David: hmmm, should I get out? Over 9 years down the drain though
Jaime: Nobody should have to hide their sexual orientation to be able to serve their country. And they polled soldiers and the vast majority said they didn't care about other soldiers sexual orientation, but how good they were at protecting them. I don't really see how this in any way negatively affects the military.David: That's probably because you aren't in the military. I personally don't want to take showers with, sleep next to, and be around a homosexual 24/7 for 8 months at a time for a deployment. I don't know where these 'polls' took place, but I haven't talked to a single UNIFORMED service member that is okay with this decision.
Jaime: If you are comfortable with your sexual orientation, it shouldn't be a problem.
David: So you think guys and girls should be able to shower together in the military too?
Jaime: You think just because they repealed this, you're going to have a bunch of guys trying to come onto you and have sex with you? I'm sure that is what homo-phobes think, but homosexual people are a lot more respectful of hetero people than you might think.
David: You didn't answer the question because the answer is no, it would create issues. Because I morally disagree with homosexuality, doesn't classify me as a 'homo-phobe' either
Steve: I served with gay Marines and it didn't bother me, because DADT WORKED! They and I had to remain professional. They couldn't talk about it, and I couldn't ask about it. So I didn't care. But now, the sexual vagaries of a distinct minority a...re being foisted upon us in a manner that is inconsistent with good order and discipline. I don't need to know the manner in which a person becomes most sexually excited. If we say that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of anyone's business, then let's keep it as nobody's business. I don't have a bumper sticker on my car declaring the sexual activities I share with my wife, nor do I wrap my identity in the manner by which I achieve orgasm. To do so is to lack discretion, maturity and clarity of identity. I don't expect someone outside of my faith to abide by it, but at least be tolerant enough not to shove your spite in the face of a majority belief. And what we believe is this: God has called us male and female and given us certain traits. Except through extraordinarily rare biological corruptions (congenital abnormalities which can be clarified through chromosomal testing and corrected through surgery and hormonal treatments), that identity is apparent to all. To deny one's assigned biological identity and pursue a contrary "self" is to call God a liar. In a subjective materialistic worldview this makes no sense; we're all just accidental matter, animals miraculously appearing from nowhere with an innate desire to feed, defecate and copulate, so who cares how you get off, whether in a reproductive tract or a excremental cavity, or a fencepost or a keyhole for that matter. But for those who believe in God, His word, and His promises, this "other" behavior places our wisdom above His, and elevates us to the level of the first sin invoked by Satan with the lie, "Did God REALLY, say,'...."
Nathanial: You guys think your upset about it, I'm hooked into the job on a completely different end. I've honestly set through a ton of classes about this and it ruins EVERYTHING, regardless of sexual orientation, in fact lets throw that out the wind...ow. 1st issue, benefits. The U.S. as a whole, doesn't recognize gay union, therefore does the military by allowing gays in the military recognize it and will the "partner" receive the same benefits and the wife who has sat by her husband through 3 deployments. 2nd issue, duty stations. If a gay military member is stationed in a hippie state that does drugs like mass. and wants everyone to be openly gay, is it then acceptable to station the majority of the openly gays in that one location, think of hiding the dumb kid in the closet. You laugh, or you think that's mean, but in reality your trying to make your business look it's best right?? 3rd issue, attrition. I've been told over the past two years that the MC is cutting it's forces. This year the Capt to Maj promotions only selected 67% of those "in zone", include that with the more than 500 2nd Lts the MC "asked" to go home last year, my statement is this. WHERE THE CRAP DO WE HAVE ROOM TO TAKE ON MORE PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS. If you want to argue for it, GREAT, MOVE AWAY, I here Canada's nice this time of year and if you don't like the way that sounds, Go Buy a HELMET cause the punches are going to get any lighter.
David: But Nate, they polled the military and 'we' agree with this
Nathanial: "They" polled gay people that are serving the military and asked them how they felt about it.
David: ding ding ding
Steve: The fact that a person finds something morally unacceptable does not mean they live with a "phobia" of it. I find polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia to be morally incompatible with my religious beliefs, but I am not afraid of any of them. ...I do wonder what is up with all the "Christophobia" in our society. Why are people afraid to abdicate their will to that of a higher power? Probably because then they would no longer be able to do entirely as they please without utter disregard for any authority apart from their own pleasure centers. America in the 18th Century largely worshiped God. In the 19th Century we worshiped the pioneering spirit and an illusion of morality. In the 20th Century we worshiped National Power and technological improvements. Now we worship pleasure and the path of least resistance. As with all other empires, it will be our downfall.
Steve: I took the poll. It didn't ask about repeal. It asked the questions I answered in my first post: Have you served with a homosexual? Did it affect the mission? Will serving with one again affect the mission? Answer: NO. But it was asked with...in the DADT frame of reference, NOT the F.O.R. or a post-repeal military. That is why everything they are saying about our responses is a LIE. But seriously, is anyone surprised that those at the highest echelons of our government are lying to us? I'm not. I just despise them for it. When we're ultimately overrun as our economy collapses, they will be the first ones the angry mob goes after. The American people know who led the way down this path. The shame of it all is that so many otherwise "good" people have stood quietly by and done nothing to stop the downward spiral in which we find ourselves, both morally and economically.
Rachel: 'Christophobia' so true Steve, and so well put
Jessica: Hell yeah: a same-sex partner who has been with her wife through three deployments should receive the SAME benefits as the ones received by a wife who has been with her husband or a husband who has been with his wife through three deploymen...ts. And it's utterly dehumanizing for you to put "partner" in quotes, as if it is a caricature of a human being/human relationship. You may find homosexual partners/relationships reprehensible or morally wrong, but they are still HUMAN beings/relationships. Well, I may just be a Christianophobe (NOT the same as a Christophobe). I fear Christians who dehumanize homosexuals in their political rhetoric.
Jessica: It is not about who you have SEX with...it is about having the freedom to be able to live an honest, authentic existence. It is not about wanting to tell the world about your sex life, it is about having the freedom to gain the status of no...rmalcy that heterosexuals take for granted. It is about having the freedom to live without fear and repression. It is about having equal rights to either share or not share. Many heterosexuals may think they don't tell others about their personal (NOT SEX...stop, stop, stop equating a RELATIONSHIP with SEX) life, but they certainly don't censor themselves when talking about their FAMILIES AND KIDS. To homosexuals, partners and children are FAMILY. My wife and children are just as important to me as yours are to you, and I damn well deserve the freedom to talk about them without fear. It is not about sex. Whether or not my partner and I are having sex, we are still partners.
Jessica: Nathanial, my wife was in the military (airforce) for some time. And, we're all shitting out of our mouths, to use the terms that you brought into this in order to dehumanize me and ignore my comments and try to make me feel small. I paint my shit in rainbows and you can paint yours however you well please. Neither of us knows the others experiences, that is fine. I am not sure how poop became eggs, though. And I just don't get the analogy...the cracking of the eggs that once was poop painted in gold. How have the eggs been cracked? Really, I am baffled.
Steve: Jessica- homosexuals don't enjoy the freedom of normalcy that heterosexuals do because homosexuality is not normal. I have a good number of close friends who at one time or another lived with me. We shared everything in a loving devoted rel...ationship. But not sex. And we did not have sexual desires for one another. Thus it was not homosexuality. Inherent in homosexuality is sexuality. So it IS about sex. If it's merely about relationships, than any military service member can claim anyone they please as a dependent and reap the financial and social benefits, right? But it's not. The defining factor in the relationship is that there is a sexual attraction. That is what homosexuality is. I'm sorry if this hurts you. I mean that sincerely, but it is the truth. I have no intention of causing any sort of fear or repressing anyone's feelings, but calling something what it is not doesn't do anyone any justice other than to sooth their esteem. Homosexuality is sexual. And despite abnormalities in certain minuscule segments of the population of mankind in history, marriage is intrinsically linked to sexual fidelity and exclusivity. Despite all of those who have failed to keep their commitments and vows, the principles of marriage and its definition do not change simply because we want them to. If every word can mean whatever we want it to whenever we want it to, than nothing means anything. A man can call himself a poached egg all he wants, but it doesn't make it so. We can call committed relationships between two people of the same gender "marriage" or call their adopted, artificially implanted children a "family", but that's not really the case is it, unless we can gather a random amalgamation of folks from a shopping center place them in a house together and call that a "family". Maybe in a metaphorical sense, it is very much like a family in the love and concern for one another. But it is only a family if we begin to change definitions to suit our own purposes, again, making it so that anything can mean anything to anyone, which really means nothing.
When we deconstruct definitions of institutions, we deconstruct society. And that is what is happening to our military. Soon we will begin redefining terms like "respect" and "obedience"; we already are. I don't say any of this with any sort of malice or ill will, fear or anger at all. I hope you are able to discern that.
Nathanial: Well said Steve, well said.
Kelly: Steve, I learned more in your posts here (specifically about DADT & the way military members view this new change) than I have through any other media outlet in recent months. Ever think about going into politics??
David: Kelly, you know how many times I've asked him that, or said "Steve for president"? I'm going to start polling the military about it!
Jessica: First of all, sexual desire is certainly part of most homosexual/homoerotic/homoromantic relationships. Since I identify as homosexual, I think I can more accurately describe what it is like on a personal note than a heterosexual person. Ar...e we sitting her debating what heterosexuality is? Because is homosexuality is ALL about sex, than heterosexuality is also ALL about sex. Relationships between two people, whether the two people are homosexually oriented or heterosexually oriented are not always ALL about sex (although sex may be a big part of it). I see sex as something that brings two people close together. Sex is ONE way of being intimate with another individual. In my experience, sexual and erotic intimacies with/between women tend to be more gentle, loving and connected than the same between a woman and a man. That is not to say that there are not some gentle men out there who are not completely driven by their animalistic need to put their penile appendage in some hole in order to be satisfied. And that is separate from my general attraction to women. I AM sexually attracted to women, but my sexual attraction to women is equally matched if not outdone by my emotional attraction toward women. The point is that a homosexual relationship in which there are two committed people is no different (although often superior) than a heterosexual relationship of the same nature. My relationship with my partner is much healthier than most other heterosexual relationships that I have witnessed. And also more committed. While homosexuality may not be the norm (in the sense that is not the majority/average, perhaps), that does not mean it does not have the potential to be healthy and productive. My wife and I have many dimensions to our love for one another - the sexual dimension is just one part of that. We have a wonderful life with our children that is healthy and happy. I don't even know why I am sitting here trying to defend myself and my life to anyone. It sounds like the relationship you've described may have been homointimate, although not homosexual. All relationships are on a continuum or homo or hetero connectedness. Homolove is different than homosexuality, I suppose...but it is all along a continuum. Humans came up with the original definitions of concepts like "family" and "marriage," so they certainly can and do and will change them. Humans are constantly redefining things as they learn and become smarter.
David: Animalistic need? Really? Keep justifying your 'need' to sin, its almost humorous at this point. I already know your next post so don't feel overly urged to type about how you don't believe in God (this is another way homos justify their sin btw). Or wait, maybe you are a scientific miracle and you were born attracted to women???
Jessica: Steve, I do appreciate your approach. You are being respectful, at least, and not telling me I am pooping out of my mouth. Thank you.
David: @Jessica...you type too fast
Jessica: Don't you think that an adoptive heterosexual parent of a child is family? If two heterosexual people adopt a child, is it not their child? A Christian couple who cannot have biological children and who instead adopt cannot really have a fa...mily? That is essentially what you are saying, right? My children are biologically mine and my wife adopted them so they are hers just as much as a child adopted by a father would be his. We are absolutely, absolutely family. We are more of a family than many biologically related people. And YES, we expand definitions as we become educated and more intelligent about human life...People are born with all sort of genetic differences...such as Down Syndrome...such as being born with four toes instead of five on one foot...such as being born with brown hair instead of black hair...there are many, many genetic differences among us. Alright, peace be with you all! I'm out.
Kari: im sorry, ive been staying out of stuff until now, but i cant stand down while someone states that a same sex relationship is deeper and more meaningful than a hetero relationship, or marriage for that matter. The reason some feel that way,... is because the sanctity of marriage has been thrown out the window with every other moral. (This statement is for SOME, NOT ALL). God created marriage to be the ultimate union, to be put higher than any other type of relationship, and to be treated with such significance and sacredness. I personally have a wonderful relationship with my husband, and its because we keep Christ in the center of our marriage, as well as the fact that we dont piss it away when things get difficult or u let your sins pull you to satisfy them. If you dont believe in God, then you cant believe in marriage, plain and simple.
Steve: This is the prevailing view in our society: "Humans came up with the original definitions of concepts like "family" and "marriage," so they certainly can and do and will change them. Humans are constantly redefining things as they learn and... become smarter." Except that it was God who created these institutions and who defines them in His Word. Humans are constantly redefining things because we don't want to be subservient to the One who created us; we want to be our own God. That's not necessarily becoming smarter. The early Hebrews thought polygamy would be fun, but it only created difficulties (see the story of Solomon- the wisest man, who ended up ruined because he took on 300 wives and 700 concubines. Or the problems Abraham had due to his multiple wives.) We are wisest when we adhere closest to the wisdom of God. Satan's lie is always, "Then you will be like God!" The only thing we were ever given authority to name and define was the taxonomy of the animal kingdom. To date, despite many studies showing that certain traits commonly found among homosexuals are "heritable", there has never been any discovery of a so-called "Gay gene". It's just not there. Even the most ardent voices for special recognition of LGBT Rights quietly acknowledge the absence of hard scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. There may be predispositions, but ultimately environment and free-will determine the psychology and behavior of a person. And for the non-scientists out there, "heritable" and "inherited" do not mean the same thing. Adoption is a non-sequitur for defining families. It stands outside the argument, until it is invoked (it sounds like semantics, but it's a rule in logic). Whether the cohabiting persons are a family is determined not by their biological link to one another, but by the roles into which they fall as defined by God. It is difficult and we may even say "unjust" that an adopted child from another country is not automatically imbued with the citizen status of his/her native parents. God instituted the ultimate model of adoption when He chose to bring us out of our self-worship into worship of Him, and to call us "Sons and Daughters". The offer was given on the basis not of our own achievement, but on His generosity; but the terms of the agreement are that we conform to His intentions and not our own. Whether a group of people is a family or not, is defined by their conforming to the roles assigned to them by God. I realize none of this makes sense to someone who believes they are their own moral law-maker or believes the Bible is fraudulent. But again, refusing to acknowledge the existence of God does not make His Word null. It just places us outside of the best life which He intends for us. Jessica- I'm sorry that it appears you only ever experienced or witnessed heterosexual lust. Heterosexual love involves much more than eros, but encompasses phileo, storge, and agape as well; a completely loyal and self-sacrificing commitment of friendship and romantic offering. The fact that so many folks get it wrong, doesn't mean the principles or institutions are invalid. It just means humans are especially good at corrupting God's good designs when they attempt to live apart from Him.
