marriage license) and asks you to perform the ceremony and sign the license, what choice do you have? Doesn't the same principle apply if they are different races or different religions?

The law doesn't require a minister to perform an abortion. So, I don't see how that compares.
So, I guess just those who "choose" a certain lifestyle have the choices....but, the minister would have no "choice".

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Sam

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.

I'll tell ya, his Romans post should be preached at every church in America. Great stuff! His causticity is for a purpose....it makes people pay attention. The people that are not here to learn and want no part of effective change will tune him out. No loss. But those who have an open heart will notice him because of this methods and learn something. I love his heart for grace.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by *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?

I don't think the military did, I think politicians changed it for them. I don't think it was a military consensus.