Senate passes repeal of DADT with 65 votes

[afleitch]

Here is my view of DADT

I happen to agree with this repeal. First let me say this, I'm a strong Christian, but I'm also politically-independent. I have a very weird view on this. First off, I HATE homosexuality, it goes against everything the Lord my God teaches. However, I have to agree with Hillary Clinton when she said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight". I come at it from a defense point of view. We have lost many strategic and key people in our military because of DADT. For example, we have had several soldiers who could translate Arabic, the predominate language of the muslim terrorists, be discharged because of their sexual orientation.  I think this move actually does strengthen our defenses.  If you want to talk about our morality slipping, it flew out the window ages ago.  Plus, I don't think my God wants me to discriminate against anyone.  I am called to love people.  I love the sinner, but hate the sin.  Homosexuality is no more severe of a sin than telling a little white lie.  The consequences may be more severe, but in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin and it doesn't matter whether you miss heaven by a half inch or 100,000 miles. The fact is, you still missed it.  If we banned homosexuality in the military, then to be fair, we'd have to ban everyone who has told a lie, which just about encompasses everybody.  So, that's my view on the situation.

This is not meant to offend anyone, just gives my views.

You go against everything I believe in quite frankly; in how you treat your working life, your family and your relationships. You are a model to the forum in how not to live your life.

[afleitch]

Here is my view of DADT

I happen to agree with this repeal. First let me say this, I'm a strong Christian, but I'm also politically-independent. I have a very weird view on this. First off, I HATE homosexuality, it goes against everything the Lord my God teaches. However, I have to agree with Hillary Clinton when she said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight". I come at it from a defense point of view. We have lost many strategic and key people in our military because of DADT. For example, we have had several soldiers who could translate Arabic, the predominate language of the muslim terrorists, be discharged because of their sexual orientation.  I think this move actually does strengthen our defenses.  If you want to talk about our morality slipping, it flew out the window ages ago.  Plus, I don't think my God wants me to discriminate against anyone.  I am called to love people.  I love the sinner, but hate the sin.  Homosexuality is no more severe of a sin than telling a little white lie.  The consequences may be more severe, but in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin and it doesn't matter whether you miss heaven by a half inch or 100,000 miles. The fact is, you still missed it.  If we banned homosexuality in the military, then to be fair, we'd have to ban everyone who has told a lie, which just about encompasses everybody.  So, that's my view on the situation.

This is not meant to offend anyone, just gives my views.

You go against everything I believe in quite frankly; in how you treat your working life, your family and your relationships. You are a model to the forum in how not to live your life.

Haha, Thanks for sharing!!  I know I do things a heck of a lot differently than most people, and I could stand to learn a few things in a few areas.  I'm not disappointed in myself or anything like that.  In fact, right now, I have a lot of joy in my life.  Joy unspeakable.

Did you even read what I wrote? You think you can stand on a high ground and say you 'HATE' homosexuality (and as it is in uncompromisable part of my being, by extension you are making claims against me as a person) and then throw in a 'haha' to someone calling you out on your own shambolic, ego driven greedy existance.

You are not a model of humanity Bushie; you are a sorry excuse for a man forever in a state of arrested development permanently attached to the tete of anyone around you for support and succour while being captivated by the shiny pennies of scammers and people who want to f-ck up your entire existance. And when things go wrong you fix on your innane grin and raise out your platitudes to an empty sky. And then have the gall to think you have the slighest clue, have the slightest iota of what human relationships in everything from sex to business are all about. You fail at just about everyone you forge or you jeopardise it for a quick path to marriage and sex or for a quick buck.

I don't give a gold plated, cherry flavoured f-ck what you think about anything you open your gullible mouth about.

[afleitch]

Then, in that case, I am proud to be a bigot.

I don't really "hate" homosexuality, I don't care for it, but I don't hate it with a passion.  

Sounds like a very reflective 15 minutes.

My problem is this; People nowadays try to 'bargain' when it comes to gays because they want to get away with holding stupid opinions; 'Surely because x book says y that I should be allowed to say homosexuality is wrong.' But the thing is you can't say such a thing and retain any credibility. It is intellectually dishonest to because of what we now know about homosexuality and it's genetic and chemical factors. Homosexuality can a biological trace on a person even before the person knows they are gay; in the length of fingers, in the direction of the hair pattern on the head, brain patterns are different, reactions to smells are different. Just saying 'I think it's a choice' over and over again doesn't make it so. To the contrary; research from reputable social, biological and genetic experts say otherwise. The may still be trying to work out exactly what it is but they certainly know what it is not Sadly you still adhere to what it is not.

People argue that 'it's a choice' so they feel they can legitimately speak out against it (particularly the religious; which is ironic as religion is a choice). But they are on dangerous territory. Not only are such arguments blatantly devious they are also deeply offensive. So alot of religious people simply ignore the science and they ignore the testimony of gays that they may know because it doesn't fit with how they want to think.

I'm not religious anymore. But I think if you believe that it's gods creation and if you ignore the things that we discover about the world and the people in it in favour of a book with human influence and error, then you essentially have a problem with his creation.

What the hell is the "homosexual lifestyle"? You hear that a lot from uninformed people, particularly from places like Oklahoma.

If you ever find that out please let us know

[afleitch]

But to a certain extent, isn't it that Christians have a problem with the act of homosexuality, as in two members of the same sex having sex, rather than the attraction itself? Last time I checked most of them don't even accept that it's something they are born with. I remember Falwell at least accepted the possibility that it was, but he viewed it as no different than him being attracted to women other than his wife.

I'm not condemning homosexuality, but that argument would not work with most religious people, because even though people cannot choose who they are attracted to, they can choose who they have sex with. People cannot choose if they are born with dark skin.

But that argument doesn't stand up either. Again it was only two generations ago that some people said; okay so you're black but do you really have to marry and have sex with someone who's white?

Of course I can choose who to have sex with....but the person has to be male. And that is a direct consequence of my homosexuality. Sparks in my brain and sparks in my loins just don't happen for women. So they say I have a 'choice' but I don't really; it's either sex with men or no sex.

In both examples they are exuses given by people for no legitimate reason other than that they are personally uncomfortable with it.

[afleitch]

I understand your point, I doubt most Christians would agree with it though. That's all I'm saying.

Then that essentially is their problem. We cannot sweep aside decades of increased understanding and research on human sexuality because a religious group is uncomfortable with it.

[afleitch]

do I still believe homosexuality is a sin that if not overcome will result in the person being eternally condemned?  absolutely.

Cute. I've always wondered how that's supposed to work given the testimony of countless numbers who persuaded themselves they had done so only to realise they had been sold a pup by the charlatan that promised them a fix for the unfixable.

[afleitch]

do I still believe homosexuality is a sin that if not overcome will result in the person being eternally condemned?  absolutely.

Cute. I've always wondered how that's supposed to work given the testimony of countless numbers who persuaded themselves they had done so only to realise they had been sold a pup by the charlatan that promised them a fix for the unfixable.

of course, you discount the testimony of the ones who actually escaped out of homosexuality.  as i said earlier:

The Gordon Gekko types, those who try to pass their character flaws off as “good”, would be the ones that would scream, “If you hate greed, then you hate me, for I was born greedy.  I was greedy from my earliest childhood memories! You can’t change me.  God can’t change me.  God’s not powerful enough to remake me.  I won’t let him.  I like the way I am.  Leave me alone or I will attack you and call you mean names!”

Of course I discount it; because of the testimony of those who realised they couldn't change makes you understand what they went through because of social or religious pressure. Look at this way jmfcst; ex-gay'therapy' is a scam. Scientology is also a scam out to get people by saying theres something wrong with them that only Scientology can 'cure.' Who's testimony do you trust more - those in Scientology who say it's wonderful and amazing and fantastic or those who got out and exposed it for the sham that it is?

[afleitch]

Scientology?!  Let's keep the context on Christ:  if a pig that is washed returns to wallowing in the mud, does that mean the pig was never cleaned?  or if a dog returns to his vomit, does that mean the dog never threw up?  If some drunks conquer alcoholism and some drunks fail, does that discount the ones who escaped?

No. Let's not. Until you learn to start answering the question that is put to you, you do not have the right to dictate the context of the debate. Agreed?

[afleitch]

Scientology?!  Let's keep the context on Christ:  if a pig that is washed returns to wallowing in the mud, does that mean the pig was never cleaned?  or if a dog returns to his vomit, does that mean the dog never threw up?  If some drunks conquer alcoholism and some drunks fail, does that discount the ones who escaped?

No. Let's not. Until you learn to start answering the question that is put to you, you do not have the right to dictate the context of the debate. Agreed?

I wanna see the dirty pig jmfcst in anti-straight therapy.

as if heterosexuality is something one needs to cleansed of?  And who said anything about "therapy"?  All it takes to be cleansed of sin is a meeting with Christ.

Ignoring the Christians who can reconcile their faith with their sexuality again jmfcst

[afleitch]

Scientology?!  Let's keep the context on Christ:  if a pig that is washed returns to wallowing in the mud, does that mean the pig was never cleaned?  or if a dog returns to his vomit, does that mean the dog never threw up?  If some drunks conquer alcoholism and some drunks fail, does that discount the ones who escaped?

No. Let's not. Until you learn to start answering the question that is put to you, you do not have the right to dictate the context of the debate. Agreed?

Do I need to point out the obvious flaw in your logic?  I only have to change one phrase to have you sound exactly like a drunk unwilling to come clean:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I gave the example of another faith (Scientology) offering people a cheap fix for their perceived problems. Which is exactly what some Christians flog to gays. Now answer the question; whose testimony due you trust - the gullible person deeply embedded in Scientology thinking their stress was due to 'soul dust' or the person who left knowing that what it offered was a sham that made problems where there were none.

[afleitch]

Example:  Andrew totally stopped discussing Romans ch1 

I stopped discussing it when I ceased to hold any faith at all.