Is it a boy or a girl?

[John81]

Yes, I know there are plenty of principles that could forbid women in the military. And, as I said, I wish women weren't there...unless it was behind the scenes (if that). BUT! My point was that the Bible very clearly spells out that homosexuality is an abomination to God - so, of the two, that would be worse. SWIM?

Of course I see what you mean but the fact is that if women had never been allowed in the military we wouldn't be facing the prospect of homosexuals being openly accepted either. As with most things, the slide begins slowly or in what appears to be a tiny threat manner but eventually becomes a landslide leading to destruction.

David lusted after Bathsheba and then called her to him and committed adultery. Which sin is worse? Of course if it were stopped at the beginning, with David not lusting or David repenting of his lust immediately, the greater wouldn't have occured.

[HappyChristian]

Of course I see what you mean but the fact is that if women had never been allowed in the military we wouldn't be facing the prospect of homosexuals being openly accepted either. As with most things, the slide begins slowly or in what appears to be a tiny threat manner but eventually becomes a landslide leading to destruction.

David lusted after Bathsheba and then called her to him and committed adultery. Which sin is worse? Of course if it were stopped at the beginning, with David not lusting or David repenting of his lust immediately, the greater wouldn't have occured.

I don't know that I agree with you about allowing women in the military was the slide that led to homosexuals there. Greece and Rome both had big homosexual prOBlems, and even had young men given to the older for training in those perversions. However, women never served.

[John81]

I don't know that I agree with you about allowing women in the military was the slide that led to homosexuals there. Greece and Rome both had big homosexual prOBlems, and even had young men given to the older for training in those perversions. However, women never served.

Rome and Greece had "open" (liberal) societies and especially Rome the farther she went. Sexual "freedom" and expression were open to all and sex was often considered to be a part of the various pagan religions. Degenerate sexual practices permeated their societies and homosexuality didn't care the mark of abomination which came later with the spread of Christianity.

America has a different history in this regard as he began with somewhat of a Christian foundation which had to be wore down on all fronts before the sexual practices so common in Greece and Rome were accepted here.

[Crushmaster]

Why not? Because the way society has gone, it is ultra accepted for women to be in the military - and "going backwards" wouldn't be allowed by the fems and libs. As I said, if they stuck to paper work and behind the scenes stuff, there wouldn't be such a prOBlem, but...

I realize that, ma'am, but that doesn't really answer the question. God is an awesome God, and He can change this country.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing in scripture that outright forbids women in military. But there is about homosexuality! The one is an abomination...so that's worse.

Actually, ma'am, there is. Both are abominations; both pervert God's order and creation. They're essentially the same thing; that is, from the same root, and utterly hated by God. Liberalated women, effeminate men, and homosexual men and women - all in the same box. Forgive me if this is committing the logical fallacy of repetition, but I felt I needed to emphasize my point.

Have a blessed day.
God bless,
Joel.

[HappyChristian]

I realize that, ma'am, but that doesn't really answer the question. God is an awesome God, and He can change this country.

Actually, ma'am, there is. Both are abominations; both pervert God's order and creation. They're essentially the same thing; that is, from the same root, and utterly hated by God. Liberalated women, effeminate men, and homosexual men and women - all in the same box. Forgive me if this is committing the logical fallacy of repetition, but I felt I needed to emphasize my point.

Have a blessed day.
God bless,
Joel.

Oh, true, Joel. God is an awesome God, and could do many things to change this country. I would love to see it in a lot of areas!

No, I'm sorry, but the Bible does not specify that women in the military is an abomination...unless you know a verse I've never read? Please understand that I am not for it, and I believe, as John pointed out, that principles in the Bible indicate that it is not in God's perfect plan for women. But the Bible does not call it an abomination, as God does homosexuality.

There are many things that have contributed to the rise of homosexuality in this country - and masculine women is one...but that followed effeminate men and men who sat back and gave the little woman control (I wonder how many would rush to change things if they could've seen Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton??).

[Crushmaster]

No, I'm sorry, but the Bible does not specify that women in the military is an abomination...unless you know a verse I've never read? Please understand that I am not for it, and I believe, as John pointed out, that principles in the Bible indicate that it is not in God's perfect plan for women. But the Bible does not call it an abomination, as God does homosexuality.

Allow me to make some points on this, ma'am.
(1) As I have said, this runs in the exact same vein as homosexuality.
(2) All sin is an abomination to God.
(3) And, this verse: (Deuteronomy 22:5) - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

This verse runs much, much deeper than clothing. This goes into roles, activities, you name it. For example:
"Deu 22:5
That which pertaineth unto a man - i. e. not only his dress but all that especially pertains distinctively to his sex; arms, domestic and other utensils, etc.
The distinction between the sexes is natural and divinely established, and cannot be neglected without indecorum and consequent danger to purity (compare 1Co_11:3-15)."
Taken from Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible.

Have a blessed day.
God bless,
Joel. Edited June 8, 2010 by Crushmaster

[HappyChristian]

Allow me to make some points on this, ma'am.
(1) As I have said, this runs in the exact same vein as homosexuality.
(2) All sin is an abomination to God.
(3) And, this verse: (Deuteronomy 22:5) - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

This verse runs much, much deeper than clothing. This goes into roles, activities, you name it. For example:


Have a blessed day.
God bless,
Joel.

Okay, that works. Thanks.

[Crushmaster]

Okay, that works. Thanks.

You're welcome.

Sorry about the empty space when I said "For example" - I accidentally posted it before I added the notes from Albert Barnes.

Have a blessed day.
God bless,
Joel.

[1Timothy115]

I sure wish I could get some thoughts from active and prior service folks too. I believe the Bible and its clear we are not to promote sinful living. How might the homosexual in service increase cost, cause issues, etc?

[John81]

I sure wish I could get some thoughts from active and prior service folks too. I believe the Bible and its clear we are not to promote sinful living. How might the homosexual in service increase cost, cause issues, etc?

I was in the Air Force in the 80s. If homosexuals are granted full acceptance, and especially as OBama has stated, then the military will have to provide housing for homosexual "couples" and "families" just as they do for true married couples/families. The same benefits married couples receive will have to be given to homosexual couples.

Naturally these situations could cause tension between real married couples and homosexual couples over limited housing and in some cases limited benefits. There could also be prOBlems with those who see homosexuality as an abomination and would refuse to live next to a homosexual couple, etc. Then there is the potential prOBlem with homosexuals taking over areas of housing and recreational areas and claiming them as their own as has happened in the private sector.

The door for sexual harrassment complaints will at once be opened very wide and at the same time closed against those who would complain about homosexual conduct. Stastics show that homosexuals in the military are over 8 times more likely to commit acts of sexual assualt than are non-homosexuals.

If OBama has his way homosexuals and "transgendered", and by extention, in theory anyway, even normal folks, would have the right to dress in either male or female uniforms according to their whim of the moment. This too would apply to how they could dress in off-duty hours as they walk through the base housing areas, recreational areas, etc.

This just scratches the surface and we haven't even got to the potential of many lawsuits.

[HappyChristian]

I was in the Air Force in the 80s. If homosexuals are granted full acceptance, and especially as OBama has stated, then the military will have to provide housing for homosexual "couples" and "families" just as they do for true married couples/families. The same benefits married couples receive will have to be given to homosexual couples.

Naturally these situations could cause tension between real married couples and homosexual couples over limited housing and in some cases limited benefits. There could also be prOBlems with those who see homosexuality as an abomination and would refuse to live next to a homosexual couple, etc. Then there is the potential prOBlem with homosexuals taking over areas of housing and recreational areas and claiming them as their own as has happened in the private sector.

The door for sexual harrassment complaints will at once be opened very wide and at the same time closed against those who would complain about homosexual conduct. Stastics show that homosexuals in the military are over 8 times more likely to commit acts of sexual assualt than are non-homosexuals.

If OBama has his way homosexuals and "transgendered", and by extention, in theory anyway, even normal folks, would have the right to dress in either male or female uniforms according to their whim of the moment. This too would apply to how they could dress in off-duty hours as they walk through the base housing areas, recreational areas, etc.

This just scratches the surface and we haven't even got to the potential of many lawsuits.

Good points!

[1Timothy115]

Here are some things I've gathered but held off on until others had commented...Oh yes, I censored some of the more colorful language from the replies.

Chaplains
Will chaplains now be required to perform marriages between same sex partners? What will happen to the chaplain corps as a result? Will they be required to give up their Bible based aversion to sodomy or get out of the corps? Will this drive Christians out of the service of this nation to accommodate a few?

Housing
How will this affect your military housing? Will those who are now allowed to practice sodomy be afforded base housing as any other service member? Will the same sex partners be living next door to the non-homosexual family?

Base Facilities
Restrooms seem like a small prOBlem until you consider homosexuals have specific gender roles. Where does the feminine acting same sex partner use the restroom? Wives of service members, what are your thoughts concerning restrooms? Does the male/feminine partner use the same restroom with you? Or does the male/feminine partner use the same restroom with your husband? Or, are there now going to be new sex-neutral restrooms for military members around the world? From a purely monetary point of view, consider the cost of a new restroom in your house. Now multiply that restroom addition cost times 5,311 (the number of DoD sites around the world). Suddenly a few people with a sex identity issue are too costly to consider. A new restroom of $2000.00 dollars will cost $10,622,000.00.

How many other facility changes would be required to facilitate a preference of sexual identity? Is it cost effective when 1/10th of 1% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census 2000) pushes their sexual preference desires on everyone else?

Non-Homosexual Service Members
How do they feel about having someone they consider perverted of questionable integrity watching out for them in time of war? I’ve asked active and retired service men and they aren’t happy. They wonder how they will be thought of by the citizens they serve. Questions and statements from active and retired service members:
“Will everyone think I’m queer too?”
“Will I have to fight my countrymen if they say I’m a homo?”
“Do I have to defend the homo if my civilian friends call them a fag?”
“Can I trust these characters when the bullets fly?”
“If they let them in, I’m getting out.”
“It has been against our faith for nearly 200 years, the faith hasn’t changed.”
“I don’t want that kind of behavior condoned in the presence of my children.”
“I fight for their right to that preference but I won’t serve with them.”
“I don’t want one of them sharing a restroom and looking at me with those strange thoughts.”
“People are lost at sea all the time at night and never found.”
“Will they want to kiss the enemy?”
“This isn’t a San Francisco cocktail party they’re going to.”
“We used to say the Army had mules and the Navy had Marines, now what will we say?”

[DennisD]

Recently (this past Friday), I took part in a DADT survey with a Comprehensive Review Working Group from D.C. We were allowed to comment, ask questions, etc.

I gave them some comments and asked one question. They weren't answered to my satisfaction but that's what I expected. What I got out of the meeting were these two points:

1. About 99% of the people that spoke were against the repeal of DADT.
2. The working group members (one Army Lieutenant General, one Army Sergeant Major and a civilian from the Secretary of the Air Force) talked as if the law had already been repealed and lets figure out what to do to plan for it.

Not, what can we bring back to Washington to tell Congress and the President why we SHOULDN'T repeal the law but what can we bring back as ideas to MITITGATE the effect it will have on our military.

Suffice to say, the law looks like it will be repealed and we will either have to deal with it in our own way.