Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Here's something that will be helpful to those interested. You can watch it, listen to it, or read it if you desire to. Some of you NEEED to.
[some tidbits]

There is so much confusion on this outside the church that’s explicable. But there seems to be about equal confusion inside the church. In fact, there is a new kind of evangelicalism that labels itself, “tolerant, loving, non-judgmental,” that is affirming those who carry about and legitimize these kind of lusts and behaviors and they do so while maintaining the name of Jesus Christ in an affirmation that they themselves are Christians.............


The evangelical church must stick with a biblical definition of sin and confront the sinner with every sin, whether conventionally popular or not. And there is a massive movement to appease the guilt of homosexual behavior, and it is a fierce guilt that needs relentless appeasement. There is a massive movement to somehow free these people from their behavior that is a result of unchecked lust and to make them feel okay about what they do.....


The best statistics that I could find indicate that somewhere between one and two percent of the population in our country would classify themselves as engaging in homosexual sex acts. But this very small portion of our population is commanding the attention of the 98 to 99 percent of the rest of us. They’re endeavoring to make us accept the fact that this is some kind of normal behavior. Not only that, they deserve special treatment because they’ve been so abused in the past. Their agenda is simple, they just want to desensitize us to the sinful character of this. They want to desensitize us. They don’t need us to become advocates, they just need us not to care, to roll over, if you will, to acknowledge them as just another minority who should enjoy same human rights that others enjoy. But this is not a race of people............


No matter how you try to glamorize it and make it look normal, and make it look nice and all of that, let me give you some statistics. Eighty percent of people engaged in homosexual acts say half their partners are total strangers, one out of two. How many partners do they have? The latest statistics that I can find indicate that the average homosexual has had more than 500 sexual partners...500. By their own admission, 50 percent of them, total strangers. Thirty percent have had a thousand partners. Some as many as 1600. The latest that I could find out on the average, the average has 300 a year, almost one different person a day. They are one to two percent of the population, but 50 percent of the people with AIDS. One in twenty of these people is a child molester, for the normal population it’s about one in 500. They are one thousand times more likely to get AIDS, one hundred times more likely to be murdered. Eighty percent of them have sexually transmitted diseases. The average death of our population is now 75. The average American dies at 75, the average person engaged in homosexual life dies at 39

source: Sermon by John MacArthur
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons...=homosexuality

BUMP

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by DAII

I'm so glad we can agree theologically with so much regularity .. it must only mean you are struggling with your grace theology ... and still working on understanding your civic mindedness in regards to the Constitution and the notion of equal protection of the law ....

I guess all this is NOVEL to you ... so I will give you some time, padawan ... .

There are many who share my doctrinal stance who absolutely do not agree with yours, smiths, and others views on homosexuality in society. John MacArthur, whom I quoted for your sakes, is amongst them.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

There are many who share my doctrinal stance who absolutely do not agree with yours, smiths, and others views on homosexuality in society. John MacArthur, whom I quoted for your sakes, is amongst them.

I've added more to my last remark.

Good for John ... he and John Calvin, me, you, the man who lusts in his heart and the person struggling with sexual immorality will need Christ's righteousness to make it to glory and to stand righteously before God ....

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Coming from the home of a father who only attended two of four of his daughters' marriages, I can tell you that I share his strong view on whether one should support a marriage and how that support is shown.

To your question directly: I don't know. I wouldn't recommend a large, celebratory wedding to begin with. I think it's inappropriate when the precursors are...less than respectable. I love my children unconditionally, but I don't confuse unconditional love with unconditional support and approval. In all fairness, my children aren't grown, so you really need to ask again in twenty years. I'm aware that we all have soft spots for our kids, but I haven't had any problem expressing disapproval so far, without making them feel that I hate them when they displease me. (Albeit, in small matters.) There are practical things to consider, such as not alienating my son by too strong a reaction, which might affect my decision.

Would you? Attend the wedding of your child if they were behaving badly and throwing propriety to the wind? Would you pay for it? Would you advise discretion instead? What do you envision?

To put my opinion in perspective, I would feel more comfortable having a homosexual couple to dinner than I would attending their wedding. To take vows *before God* to form a union that is a perversion of God's original plan is sacrilegious. I couldn't in good conscience offer any support.

You seem to be backing off....for which I'm happy.

The unconditional love you would feel for your children would be the identical kind of unconditional love I would show to friends. I am at a loss as to how attending a gay person's wedding would be approval of their lifestyle.

If it makes you feel better, the wedding was very awkward for me and I struggled profusely with it. But never in my life have I felt more like Christ than when I stood there that day. I know that will freak some of you out, but I have never felt like I was standing in Christ's stead than in those moments.

And don't worry....when Christians found out I had attended, they freely expressed their opinions to me and about me.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Coming from the home of a father who only attended two of four of his daughters' marriages, I can tell you that I share his strong view on whether one should support a marriage and how that support is shown.

To your question directly: I don't know. I wouldn't recommend a large, celebratory wedding to begin with. I think it's inappropriate when the precursors are...less than respectable. I love my children unconditionally, but I don't confuse unconditional love with unconditional support and approval. In all fairness, my children aren't grown, so you really need to ask again in twenty years. I'm aware that we all have soft spots for our kids, but I haven't had any problem expressing disapproval so far, without making them feel that I hate them when they displease me. (Albeit, in small matters.) There are practical things to consider, such as not alienating my son by too strong a reaction, which might affect my decision.

Would you? Attend the wedding of your child if they were behaving badly and throwing propriety to the wind? Would you pay for it? Would you advise discretion instead? What do you envision?

To put my opinion in perspective, I would feel more comfortable having a homosexual couple to dinner than I would attending their wedding. To take vows *before God* to form a union that is a perversion of God's original plan is sacrilegious. I couldn't in good conscience offer any support.

Thank you for your candidness ... and I think the right decision would be to attend .... and this would not be in support of your child's poor decision but rather seeing the bigger picture.

True love has been expressed in your post.

[canam]

And so if the minister asks the audience does anyone know why this marriage shouldnt happen?what does Smith say? or maybe that doesnt happen anymore either,because were all enlightned on this now, God forbid we should offend anyone,the obama mantra.Lets all just apologize !

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by canam

And so if the minister asks the audience does anyone know why this marriage shouldnt happen?what does Smith say? or maybe that doesnt happen anymore either,because were all enlightned on this now, God forbid we should offend anyone,the obama mantra.Lets all just apologize !

Yes, it's all Obama's fault!

I exclude that line from the weddings I perform. It's pointless.

[DAII]

The mind of Jason:

I'm not arguing only against homosexuality, I am arguing against LEGALIZING any sin.

Yet he will not advocate against the freedom religion ... or laws seeking to illegalize hatred, greed, avarice, haughtiness, or even hate crimes.

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.

Jason has never experienced or heard of free will. Scary.

Most importantly ... having a law for homosexuality or any sin for that matter ... as he is for not legalizing any of them ... INCREASES SIN ... BUT SO DOES HAVING A LAW DEFINING IT AND DECLARING IT WRONG.

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.

See the Prohibition of the 1920's, jefe. Illegalizing can often have the same effect. And Jesus who said lusting or coveting in our hearts is just as bad.

I agree that the law increases transgression. I agree with Paul that the law defines sin and brings wrath. That is the very PURPOSE of the Law. The LAW was never intended to SAVE by having someone keep it. It was given so that the trespass might INCREASE.

The more someone seeks to be right through keeping the law the more they sin (knowledge of the law reveals sin), they understand they can NEVER make it that way, and the LAw, which increases our knowedge of our own transgression and sinfulness causes us to cry out to God for grace, because we cannot save or justify ourselves. In this WAY[the law revealing sin] the law is our school master to bring us to Christ.

Jason ... FIND A PLACE CALLED CONSISTENCY. And then FIND GRACE.

Yes, I've read your asinine posts.

That's just the tip of the iceberg ... I'd hate to talk about the Constitution and the 14th amendment with him, again. He doesn't recognize their authority.

[Jason B]

I'm in agreement with Abigail, I would invite them to my house for dinner, but would never attend a'wedding'. Guys this is a good discussion, and its not that I mind taking the conservative (and correct) stance, but I've spent way too much time here tonight, I need to do something more productive. Carry on if you wish I'll catch up tomorrow evening if need be.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

So....if I love someone and they're dear to me, I should boycott their wedding just to show my disapproval? Why? What does that accomplish? Is it really THAT important that everyone know where you stand? I know it tweaks anyone here to be called a "Pharisee", but I'm sorry, these sound just like the words hurled at Jesus when he hung out with people of which religion didn't approve.

Boycott? It isn't a political statement, MS. It's a statement of conscience. A marriage ceremony isn't just a celebration; it's a covenant. Those who attend are supporting that covenant, IMO. I can't do that, in good conscience. That doesn't mean I hate anyone or that I'm Pharisaical or that I look for opportunities to hurt feelings; it just means I have lines that I don't feel comfortable crossing and this would be one of them.

Apparently for you, the line was performing the ceremony. Why did you draw that line? Because participating in the actual ceremony was beyond your comfort level? Attending the ceremony is beyond my comfort level. Drawing the line in a different place doesn't make me better or worse than you; so why do you seem to think that anyone who draws the line differently than you is somehow a Pharisee or doesn't practice unconditional love? Surely practicing unconditional love requires you to be unequivocal regarding whose marriage ceremonies you perform? Why would you pick and choose? Perform all ceremonies unilaterally, without prior thought or discernment, or worse yet--judgment.

It isn't about *hanging out* with people; it's about supporting a specific action that is intended to commit a couple to a life of sin (and destruction). How can anyone be supportive of that?

By the way, from a political standpoint (as I think you know), I don't oppose the rights of a homosexual to have a ceremony or to create some sort of committed union. I also think that DADT should have remained in place for the protection of homosexuals in the military, and I don't particularly care about the sexual predilection of people who join the armed forces, so long as it doesn't include criminal acts.

I do retain my right, however, to not attend a homosexual wedding. Or give celebratory gifts. Or offer any show of support for their choice whatsoever. And I refuse to agree with you or anyone else that exercising that right to withhold approval makes me unkind, impolite, un-American or un-Christlike.

I'm not addressing every post on this thread; I'm just discussing my comfort level in regard to attending a wedding ceremony.

By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with THESE remarks:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

I know there are some of you that see gays as this militant, hateful, angry, aggressive group of people working in a manipulative way to force their ideals on others. NOTHING could be further from the truth.

I've been in "Community" with many gay people and I have only met, 100%, people who simply desire to live a quite life and be "Normal." I'm sure that are some "crazies" in the group, as there are in every group.

And for those who think that gays are proud, cocky, in-your-face, and arrogantly embracing of their lifestyle, I have never met a gay person who has not frequently considered suicide, and I have never had a friendship with a gay person who has not attempted it at least once.

Bottom line? Gay people need Jesus. And when I say that, I'm not saying, "They need Jesus for their homosexuality", I'm saying, "They need Jesus for their lives, their souls, their emotions, their pasts and their futures." They need Jesus just like everyone else does.

For us, as Christians, to single them out and seek to deprive ONLY them of their American civil rights is to take a bigoted, exclusionary position...and it's not right.

If we are going to seek to segregate out of normal society, people who are gay, then we must ALSO segregate out of normal society every other person who does not measure up to our guidelines....in other words, anyone who is committing actions that we consider "Sin", must be quarantined out of the military, The Church, The sanctity of marriage, etc....we must loudly proclaim their "error" just as much as we proclaim the gay person's "error". If we don't, we're bigoted. I'm not sure how it can be viewed any other way.

And if you're afraid to take a public shower when a gay person is present? Well, you have problems of a serious nature and need some counseling.