Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Azzan

For the record, I can safely say that I would never take Mr Smith's presence at a homosexual wedding as approval of the participant's lifestyle.

But can you understand why some people would see it that way?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Azzan

Yep, we all chose to be gay. If only it were that simple.

I think you explained your position pretty well. I also think others have explained their position pretty well too. In the end, I think you're all going to have to agree to disagree.

For the record, I can safely say that I would never take Mr Smith's presence at a homosexual wedding as approval of the participant's lifestyle.

For the record, I don't think anyone on this forum on either side of the issue would expect you to have any other opinion.

His presence and presents would speak clearly enough. No words or "approval" needed.

[Azzan]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

But can you understand why some people would see it that way?

Yes, I can, I did say that.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

With calmness, level-head, rhetoric toned down for a minute.....

You honestly don't see how people could see it that way? You said yourself that it was a tough decision for you, that you had to think about it quite a bit, you knew it was controversial. So does it honestly, sincerely surprise you that others don't just jump on the 'oh, yeah, that's great!' bandwagon? Seriously? That other people could have thought about it just as sincerely and come to a different conclusion than you did? That they could feel that attending the ceremony would indicate approval of what was going on?

This is an extremely controversial topic. Everyone seems to be in agreement that homosexuality is a sin, but how we deal with all of the issues involved, the people involved.... all of that is extremely controversial. Which means it's going to stir up controversy. Which means that people are going to think your decision was very wrong, and you're going to think that them thinking that is very wrong.

So can you sincerely say that you don't understand why they think your decision could look like approval? (even if you disagree?)

I can readily understand disagreement. I can also readily understand how many could be uncomfortable taking that position. I cannot understand how it can be attacked as reprobate and promoting the lifestyle. Especially since the original premise was support of repeal of DADT a POLICY decision made by a governmental organization

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

I can readily understand disagreement. I can also readily understand how many could be uncomfortable taking that position. I cannot understand how it can be attacked as reprobate and promoting the lifestyle.

You don't see how some people could feel very strongly about it - feel that attending the wedding is paramount to promoting the lifestyle? Even if you don't agree that it is?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

I can readily understand disagreement. I can also readily understand how many could be uncomfortable taking that position. I cannot understand how it can be attacked as reprobate and promoting the lifestyle. Especially since the original premise was support of repeal of DADT a POLICY decision made by a governmental organization

One being "reprobate" for attending? Nahh, I think not.

But "promoting" perhaps so. It does give a sense of legitimacy to the event it'self and as others pointed out before, attendees are considered celebrants of the event.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

But can you understand why some people would see it that way?

On the other hand did not some church folk call Jesus carnal because He consorted with sinners?

[Tim Rutledge]

Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

(Just thought I'd throw this in). I will never try to be nice or sympathetic towards the disgusting perverse lifestyle of homosexuality.

in 2-20 years "real" Christians will be being incarcerated for preaching against the sodomites.

[Azzan]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

For the record, I don't think anyone on this forum on either side of the issue would expect you to have any other opinion.

His presence and presents would speak clearly enough. No words or "approval" needed.

Fair enough. This isn't the first time you've questioned my words, motives or position. All I can do is say is what I think, (and I have a unique perspective that many here don't have), and leave it at that.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

On the other hand did not some church folk call Jesus carnal because He consorted with sinners?

Yes, they did.

Unfortunately, we don't know where he drew the lines. So that still leaves us discussing issues like these - trying to figure out for ourselves what He would do. And sometimes we strongly disagree.