[ToTheLeft]

There are gay people in the military already. They are on the battlefield and giving blood transfusions right now. The chance of them giving someone HIV currently is higher than if DADT was taken away. If it's taken away, the gay people will be known and the medical units can find someone else to transfuse with just to be safe.

If anyone thinks repealing this rule will change the amount of gay people in the military then that person is, in the words of my good friend Alan Garner, a ruh-tard.

I had tried to put this into words a few times and never could. It's such a simple point that makes this whole argument so useless.

[ALUmnus]

Let me ask you guys this...why are you so for repealing DADT and for having gays in the military?

Or is it that you just like to argue?

[ValuesVoter]

I still don't see how any of the arguments were proven faulty or how, Scripturally, the remedies are ungodly. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it ungodly. In fact, Scripture supports confronting culture and sin with the Truth, the Gospel. A hands-off approach to sin-endorsing legislation and the political process will not help to spread the Word. All it does is legitimize and normalize sin.

Obviously the manipulation of Scripture to further political efforts is wrong, but Scripture is clear on the issue of homosexual conduct. Why is it not okay to use Scripture as a basis for legislation? That's what our Founding Fathers did when they authored the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Despite what Obama is telling you, this is a Christian nation -- it was founded on Christian principles, and as our nation legislates morality (permissible conduct that should govern individuals' interactions with one-another), it is okay for those governing to turn to the Absolute Truths of Scripture for a better understanding of how best to govern. This is especially true considering God doesn't tell us something is bad simply to watch us struggle with it. He does so for our protection. The seriously high HIV/AIDS rate among homosexual males is just one problem enhanced by homosexual conduct, there are other physical and mental health problems that are also associated with homosexual conduct. I recommend NARTH for those truly interested and concerned about this issue. http://www.narth.com/menus/medical.html

[ValuesVoter]

There are gay people in the military already. They are on the battlefield and giving blood transfusions right now. The chance of them giving someone HIV currently is higher than if DADT was taken away. If it's taken away, the gay people will be known and the medical units can find someone else to transfuse with just to be safe.

If anyone thinks repealing this rule will change the amount of gay people in the military then that person is, in the words of my good friend Alan Garner, a ruh-tard.

You're actually incorrect about this. Military service members are tested for HIV/AIDS. Those who are found to have the virus are actually not allowed in combate (it's not just about finding somebody else to give a transfusion). This issue is so much bigger than blood transfusions on the front lines as well. Have you not read any of the other posts?

Additionally, if you don't think that repealing the law will change the number of homosexuals int he military, why in the world would you advocate for a change? To appease a minority that is currently living a sinful lifestyle and wants the opportunity to flaunt that while wearing a uniform? I don't get it.

[thepostman]

we are tested annually for HIV/AIDS

so I am not sure why there is a concern of this.

Fear Mongering is wrong, that is why I disagree with how the Liberty Counsel is conducting themselves. If you can not see that "ValuesVoter" then there is really nothing I could say to change your mind.

I guess the true opinion of somebody serving currently means very little to you.

[ALUmnus]

Fear Mongering is wrong

I don't think I would call that an absolute. You may not like it or think it inappropriate, but wrong?

[LUconn]

In a situation where it's deceitful it is. I'm not saying they were being deceitful. But other than that, it's just a way of stirring up some kind of emotion.

[Green Monkey]

The Liberty Counsel was definitely in the wrong with using fear mongering in that email. It provided no links to actual sources so students could look at the issues for themselves. There wasn't even a link provided to the survey they cited so people could make sure it was actually scientifically conducted. The main point of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell section was basically "Hey college students (especially males), contact your representative now or don't ask, don't tell will be repealed and you'll get drafted!"

[Kolzilla41]

There are gay people in the military already. They are on the battlefield and giving blood transfusions right now. The chance of them giving someone HIV currently is higher than if DADT was taken away. If it's taken away, the gay people will be known and the medical units can find someone else to transfuse with just to be safe.

If anyone thinks repealing this rule will change the amount of gay people in the military then that person is, in the words of my good friend Alan Garner, a ruh-tard.

You're actually incorrect about this. Military service members are tested for HIV/AIDS. Those who are found to have the virus are actually not allowed in combate (it's not just about finding somebody else to give a transfusion). This issue is so much bigger than blood transfusions on the front lines as well. Have you not read any of the other posts?

Additionally, if you don't think that repealing the law will change the number of homosexuals int he military, why in the world would you advocate for a change? To appease a minority that is currently living a sinful lifestyle and wants the opportunity to flaunt that while wearing a uniform? I don't get it.

There are so many more things we nee to be worried about than a small minority of people who make up an even smaller minority of our armed services. We need to worry about the millions of babies that have been killed or the fact that the American church is under-serving the people around us. This is nothing more than political tactic by both parties to deflect the attention on how they are ruining our country both legislatively and economically, IMHO. And scripturely speaking, please advise where in the Bible is says to "go legislate and get rid of sin" instead of

"Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

as in Mark 16:15-16? It is not the governments job to legislate Christian principles but the churches job to proclaim the Gospel. Maybe if we focused on that more we wouldn't have to get involved is this type of issue.

[LUconn]

The Liberty Counsel was definitely in the wrong with using fear mongering in that email. It provided no links to actual sources so students could look at the issues for themselves. There wasn't even a link provided to the survey they cited so people could make sure it was actually scientifically conducted. The main point of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell section was basically "Hey college students (especially males), contact your representative now or don't ask, don't tell will be repealed and you'll get drafted!"

That's not really LC's job to provide citations. Their job is to get people riled up and motivated to vote. It's the job of a responsible email recipient/voter to check into this stuff for themselves.

[LUconn]

Does anybody here even have the actual full email? It's not on their website.

[ValuesVoter]

The Liberty Counsel was definitely in the wrong with using fear mongering in that email. It provided no links to actual sources so students could look at the issues for themselves. There wasn't even a link provided to the survey they cited so people could make sure it was actually scientifically conducted. The main point of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell section was basically "Hey college students (especially males), contact your representative now or don't ask, don't tell will be repealed and you'll get drafted!"

I can hardly believe this. It's fear mongering because you didn't want to take the time to look up what they said? Must we be spoonfed everything? It really wasn't too difficult for me to get online and find the survey. And, if you're really interested in the issue, you can do your own research, especially if you're skeptical of what you're being told. Though I can form my own conclusions (and I happen to agree with Liberty Counsel), I appreciate being kept informed about what Congress is up to.

I've already cited Scripture about preserving our culture, and some other people did as well. I certainly agree that the church needs to be the church in sharing the Gospel and helping the widows and orphans, I, however, also understand that our culture needs to be preserved. That everyone will not come to know the Lord and that laws direct nonbeliever's behavior as well (I Tim. 1:8-9 -- no, I'm not going to type it out or provide a link). I agree, we need to focus on the Sanctity of Life issue as well. (I looked Liberty Counsel up -- they focuse on life issues, family issues, and religious liberty issues. So, this, homosexuals serving in the military, isn't the only thing they care about.)

As I said before, the law is a right/wrong message machine. Obviously there are perameters within which legislators must operate, but nonetheless, I see no problem with using Scripture as a basis for legislation. As I said, our Founding Fathers did.

[Kolzilla41]

The Liberty Counsel was definitely in the wrong with using fear mongering in that email. It provided no links to actual sources so students could look at the issues for themselves. There wasn't even a link provided to the survey they cited so people could make sure it was actually scientifically conducted. The main point of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell section was basically "Hey college students (especially males), contact your representative now or don't ask, don't tell will be repealed and you'll get drafted!"

That's not really LC's job to provide citations. Their job is to get people riled up and motivated to vote. It's the job of a responsible email recipient/voter to check into this stuff for themselves.

Couldn't agree with you more LUconn

[From the class of 09]

While LC is without a doubt political to one degree or another they do many a good work also and more times than not I would find that I agree with them. The gay issue in general is just one of many that LC works on. While in an ideal world LC wouldn't need to exist they do in our fallen one. I might not always agree with everything LC does but I do with the majority. So just be careful when you try to act like LC doesn't do anything positive.

[ALUmnus]

There are so many more things we nee to be worried about than a small minority of people who make up an even smaller minority of our armed services. We need to worry about the millions of babies that have been killed or the fact that the American church is under-serving the people around us.

I don't care much for this type of thinking. Yes, there are lots of important things we as Christians should be doing, some more "important" than others, but there are more than enough of us to confront every issue we care about.

To say "shut up about homosexuals, what about abortion?!?!" isn't much of an answer. Liberty Counsel does more than most when it comes to abortion.

I think the biggest mistake I've seen in their defense is the one guy siting WorldNetDaily. What was he thinking?

[thepostman]

Does anybody here even have the actual full email? It's not on their website, and dickens just gave us a highlight reel.

I do. if you want it I could PM it to you once I get home and can access my liberty e-mail account

[LUconn]

Post it on here if you could. That's all I was going to do.

[Kolzilla41]

There are so many more things we nee to be worried about than a small minority of people who make up an even smaller minority of our armed services. We need to worry about the millions of babies that have been killed or the fact that the American church is under-serving the people around us.

I don't care much for this type of thinking. Yes, there are lots of important things we as Christians should be doing, some more "important" than others, but there are more than enough of us to confront every issue we care about.

To say "shut up about homosexuals, what about abortion?!?!" isn't much of an answer. Liberty Counsel does more than most when it comes to abortion.



I think the biggest mistake I've seen in their defense is the one guy siting WorldNetDaily. What was he thinking?

Great point ALUmnus. I don't want to undermine the importance of the stance Christians have on homosexuality but all I see is the right using faith to pimp their agenda. Both parties no moral compass right now so I tend to be hesitant and what issue is being touted.

[Kolzilla41]

My only issue with the Christian practicing homosexuality is they are obviously lying to themselves if they think God doesn't have a problem with it. Sin separates us from God and if I claim Christianity but I live in blatant sin i.e. cheating on spouse, homosexual tendencies, looking at pornography, them I am lying to myself and God by thinking I can both serve Him and my desires. It doesn't work.

[LUconn]

I want mr libertarian TTL in on this conversation. But he ran away.

[LUconn]

so now we're down to anarchism?

[ToTheLeft]

I want mr libertarian TTL in on this conversation. But he ran away.

Yeah, this conversation is just a loaded gun for me. I'd love to participate, but I really have pretty much said what I need to say. The church shouldn't be in the business of trying to legislate morality, particularly when it always seems to fall right in line with the Republican party's agenda of the day. I was originally outraged by the arguably deceitful comments made in the e-mail from the LC, and the underlying attitude towards homosexuals that the church seems to harbor.

If anyone actually wants to discuss this with me they can PM me, but to have a post here in the public forum where anyone with any agenda (and I'm not saying I don't have an agenda...) can take any sentence and turn it against me, disregarding all the other parts of the post, isn't my idea of a discussion. No one is going to agree with me, or see my side of this, because I've presented it before and it's just not going to go along with the prevailing thought around here. And to be honest, I have too much pride to give up once people start to pick apart all my thought processes, so I keep bashing my head against a wall trying to get a duck to say "moo".

[ValuesVoter]

Matt Staver's LC squad told a foundations of law class that we should practice old testament law in regards to homosexuality...so stoning is appropriate?

I wasn't in the class, but considering the New Testament, Romans 1:24-27 to be precise (not sure how many times I have to cite that), also calls homosexual conduct sinful. So, it's not just some ceremonial law of the Old Testament that we can now ignore.

[ToTheLeft]

2 Corinthians 3:4-6

4 We are confident of all this because of our great trust in God through Christ. 5 It is not that we think we are qualified to do anything on our own. Our qualification comes from God. 6 He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant. This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life.

Our absolutes that came from Christ include to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart..."

and "Love your neighbor as yourself..."

and "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you"

Not everything Paul commanded, or everything from the Old Covenant. I'm not defending homosexuality, I am saying that Jesus never indicates that we're to base anything off the old law, but rather to spread the gospel using the things he instructed. And that is the Greatest Commandment, the Great Commission, The Beautitudes, and all the other amazing, groundbreaking things that Jesus spoke while on Earth.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is one that a lot of those on the right could learn from these days.

[From the class of 09]

I'm ignoring the shellfish comment because we both know that’s not remotely relevant. Murder is wrong and definitely worse than consensual sex. I’m comfortable saying everyone on her will agree

To be clear I think I need to clarify the difference between murder and justified killing. Hypothetically murder is killing a guy for his TV vs justified killing could be defending yourself and killing the guy trying to harm you or your family. Very different situations.

Also as far as I can tell (from Biblical references) God has no problem making distinctions between government entities and individuals. Where the leaders held responsible for war (both just and unjust wars), individuals are held responsible for there own actions that they can control. We can’t just say all war is sin no more than we can say all killings are sin. (Please note I’m not saying anything about the current wars being fought)

I'm missing the reference to government body in your references....help me out.