A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
Welcome Michael Yon fans!!
President Barack Obama has directed the Pentagon to replace the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with one that will allow openly gay men and women to serve in the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, will present details of the plan to U.S. lawmakers next Tuesday.
According to sources inside the Pentagon, changes to be implemented include adding choreography to marching regimens, equipping all dorms with double-wide bunks, new fitted uniforms in seasonal color palettes, the installation of hot tubs, and more.
In a potentially controversial move, the Pentagon will announce the formation of a new all-gay, all male company named the “Fighting 69th Sodomites.” Sources credit the creation of the 69th to House member Barney Frank, who has reportedly been working “very, very closely” with gay Pentagon officials.
MOTTO: NEVER LEAVE YOUR BUDDY’S BEHIND!
(42) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
to Anonn, thank you. i thought so. i just want a clear picture of his
Military Dating Scams (More Nigerian Scammers)
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Anatomy of a Military Dating Scam
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
[UPDATE] The "Face" of Military Dating Scams - The Wall of Shame
New Scam to be aware of……….I am 2LT. Anderson Darrell Clinton , an off
Pingback: Tweets that mention Details Of Obama Openly Gay Military Released | A Soldier's Perspective -- Topsy.com
Raven
Shouldn’t that say Barney Frank was working “Vewwwy vewwwy cwosely)?
Joking aside, there’s an excellent book about the true Fighting 69th–Guard unit out of NYC who had a very rough AO near BIAP if my memory serves. Sean Micheal Flynn–a former company XO in the 69th regiment wrote it.
Lance Hemmert
Do Sodomites include all the Hetersexual men and women that participate in anal sex? What freaks me out about people like you, CJ, is that you’d sooner keep an incompetent Heterosexual soldier that is endlessly vulgar than keep a competent Homosexual soldier who is professional. I really don’t understand the mentality of folks who would openly discriminate against fellow American citizens who pay taxes, want to serve our country, and value our freedoms as much as the next person. People should be judged on ability. Period.
CJ
Lance, I would include anyone hetero or otherwise – it’s the definition of sodomy. But, I’m a little taken aback at your description of me. I thought you knew me better than that.
I don’t want an incompetent heterosexual Soldier any more than an incompetent homosexual Soldier. Incompetence does not get a pass with me.
The problem with allowing homosexuals into the military is that it puts us in a position to have to choose what is acceptable sexual behavior and what is not. Why is homosexual behavior accepted and tolerated, but polygamy not? Why isn’t incest accepted? Why isn’t beastiality? At what point do we decide what deviant behavior we can accept and what we won’t?
There is nothing natural about homosexuality. If it were, gay men could have children. Gay women would be able to inseminate each other. Just because people have those feelings for the same sex doesn’t make it any more acceptable or natural. I have a lot of feelings that I’d like to act upon, but they are wrong so I don’t.
I have nothing against homosexuals themselves, it’s their actions that I oppose. Am I zealot? Maybe, I don’t care. I have strong beliefs against homosexuality and if that “offends” anyone, that is their choice.
Justin
CJ,
This “slippery-slope” argument is meaningless unless you can show how allowing gay heroes to serve openly NECESSARILY leads to the military condoning incest, bestiality, etc.
You’ve also got to be able to convince me that a qualified Soldier who engages in incest or bestiality is somehow unfit (what’s your fundamental criteria? Competence, or your own hang-ups and heebie-jeebies?)
You say below that your entitled to your opinion. While this is true, once you put your opinion in print, you’d better defend it better than with slippery-slope scare tactics and chain-email quality blog posts.
DADT will be gone soon, and posts like this will soon land you on the carpet defending yourself against multiple EO complaints.
-Justin
Lance Hemmert
Why in the world would you compare homosexual behavior to bestiality? That’s so fucked up, CJ. Would you compare sex between two 60 year-olds as fucked up and unnatural? What about sex between a 70 year-old man and a 30 year-old woman? YOU legislating morality from your Mormon perspective is as about as moral as a Shariah-compliant Muslims telling me a woman can never be alone in public, lest she suffer lashes and prison for her offense.
It doesn’t make any sense. It’s not Constitutional to discriminate againt a tax paying American based off their adult behavior. If two thinking adults want to love one another, not hurt other people, and live and protect our freedoms then what, exactly, is your problem? Why can’t either one of them live and serve within our military as openly homosexual Americans? What? You think homosexuals want to have sex with you or something? Homosexuals are like anyone else. If they find you unattractive they ain’t gonna wanna get it on with you. In fact, they’ll find you repulsive, just like we find others repulsive.
Again. Women have to deal with mens’ sexual behavior on a daily basis, but that doesn’t prevent men from serving in the Armed Forces. So why should secure men like you and me care if a homosexual is serving? I don’t. Why DO YOU? If it ain’t a religious issue with you CJ, then I have to wonder what it is… Because you ain’t making it clear.
CJ
Lance, how about reading something I say for once instead of ignorantly flying off the handle. I’m not comparing homos to bestiality. I’m saying, who has the right to decide what sexual behavior is acceptable and what isn’t? Is it you? Is it the gays? I can share my Mormon perspective with justification as much as you can share your godless perspective. You’re right – it’s unconstitutional to discriminate against people based on their adult behavior. So, if a person wants to screw their cousins, their goat, or multiple wives, why shouldn’t they be allowed to? Or are only gays supposed to be a protected deviant class?
It’s a moral issue with me. Even BEFORE I was a Christian I felt that way, so don’t patronize me with your unholier than thou diatribe. My opinion comes from societal, personal, moral, scientific, religious, and personal experiences and beliefs. There is no “smoking gun” to my opinion.
For the record, I’m uber sexy to all homosexuals and they fantasize about me! What a stupid argument, Lance.
Lee
There is nothing natural about a blowjob either. Have you ever had one? If so, shouldn’t you turn yourself in? There’s a video on the internet of a monkey screwing a FROG to death (google it!). And since when did “that’s not natural” become a fingerpost for judging all human action?
I’m not attracted to other men. I’m also not attracted to fat chicks, but I know a lot of good men who apparently are. Whatever.
Funny pic, but as a soldier in a leadership position, shouldn’t you adjust your attitude?
CJ
No, I shouldn’t. My values, morals, and beliefs shape my leadership. Not the other way around. I won’t sacrifice them to make people feel good about screwing frogs or others of the same sex.
Lee
I think you miss my point entirely, which point was 1) there is all sorts of funky activity going on in nature to parallel the “unnatural” behavior you judge wrong because it is, as you say, unnatural; 2) why is that a standard anyway?; 3) commanders’ intent, clearly, is that force integrates openly homosexual members into teams. My suggestion is that you commit yourself to building teams that respect homosexuals, and that you start leading by example.
I absolutely believe that you are entitled to your opinion, your morals, and your beliefs. But I do not believe that you love the sinner and hate the sin. You sure mock the sinners. You show the sinners no respect.
If you believe in God then you must believe He is the perfect Drill Instructor, and He is going to teach you a lesson now one way or the other. Is the lesson to stand up against sodomy? Or might the lesson be that you have gotten too big for your britches in the judgment department, and should humble yourself? I have noticed that Jesus spent a lot more of His time fighting the self-righteous and comforting the lowliest sinner than He spent mocking buttsex. Can’t you do better?
JB
“There is nothing natural about homosexuality. If it were, gay men could have children. Gay women would be able to inseminate each other”
Makes absolutely no sense, if that is so true how come some heterosexual couples can’t even have children. What isn’t natural is your lame bigot attitude.
CJ
JB, what YOU just wrote makes no sense. NOT ONE homosexual can do those things. Because of certain genetics, cancers, and other biological issues SOME heterosexual couples can’t have children. Calling me a bigot sure is a bigoted thing to do! Now, please educate us about why homosexual is natural.
TychaBrahe
Homosexual pair bonds have been documented in chimpanzees, seagulls, penguins, giraffes, swans, sheep, elephants, bison, dolphins, bonobos, etc., about 1500 species, including 500 that are considered well documented. And I’m not talking about a pair of confused seagulls. I’m talking about 8% of rams (which compares to 10% of humans that self-identify as homosexual). I’m talking about bonobos, who routinely engage in what is called genital-genital rubbing among females. The very definition of “natural” is “found in nature.” How can it possibly unnatural?
Anyway, you might as well say that senior citizens’ falling in love is unnatural. After all, they are not able to procreate, either.
CJ
Chimpanzees throw their poop. Seagulls vomit food into their children’s mouths. Bonobos also have sex with siblings and other family members. Giraffes are polygamous. I could go on with this non-sense of comparing the fact that there are homosexuals in the animal doesn’t mean it’s natural. That’s an absurd argument. Your senior citizen argument is equally absurd considering you’re using the animal planet to support homosexuality and those animals can’t procreate later in life either!
CJ
Me thinking it’s wrong is no different any anyone else thinking it’s right. I’m entitled to my opinion, just as you are.
CJ
Justin, I’ve never said one leads to another. Ever! I’m saying that if we are going to condone one type of deviant behavior, we can’t discriminate against others. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Justin
I’m trying to understand what you mean then when you say: “At what point do we decide what deviant behavior we can accept and what we won’t?”
Are you not talking about a chain of consideration? We allow gay heroes to be open with their identity, so we are then forced to consider what other “deviant” behavior the military will allow.
The greatest fallacy of your train of thought, is that the military ALREADY HAS decided what is acceptable behavior and what isn’t by imposing the DADT ban. This doesn’t open the can of words you are referring to when you say – your words – “The problem with allowing homosexuals into the military is that it puts us in a position to have to choose what is acceptable sexual behavior and what is not.”
CJ
No, the military has NOT decided anything. It’s still very much a debatable issue. If it had already decided, then it wouldn’t be a policy now, would it?
“We allow gay heroes to be open with their identity.” You’re dead wrong. gays are NOT allowed to be open or they are kicked out under the SAM (statement, act, marriage) rules.
It does open a can of worms. If I want to enter a polygamous or incestuous marriage, is the military going to let me? Why is homosexuality ok, but those are not? Who decides what is acceptable and what is not? If you say society, then maybe polygamists need to just lobby more?
Justin
Pardon my punctuation. The bit you quoted was meant as a follow up question. I’m aware of SAM criteria.
But I’m still unclear why consideration of DADT repeal necessarily opens the debate for other activities you find disagreeable.
And I’m still waiting for a better justification for your objection to THOSE activities beyond “I’m entitled to my own personal opinion.”
I can assist you in that arena. Those activities are prohibited by the law of the land. But this justification won’t work in support of your position. Sodomy laws were struck down in the ninth circuit and certain intimate contact is now a protected liberty.
As long as laws against incest and polygamy exist on the books, your can of worms will remain sealed. But as you say, it may just be a matter of lobbying and protest before all that changes too.
The thing working against you the hardest is the trend in American history of expanding liberties and rights to more and more people and classes. So good luck in this fight. My prediction is that you will lose.
CJ
DADT deals with unnatural sexual instincts and proclivities. As a matter of fact, homosexual conduct or more unnatural than incest or polygamy. So, since homosexual conduct is unnatural, who’s to say that other unnatural or unacceptable forms of sexual behavior aren’t recognized?
Your assumption is just plain wrong by claiming it’s against the law of the land. Apparently, gays in the military is against hte law of the land. In most states, gays are prohibited by law from marrying, just like the activities I discussed. however, the gay activists are slowly succeeding in convincing society that it should be an acceptable norm. So, do polygamists, incestors or beastealists just need to do the same and convince society that there is nothing wrong with their (currently) unacceptable behavior to be okay the way gays have?
There are laws against homosexuality and sodomy so your can of worms should remain sealed as well! Gays have no more or less rights than straights do.
However, your prediction may well be true, but that won’t force me to change my mind to accept homosexual conduct. You can’t force me or anyone to feel otherwise! Otherwise, I lose the same rights to thinking that you are fighting for right now.
Pingback: DADT Gives Cover to Hate, Undermines Unity – Military Blogger C.J. Grisham Demonstrates « The Soldier-Citizen-Sapien Project
Old_Grunt
A majority of society would agree with what C.J. is saying and when/where do we draw the line on what is or is not appropriate behavior. Many in society would agree that being gay is not normal but those same people would also say they have no issue with gays as long as they don’t push their sexuality on others. Where do we draw the line Justin and Lance? If we allow this serious push for gays then do we do as C.J. has stated and allow those who wish to have sex with a family member, aka incest, or bestiality, to push as hard to change the laws? Do we allow other “deviant” sexual acts to become part of the “norm” in society? What people do behind the proverbial closed door is of no concern of mine until it comes into the public domain. Then it becomes as much my issue as it does anyone else’s. FYI I have a very good friend whom I shared an apartment with who is gay and my niece is also Bi-Sexual so no I am not bashing anyone who may be gay. So Justin and Lance where do we draw the line? (please provide logical reasoning for your argument)
lance.hemmert
http://www.youtube.com/user/hitchensblairdebate#p/u/7/PoKlXqDIR_A
Start at 4:50 or 8:40.
CJ,
C’mon, man. You can’t be openly bigoted in our society, IF, the people you serve support OUR CONSTITUTION. That’s the bar. That’s the criteria. You’re so close to being right on so many issues… Don’t let your religious inclinations color your oath to uphold and defend our founding document. You’re *right there*…
CJ
Again, Lance, you have failed to indicate where in the Constitution I am wrong?
Old_Grunt
Lance please explain how he is being bigoted? It is his BELIEFS that have him and many others thinking this way. I myself feel much the same way as C.J. so am I also bigoted for believing what I do? Have you ever told an off color joke Lance? Ever referred to someone by a name that would be considered racist? Even in your own mind if you have thought such things (and if you haven’t I’ll call you a liar right now) you would also be a bigot and racist. Our beliefs make us who we are and for some that is a more vocal bigot/racist then anything C.J. has stated in this or any other post. It is his form of satirical humor and while some folks (like yourself) do not find it amusing other (even some homosexuals I’d wager) do find it rather amusing. If C.J. is a bigot for stating his beliefs then you better include yourself and a whole lot of others (yes it would include me too) in that list. People who are famous and infamous would fall into the list of being a bigot. BTW C.J. can be openly bigoted as long as his feelings on the subject do not affect his job duties and I do believe that C.J. is enough of a soldier that he would not allow that to happen. I’d even go so far as to bet that C.J. would promote/award a soldier who was homosexual ahead of a heterosexual soldier provided that soldier did his/her job to the best of their ability. He’s a soldier FIRST so I have no worries about his feelings on any subject interfering with his duties.
lance.hemmert
http://www.truth-out.org/files/BennettCartoon12-3.png
CJ
Just by looking at the URL, I could tell this was going to be an ignorant cartoon to begin with. After looking at the cartoon, it confirmed my suspicions. So, you’re saying every Soldier opposed to homosexuality is a dirtbag and every gay is a model killer? What a crock! Talk about bigotry.
Arthur
I agree and disagree. I believe homos should be allowed in the military but should be segregated from the hetero troops especially in the showers and toilet facilities in general. If they want to declare themselves that’s fine. Put them on the front lines. The homo population should be thinned anyhow. You forgot a couple of homo battle cries – We’ll lick any enemy and we’ll blow them – away. Seriously, I believe everybody has a right to live the way they choose. I just don’t want anybody eyeballing me in the shower. Jim Cat
Kiri
First of all, that emblem made me laugh, whether you’re being serious or not.
and second, isn’t it more the insecurity of the non-homo that causes the problems in most cases. Lesbians don’t bother me at all and I’m a woman. In fact, I never would have known my friend was lesbian if she hadn’t told me to make sure I would get freaked out when I did find out. She didn’t come onto me or anything. Just because homos like their own sex doesn’t mean they’re going to be attracted to EVERYONE, especially if they know the person in question isn’t like that. I don’t get attracted to every guy I see and I’m VERY heterosexual.
CJ
Kiri, I thought it was funny too. We all need a little humor. Second, I disagree. I think it’s equally the fault of gays and straights. Straights aren’t the problem or reason why gays aren’t accepted. Gays are. However, the politically correct will only point out the hetero actions and ignore the gay ones that caused any given issue. Gays aren’t perfect, angelic beings just trying to make their way. With that said, there are some gays that don’t make any issue with their sexual preferences. It’s the rest that give them a bad name.
Kiri
“Straights aren’t the problem or reason why gays aren’t accepted. Gays are.”
Okaaay… Care to elaborate?
And you’re right, I’m not suggesting there aren’t any dirtball stupid gays and that all the jerks are hetero, I’m just saying most of them are smart enough to know they’re lonely snowballs in their own hell called the military, and likely not to stick their necks out too far.
annlouise
“most of them are smart enough to know they’re lonely snowballs in their own hell called the military, and likely not to stick their necks out too far.”
this part has always puzzled me. when a person KNOWS that some part of them makes them eligible for discharge, aren’t they deceitful from the beginning? crying the blues for themselves when they put themselves in that situation when the rules were clear before they enlisted?
Cory Kline
I agree with many on this thread that the DADT policy WAS WORKING by allowing gays to serve and keeping heteros in their comfort zone. Why wasn’t that good enough? Is it all about civil liberties? What if I want to serve my country and not serve with openly gay Soldiers? Is serving In the military a right, privilege, or duty?
JFindley
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, including regarding homosexuality. But the issue is more when it is appropriate for them to impose their opinion on others. Bestiality and incest differ from homosexuality in very distinct ways that justify imposition of ones opinion onto others in the case of bestiality and incest. Consent and abuse are the defining differences. Animals cannot consent. Incest is designed in significant part to prevent abuse of children, but also to avoid health issues related to inbreeding. I could realistically see challenges being made to prohibition of incest involving two consenting adults, but don’t know if anyone would bother bringing charges anyhow. Marriage bans based on degree of relationship is really where the lines meet. But there are no issues of consent or of breeding regarding homosexuals. Add to that the fact homosexuals in the military has a long history, and is only a problem in times that bigotry thrives. So perhaps the problem lies in the social attitudes of some, rather than in the homosexual. Have your beliefs, religious or otherwise. Express them at will. That is the American way. But understand that your beliefs should not be imposed on others without some very strong practical justifications. And Michael, I am a bit surprised you decided to jump into this issue. It seems at odds with your professional interests, and the importance of you presenting us with the truth about what is happening on the ground (yeah, I know that invites some crude comments, but you know what I mean).
Brandon
I thought it was funny
DCM
This thread has been very instructive and CJ fights his corner well.
Gays have been serving in the American military since before there was an America. The issue has never been that they serve, but that they be allowed to serve ‘openly’. ‘Openly’ is a tricky word. How will the military define it? Sex in public is already prohibited, as is public display of affection in uniform. No two Soldiers, regardless of gender, should be holding hands and looking wistfully into each other’s eyes while on duty. So that leaves behavior off duty as the only ‘open’ indicator of gayness. ‘Tina’ and ‘Lisa’ living together has not been an issue in the past, in fact ‘Bill’ and ‘Rob’ have been living together as a matter of policy in the military since forever. Public, not private (pardon the pun) behavior is the problem. The issue is clearly the public display of homosexual affection during off duty times, which leads to varying actions in the workplace, from literally nothing to physical assault.
These reactions are the result of perceptions and attitudes on the part of individuals within the military but embody the collective mores of society. The issue with the new policy is that it is imposing the desires of the minority on the majority. This is not necessarily bad, racial discrimination and segregation were forcibly ended in a similar manner. However, racism occurs simply for the visible tone of someone’s skin. Homosexuality is by definition linked to an act, there are no visible or genetic signs, so the policy has to address the regulation of public sexual and courting behavior. Before anyone loses their mind, as early as 50 years ago some considered it vulgar for anyone to kiss in public. In some areas of the middle east they still do.
This policy is forcing public tolerance of a sexual behavior that a significant part of the population considers vulgar and deviant. In my opinion it will not, ultimately, lead to acceptance. Lack of acceptance necessarily degrades group cohesiveness. By imposing this on the military, the administration will necessarily cause some, varying, measure of degradation in unit effectiveness and performance until the majority of society accepts open homosexuality. The acceptance of ‘deviants’ cannot be dictated from above.
In my opinion this move was purely political. Over the past decade gay soldiers who wanted to serve were serving, they simply kept their genital preference secret. I think the real issue is tied more to the issue of Gay Marriage than any military policy. If you allow openly gay soldiers and sailors, how can you restrict their “right” to marry at the federal level? While it is not a federal issue, if Jane and Mary are assigned to Hawaii and are legally married in that state, and are then transferred to Texas by federal order, how can Texas deny their status as a legally married couple? Especially when Mary is a 25 year retiree and decorated combat vet with 6 tours? Perhaps Gay marriage will only be condoned on federal property – perhaps they will create gay couples reservations – I don’t know, I’m just rambling. I do see this as a continuation of an effort to force acceptance of the public display of what is generally considered to be deviant behavior. Social sexual mores develop over time for reasons and changing them should be done with caution, not by federal fiat for political expediency. Especially when those rulings affect the performance of national security forces.
dilligras
You people are missing the gist of the problem.
If you were gay and got found out in the Navy, there were plenty of opportunities for you to become “missing at sea,” instead of the rest of the crew having to bunk and shower with you.
And DADT was never a law, and so could not have been “repealed,” no matter WHAT the idiots in the media say. It was a DOD directive from Clinton that Bush allowed to stand. The lefty panderers to any perversion claimed it was all they wanted — to serve, if even covertly.
It was ALWAYS intended as a path to open service for gays, and nothing short of it would ever suffice, despite all their plaintive bleating to the contrary. What they repealed is what they always wanted repealed: the law that prohibited gays from serving AT ALL.
Stand by for the body count.
Christine
The problem I have with the “against my religious beliefs” argument to why people shouldn’t have to accept homosexuals in the military is that it’s inconsistent. People in the military have to accept others who live by different moral codes all the time. If you’re very religious, you probably feel that divorce and fornication are immoral (and not that long ago our societal norms frowned on both, too). But we allow divorced people to serve, and there are no rules about unmarried people having consensual sex. Those are both “actions” that the military apparently condones. No different from homosexual sex.
There are a gazillion other examples — some religions believe using alcohol and caffeine are wrong; the military allows both.
Bottom line is that our country allows for religious freedom. You get to live according to your religious beliefs (as long as those beliefs don’t include criminal activity) — but the flip side is that I don’t have to live according to your beliefs.
We already have rules that govern appropriate interaction between troops, unwelcome sexual advances, and so forth. They’ll take care of us just fine in this new environment. Will there be some issues? Yeah, of course. Just like there were when we integrated the races and the genders. We’re a professional enough military to get through them.
For the people who believe homosexuals are deviants, you are entitled your belief. But the decision has been made. If you serve, at this point, you are obligated to keep that belief to yourself. It’s no more appropriate to be publicly ridiculing gays than it would be to be publicly declaring racist beliefs or arguing that women shouldn’t be in the military. As leaders, it’s our job to ensure we make this transition smoothly and without impact on readiness. Can’t do that while simultaneously disparaging one of the groups in our numbers.
God
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Mike B.
Short comment. I quit reading posts after the 15th or so.
My observation: We do discriminate. I see signs on bathroom doors that separate male/female. Follow through the logic of mixed dorms. Why have separate barracks then? Since the original reason was girls barracks/guys barracks.
(Trying to abreviate thoughts here)
We always separate the opposite gender. NO MATTER WHAT!!
With openly gays allowed in service (when we use the original reason for gals/guys barracks then we are obligated to provide separate separate barracks for this new designation of soldier.
Going back to my confusing statement about the public bathrooms being marked guys/gals. We DO discriminate!! By choice!! Justifiably! No problem. In respect to decency!
Get over it!
Foundersten
The question is about standards. Such a thing can be easily argued without religion. The standard that I strongly feel is being compromised by allowing homosexuals to openly serve is a physical separation of men and women to reduce the impact of physical intimacy which leads to emotional complications. By allowing homosexuals to serve we will instantly create a favored class of people because it will be considered descrimination to prevent even known homosexual lovers from arranging to room together. Additionally, I guaranteed that the one recourse heterosexual Soldiers will use to fight situations they may feel uncomfortable with is accusations of sexual harassment. Are we now going to dismiss those claims because the assumption is that the heterosexual is just homophobic? Now we are faced with a favored AND protected class of people based solely on their behavior. NOT good!
Foundersten
Christine- homosexuality is indeed deviant as it is being considered in the military if on no other level then that forcing heterosexuals to shower and room with homosexuals creates an imbalance of opportunity. If you disagree then perhaps you would entertain the idea of any male who claims to be homosexual should be allowed to shower with females. If you wouldn’t entertain that idea because of the possibility that some of those males might indeed be aroused by females then how can you justify imposing the distinct possibility that homosexuals might very well be aroused by the very gender they prefer? Why then is it so unreasonable for heterosexuals to be uncomfortable with the current proposal?