A Former Navy Officer Stands Up For Gay Rights
Oct 16th, 2009 | 181 responses
You know me by now. I find that Letters to the Editor generally depict the unvarnished views of “regular” Americans, and I often use them support a particular point of view. Of course, these same letters can also express points of view that I do not agree with. I am sure that those who oppose my views can and will use those in order to support their views.
Anyway, in the debate to eliminate discrimination in our armed forces based on sexual orientation, those who would like to retain policies such as “Don’t ask, Don’t tell,” or would even like to totally bar gay and lesbian Americans from serving their country, often cite “the facts” that our “straight” members of the military passionately support such discriminatory policies.
They conveniently ignore the fact that attitudes toward accepting gays in the military have dramatically evolved—just as attitudes towards gays have evolved in society as a whole. For example, “a 2006 Zogby International poll found 73 percent of military personnel were comfortable with the idea of serving with gays and lesbians. About one in four U. S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq told Zogby pollsters they knew a member of their unit who was gay,” according to Clarence Page in the Chicago Tribune.
Also, according to the Tribune, “A group of 28 retired generals and admirals, including retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a letter in 2007 calling on Congress to repeal the don’t ask, don’t tell act.”
Very recently, U.S. Air Force Colonel Om Prakash won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition with a National War College study highly critical of the “Dont ask, Don’t tell” policy.
There are numerous other indicators that the tide is turning, or has turned.
But back to the Letters to the Editor.
Here is a letter in this morning’s Washington Post from a Navy man that, in my opinion, speaks volumes.
Friday, October 16, 2009
In 1989, as commanding officer of a Navy carrier-based squadron, I used my authority to block attempts by my executive officer to demean and prosecute a man because he thought the sailor was gay. I would not allow such harassment.
The sailor in question had an outstanding performance record and was serving his country with honor. What possible difference did it make whom he loved?
It’s time for the people of this country to show some courage in the face of the bigots who would shame, condemn, abuse or demean gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.
As Americans, we are all pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly we are legally and morally bound to enact legislation that ensures the law shall be applied equally to all of us, regardless of our differences and especially if those differences incite prejudice in others.
Anything less is gay-bashing. I hope the citizens of this country do not continue to dishonor my military service by continuing to permit gay-bashing.
ROBERT J. McNAMARA
Hilliard, Ohio
opinions powered by SendLove.to
181 Responses to “A Former Navy Officer Stands Up For Gay Rights”
the vast minority
I then must turn away from it, confess, and sin no more.
This sounds like the Cultural Revolution in China. I don't intend that as an insult; it just strikes me as exactly the same sort of totalitarian self-flagellation. Theirs was political; yours is religious. To each their own, but this is not the kind of religious infrastructure most people want for their lives.
The only right or better light that can be shed on this is through faith. The reason I bring that up AGAIN, is that the vast majority of the world subscribes to a higher power. Here in the US, over 80% of us claim God as our god. He and he alone has made that decision for us. For the general public to accept and support openly gay behavior would be to not be true to that faith.
First of all, the vast majority of the Western world, outside the U.S., is much more secular than we are. I don't claim any expertise on the entire globe's religious philosophy, but this much I can vouch for: belief in a “higher power” does not in any way imply the elevation of any one particular understanding of that higher power's nature and what it demands of us over another. The specific understanding of God that is revealed by your sentence “He and he alone has made that decision [that homosexuality is sinful and immoral] for us” does not necessarily follow from just the belief in a higher power. That statement about God — “He and he alone has made that decision for us” — tells me that you believe God is a specific individual — disembodied and all-powerful, but still an individual — who is male in gender and who has ordered humans on Earth to obey a particular set of rules that he wrote in a book and handed out to everyone.Hey — you know what? Go for it, JeffersonDavis, if that's what you believe, but if you believe that this is the form everyone's religious belief takes, or even most people's, I'd say you are assuming an awful lot with very little evidence.
I'm enjoying your comments on this subject, Dr J, because it is surely the only subject on which you and I will so strongly agree.
Well, I liked your Nat King Cole song too. :^)
“Prayer in public schools does, because that's a violation of church and state separation.”
First of all, Kat. Here's where our basic precept differs greatly. Schools (which are supposed to be funded through counties) should reflect the local population. The federal government should not be involved IMO. Separation of church and state means no prescribed religion. It does not mean removal of God. All I suggest is a silent period where a child can pray, meditate, or draw doodles. It's been my experience that most people do not object to that compromise. I, too, stand against specific forced religious prayer in school – that IS the separation of church and state. I never said I supported Government funded/mandated prayer. You and I are closer on that one than you may expect.
“Talk about apples and oranges. The Israelites did not have government as we know it now, so separating religious life from public life was not an issue for them.”
Are seriously telling me that Israel did not have kings? I'm sure you're not. The kings and levites through Israel's history were the government. That government was soley based on God's Law. Public life and religious life were one and the same. You had to know that, Kathy. It's throughout the Old Testament.
As far as the Pledge of Allegiance, I know where you are coming from on that one. After much self-debate, I found that I do not mind a pledge to a country from it's citizens as long as it does not take away self-identity. If atheists in school want to leave out the “under God” then fine, let them. The oath itself is not a problem in my book. It promotes pride and nationalism, without which a nation is weaker IMHO. Every government employee and civil servant must also swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. I don't see a difference. A pledge to the President or government is a bit different. Much like the Barack Hussein Obama song children were forced to sing. That disturbed me. Would have disturbed me had it been any President's name.
“that means the Founders believed that specific religious dogma should govern public life?”
There you go again mixing religious with god-inclusion. Most of the Founding Fathers were Dieist or Unitarian. They did not write about the inclusion of RELIGION or DOGMA, they wrote about the inclusion of God only. You do see the difference, don't you?
As far as the Sunday's off section in Article I. I was half kidding actually. But you said that the Constitution was a solely secular document. I merely noted that Article to show that they made room for the President to worship. The Anno Domini was, indeed a written convention; but if they were so insistant of leaving God out of government as you suggest, they would have left it off.
And I've said this so many times. They did not want or intend a THEOCRACY, nor do I. I would hope that no one would want that (I'm sure there are some out there). The Dieist philosophy that they wrote about, included a higher power and humility and glory to Him. That's all. No prescribed worship, no prescribed religion, and no prescribed theocracy. As I stated above, there IS a difference.
“To each their own, but this is not the kind of religious infrastructure most people want for their lives.”
And once again, Kat….Such is the problem. Service to God is not supposed to be what YOU want. It's supposed to be what God wants. God wants what's best for us (in all faiths); but we cannot do things OUR way, as we are flawed (as are our thought processes).
“God is a specific individual — disembodied and all-powerful, but still an individual — who is male in gender and who has ordered humans on Earth to obey a particular set of rules that he wrote in a book and handed out to everyone”
God as a “male” gender? No. God is a spirit and does not have a penis to the best of my knowlege.
But who made a particular set of rules that he handed our to everyone? Absolutely. But I refuse to take that Book and say, “Ya know what God. Nice book. It's got the following problems. You need to remove this and this and totally rewrite this. Rewrite it and get back to me.” We are not God's editors. He is ours.
This is D. E. (Dorian) “reporting” from the Yucatan Peninsula, deep in Mayan country,country where people who had a different God than we do—yet good people—away from the hustle and the bustle, enjoying the discussion, almost as much as I am enjoying associating with good people (straights, gays, white, black, brown, people of other religions, or no religion, people who have never read the NT or the OT) and who—nevertheless—are fine, decent human beings—good people.
Talk to you when I get back, if not before.
Hey D.E. hope you are enjoying your trip.
You brought up a point. Just curious, How is it the Maya approach homsexuality in terms of their god?
The federal government should not be involved IMO.
We disagree on this. Public education is an aspect of the general welfare. Actually, it's implicit in all our rights.
Separation of church and state means no prescribed religion. It does not mean removal of God.
God cannot be removed, by definition. God is not a piece of furniture. And the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion.” It does not say “no prescribed religion.” It's not clear that “no establishment of religion” means “no establishment of one specific religion.” In fact, that's not what the Constitution says. It says “no establishment of religion.” To me — and obviously a solid body of opinion exists in the U.S. for this interpretation — that implies exactly what it says: the government shall not make any law establishing religion. Not “Christianity” or “Judaism” or “Islam” or any other specific religion. Just “religion.” That includes so-called “silent periods.”
Are seriously telling me that Israel did not have kings? I'm sure you're not. The kings and levites through Israel's history were the government. That government was soley based on God's Law. Public life and religious life were one and the same. You had to know that, Kathy. It's throughout the Old Testament.
Sigh. The Israel was ruled by kings during one specific period of time, from ca. 1000 B.C.E. to ca. 587 B.C.E., when the period of the Babylonian exile began. And the monarchy was not a “government” in the sense that we understand that word today.
There you go again mixing religious with god-inclusion. Most of the Founding Fathers were Dieist or Unitarian. They did not write about the inclusion of RELIGION or DOGMA, they wrote about the inclusion of God only. You do see the difference, don't you?
Of course, I do. I don't think you do, though.
And once again, Kat….Such is the problem. Service to God is not supposed to be what YOU want. It's supposed to be what God wants. God wants what's best for us (in all faiths); but we cannot do things OUR way, as we are flawed (as are our thought processes).
Hm. Hmmmm. I don't think this is a Unitarian belief. I don't think it's a Deist belief. I know it's not a belief held by all streams of Judaism. I'm reasonably sure it's not a Buddhist belief. Hmm. Hmmmm. Hey! I know! It must be a belief held by specific religious sects, such as, for example, Southern Baptists, Christian fundamentalists, etc., etc. Hey! I know what this is! It's a prescribed religious belief!
Phew. Glad we got that one straightened out.
Holy cow, have you guys been up all night? Well, I guess I should throw my 2 cents in and let y'all get back at it.
First: JD, you are fully, fully missing my point. I'm talking about the circular logic fallacy, nothing else. It seems that you're getting tripped up on the fact that a lot of us (myself included) don't believe that the Bible is true, and that's so far away from your experience that you can't imagine a world in which it's not taken as fact.
“You just told me that nothing on paper is fact.”
No! I told you that being on a piece of paper does not *make* something a fact. If something is written on paper, it could be a fact or it could be not a fact. Being on a piece of paper has no bearing on whether or not it is a fact. That is my point. For atheists, the Bible is a piece of paper, not a holy book filled with “facts”.
“The Bible is not contradictory and paradoxical.”
Yes, it is both internally inconsistent in places, and quite inconsistent with known scientific truth in others. It’s ok, it doesn’t mean it’s not valuable. It just means that many within the faith and outside have a hard time understanding those who choose to ignore these inconsistencies, yet say they need to (for example) keep gay people from marrying because every word in the Bible is true.
Just a few examples: (duh) the Bible says the sun goes around the Earth. We know that not to be true. It gives the value of pi to be exactly 3, when we know that it is 3.141592653, etc. When Cain is banished and goes out into the world, he is afraid that people will kill him, so God gives him a mark to protect him. Who is he afraid of? His little brothers and sisters? Anyway, that’s just the first three I can think of. Again, this doesn’t mean that the Bible isn’t an excellent book full of awesome lessons for mankind, it just means that people like me get very suspicious when others pretend to believe every single word, and use some of those words to deny rights to others.
As for prayer in school – you say that the schools should reflect the local community. I suppose if you were transferred to my city and ended up in certain neighborhoods, you wouldn’t mind your kids being forced to pray with the Buddhists, or the Russian Orthodox, or the Muslims? We have public schools in different areas of the city where these methods of prayer would best reflect the majority of the local population.
But who made a particular set of rules that he handed our to everyone? Absolutely. But I refuse to take that Book and say, “Ya know what God. Nice book. It's got the following problems. You need to remove this and this and totally rewrite this. Rewrite it and get back to me.” We are not God's editors. He is ours.
That is a specific religious understanding of God, most commonly found among fundamentalist Christian groups. It is not a generic feature of all religious belief.
I didn't realize you were an atheist, Roro. You are correct, to atheists it is just a bunch of paper.
“The sun goes around the Earth”
Please tell me you're not referring to Psalm 19:
“In them he has set a tent for(D) the sun,
5(E) which comes out like(F) a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.”
If you are, then you are saying that every time someone says “the sun is rising” or “the sun is setting”, they believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Come on! That is reaching beyond comprehension.
And the dimensions in 1 Kings 7 that you refer to? Wow.
Now we have to revisit the other writings we hold dear. It states that all MEN are created equal. Ok, roro, that means you and kathy are no longer equal because you are not men. Yeah, we used to think it meant humankind, but I guess we were wrong. Give me a break.
As for Cain. What are you talking about. There were other people on earth at the time of Cain's banishment. God made man in his own image. God does not have fingers and toes. The soul of man was created in His image. That is not to say that the human animals were not already on earth at the time. As I've said in the past…. God and science gel quite well. The first of God's people was Adam.
But we seem to agree that the Founding Fathers were dieist, correct?
We may or may not agree about their intent on the Constitution; although their writings state that God is intregal part of the Constitution's success and future.
The service to God being not what YOU want is not in relation to the Constition. I was simply stating that the only religion I know of the stresses the opposite is Wicca and many other pagan faiths (note: pagan faith is an accepted term to refer to earthly faith, not a smear – before you go off on that).
You seem to think that if a Jew changes the rules, it's ok with Jehovah. You also seem to think that if a Christian changes the rules, that's ok too. The “I don't believe that the Bible was from the finger of God”, and “just because it's in the Bible doesn't make it true” statements make that perfectly clear. Instead of picking and chosing only the portions of the Bible/Torah you like and mixing them with the elements of humanism you like; why not stop the lack of commitment and chose one, or invent your own. Just don't imply that Christians are misguided Bible believers. Yes, I know you didn't say that implicitly – I was trying to make a point.
Ok Kat…..
“That is a specific religious understanding of God, most commonly found amoung fundamentalist…”
And that's the same crutch that extremist Muslims use when blowing themselves up and killing innocents. It's just a specific religious understanding of God. Either some “understandings” are wrong or they are not, Kathy. Go ahead and tell me these Muslims are correct in relation to the Q'uran. They are not. There are either true Muslims or untrue Muslims. They cannot both be right. Likewise, there are true Christians and untrue Christians. They cannot all be right. There is right and wrong. Many liberals seem to think just about any moral code is acceptable. A successful nation MUST have a common moral code that is agreed upon, or it will erupt into anarchy. What was our common moral code in this nation, Kat? Was it Hammurabi's Code? No. Let's see….. Was it pagan rituals that defined our moral code? No, that's not it. Oh yes….. It was Judeo-Christian ethics that outlined our common moral code.
JD — *I* am not the one saying that every word in the Bible is true! I'm fine with it being a metaphor, but if you are going to say that it is the unerring word of God, then you have to look at the inconsistencies. Yes, 1 Kings says that pi is 3; there's nothing else vague or esoteric about 1 Kings. I really don't care — it was hard to measure circles better than that then. The geocentricity passage is the one where God holds the sun and moon in place so that Joshua could finish a battle. There are also multiple flat-earth references. This is fine, like I said, but I don't believe that the Bible is true word-for-word anyway.
Your interpretation of the Cain thing is…well, let's just say that's a pretty wild interpretation that I think would be totally rejected by most people who take the Bible literally, and well, pretty much anyone else too. So there's something — anything — in the Bible to indicate that man was already on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve's creation? And I am the one who is “reaching beyond comprehension”? At the time when Cain was banished, the supposed human population of the world was Adam, Eve, Cain, any other kids Adam and Eve had, and any kids/grandkids their kids had. I know the idea is that people lived a lot longer then than now, but sheesh.
I pick out 3 inconsistencies, you pick out roughly the same number of references to homosexuality. The point is: we each see what we want, but neither should be used to form public policy.
But we seem to agree that the Founding Fathers were dieist, correct?
My understanding is that many of them were; I don't know about all.
We may or may not agree about their intent on the Constitution; although their writings state that God is intregal part of the Constitution's success and future.
A general statement like that does not necessarily point to an intent to fund overt religious practice with public dollars, or to have explicitly religious practice in government settings.
The service to God being not what YOU want is not in relation to the Constition. I was simply stating that the only religion I know of the stresses the opposite is Wicca and many other pagan faiths (note: pagan faith is an accepted term to refer to earthly faith, not a smear – before you go off on that).
I have no idea what you're on to here. I don't know what you mean by “the opposite.”
You seem to think that if a Jew changes the rules, it's ok with Jehovah. You also seem to think that if a Christian changes the rules, that's ok too.
It's not about “changing the rules.” It's about finding ways to build a consistent religious practice that honors the rules while recognizing that it may not be possible to observe them in the exact same way that the ancient Israelites did. In fact, Jewish observance has never looked the same from one historical period to another. It has evolved and changed, as religious civilizations do evolve and change. Jewish religious life and practice had *not* changed over the centuries, the Jewish people would not have survived. We owe our survival as a people to the fact that we *were* able to change in order to live and survive in the many different historical times and places and conditions we have had to live and survive in.
I don't expect you to understand any of this. We've been arguing far too long by now for me to expect you to understand what I'm saying. I simply am responding to your statement, is all.
Just don't imply that Christians are misguided Bible believers.
The problem with this statement is that it assumes only one way to be Christian: your way, which is to hold that the Bible was literally written by God, that every word in it is literally, straightforwardly true, and that it is meant to be “obeyed,” in a very literal way. Because you start out with this assumption, which is totally impervious to any shift or modification, it follows, naturally and logically, that you also believe any Christian who does not make these assumptions is not Christian, is not doing what God wants, is not honoring the Bible, and so on. This, of course, means that the pastor of an Episcopalian church in a town near mine, whom I know from when I used to live in that town, is not a Christian. It also means that my ex-husband's second wife, who has no religious practice at all, is not a Christian, either. And *that* means that there is absolutely no difference between my ex-husband's second wife, who is not religious at all and never goes to church, and this pastor I know at that local Episcopalian church. Neither of them are Christians. And that way of defining “Christian” or any specific religion is extreme, and if you want to know the truth, frightening to me. With all due respect.
And that's the same crutch that extremist Muslims use when blowing themselves up and killing innocents. It's just a specific religious understanding of God. Either some “understandings” are wrong or they are not, Kathy. Go ahead and tell me these Muslims are correct in relation to the Q'uran. They are not. There are either true Muslims or untrue Muslims.
You are making an error in logic. Muslim extremists have one, particular, specific “understanding” of Islam that is distorted, perverted, and not at all in accordance with what Islam is truly about. That does not mean that the larger concept of human beings having varying understandings of religious precepts is distorted or perverted.
Likewise, there are true Christians and untrue Christians. They cannot all be right. There is right and wrong. Many liberals seem to think just about any moral code is acceptable. A successful nation MUST have a common moral code that is agreed upon, or it will erupt into anarchy.
This kind of absolutist, black-and-white thinking is the very essence of extremism, JD. I'm sorry, but it is. Even the Christian religious right doesn't really believe that all human behavior is either right or wrong. If they did, they would condemn torture when the C.I.A. does it as unequivocally as they do when Syria, or Egypt, or Libya does it. Instead, they call it a “false moral equivalency.”
“They cannot all be right” misses the point. In some areas of life — actually, in most areas of life — there are shades of gray. Black and white are not the only possible legitimate choices. The entire world lives in the gray zone, JD. No one lives in an all-black or an all-white world (these terms are figurative, of course) except extremists and fanatics. Again, with respect, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
“Is there anything in the Bible to indicate that man was already on Earth at the time of Adam….”
I offered that description up as possiblity, not fact. Along with the fact that the order or Creation mimicks that offered by science, that explaination fits. You asked for ANYTHING to indicate that man was already here…….You already asked and answered that yourself – CAIN is an example. Is it not?
Buth this is beside the point. Those particular examples (Creation of soul and science) is my particular take on things in the Bible that have nothing to do with God's commands. Where the Bible is silent I should be silent. In this case I was not silent. Those were just thoughts that float around in my head. I'll find the answer to that and more when I'm face to face with God. It's just like the people who fight over the meanings in Revelation (the most devisive book in Christianity). It just doesn't matter what WILL happen, only that you better be prepared when it does.
“Neither should be used to form public policy”.
Well, we've already legalized murder, or as you call it, abortion.
We now wish to normalize homosexuality.
You are forming public policy based upon atheistic principles. What gives atheists more of a right to call policy than Christians?
“A general statement like that does not necessarily point to an intent to fund overt religious practice with public dollars, or to have explicitly religious practice in government settings.”
Kathy I DID NOT SAY TO FUND OVERT RELIGIOUS PRACTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do you keep saying that???? I keep saying what John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. Apparently, you think John Adams is full of crap. Let me guess. He and Jefferson didn't intend the Constitution for “today's world” either. I do not think they were full of crap, Kathy. They were wise beyond there years, and created a beautiful document. Why do you refuse to accept THEIR maintaining that God is woven into the Constitution?
“The problem with this statement is that it assumes only one way to be Christian: your way, which is to hold that the Bible was literally written by God, that every word in it is literally, straightforwardly true, and that it is meant to be “obeyed,” “
Kathy, there are figurative portions of the Bible. Otherwise, when Christ said that Peter was his “rock”, then Peter literally turned to stone prior to building His Church. I know that not every single word is literal. That's silly. But you dismiss even the blatantly explicit commands from God in both Testaments. You keep claiming “literal literal” and don't even acknowlege God's wishes in most (yes MOST) Christian bodies that homosexuality is condemned. That is LITERAL because it is specifically addressed – no trick words – no false translations. Every translation of the Bible that I have seen prohibits homosexuality.
Did you say that a pastor at a Episcopalian church is “not Christian”? How can that be?
Episcopalians are Christians. Does that mean they cannot sin? No. You're being silly.
Alcoholics can be Christians as well. But they have to face their disease and turn away from it. As are gambling addicts, murderers, rapists, and just about everything else under the sun.
Here's a tidbit of information for you. Do you remember Jeffrey Dahlmer? He's remembered for some pretty disgusting activity, is he not? Did you realize that shortly before he was killed in prison, that he accepted the Gospel of Christ, was baptised, confessed and repented? If his heart was pure (only God knows this) that means he'll be in heaven. Some denominational “men of God” refused to hear his confession and baptise the man because they could not see beyond his earthly actions. One preacher, from a Church of Christ (I believe) was the only one that would go. Your pastor friend, I assume he's gay or you wouldn't have mentioned it; is living in a sinful state. He, too, could turn away from that. If he chose to. If he's merely a pastor that shows love and compassion to gays, then that is awesome. He is supposed to do that, as do I. But he, nor I, should do anything to propitiate or condone the behavior.
“You are making an error in logic. Muslim extremists have one, particular, specific “understanding” of Islam that is distorted, perverted, and not at all in accordance with what Islam is truly about.”
Isn't that the very same thing I said about certain Christians – and you chastised me for it?
Let's change the words and see how that logic sounds to you:
“You are making an error in logic. Christians who condone homosexuality have one, particular, specific understanding of Christianity that is distorted, perverted, and not at all in accordance with what Christianity is truly about.”
How's that logic now. Wait. That's YOUR logic.
“Cheer up everyone, you know what they say…”
Monty Python addressed both gays in the military AND the difference between religion and God over thirty years ago. Let me suggest that we “Always Look On The Bright Side of Life” when discussing Military Fairies.
Everything will work out in the end. Hell's fire even non-believers know that!
By “fund overt religious practice” I mean overt religious practice — not overt Christian or Jewish, etc., practice. Overt religious practice. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” SO. WHAT. So what, JD? So what? How do you get from that to “John Adams wanted all of us to pray in the public square every day and put crosses on hillsides and the 10 Commandments in front of courthouses, mention God in speeches at every opportunity, put it on the White House letterhead, have national prayer breakfasts where every member of congress has to attend, have daily bible study groups on the floor of the Senate, etc., etc., etc.? What IS the huge significance that you see in John Adams complimenting the Constitution and the American people? “Our Constitution is really, really cool, because it was made for a really awesome and great people, moral and religious,” so that's supposed to mean he wanted everyone to say “God! God! God” “Let's pray!” at every opportunity? Can't a man make a simple statement of values or belief without it meaning he wants America to acknowledge God in the public square as many times as humanly possible?
You keep claiming “literal literal” and don't even acknowlege God's wishes in most (yes MOST) Christian bodies that homosexuality is condemned.
I don't acknowledge that “God's wishes” have any relevance for secular law. For the millionth, billionth, zillionth time, I might add. I also make what I feel is a rational assumption that if one instruction is repeated 100 times, and another is repeated two or three times, that probably means the one that's repeated 100 times is more important. if God says “Men, don't have sex with other men,” two or three times in the Bible; but says “Men, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, welcome in the stranger, comfort the afflicted, stand up for the persecuted and oppressed, don't exploit your workers,” and so on, constantly, all the time, on almost every page. If there is one biblical message that is most blatant and obvious, it is the importance of social justice. So your endless, endless hammering on about the importance of the second least mentioned topic in the Bible (the first least mentioned is abortion, which isn't mentioned at all) has very little, if any, merit.
By the way, here is a link that *you* may find of interest.
http://www.seattlefirstbaptist.org/Default.asp?…
My pastor friend is not gay, and also not male. Your analogizing Jeffrey Dahmer's sin to the supposed sin of homosexuality is beyond disgusting. It's as vile as anything I can think of. As is the idea that confession and baptism at the moment of death wipes out a lifetime of mass murder. I think that's just about the best dis-recommendation for your religious views that I can possibly imagine.
And now I do believe this will be my last comment in this thread. One thousand, one hundred forty-one comments — probably only about a third of which added anything new to the discussion — are enough.
Wow.
1. “Bible Barely mentions homosexuality.” – That's right. We should ignore that only mentioned a couple of times.
2. “homosexuality not the main teaching” – Neither was the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus. point?
3. “Homosexual texts are from 'troubled texts' requiring deeper interpretation” – okay. Go ahead and give me your interpretation then. Oh you forgot to because there is no other interpetation for “homosexuality is abomination”.
4. “our modern view of homosexuality isn't shared with those who lived in biblical times” – Please! Our modern view of being dressed modestly isn't either. This point makes itself.
5. “Jesus embraces 2 sexual minorities of his day” – He also embraced prostitutes. Once again, point? He embraced all. He told the prostitute “you are forgiven. Depart and sin no more”. SIN NO MORE.
6. “It is difficult to take a moral issue from the Bible and apply it today” – Only if you are dishonest with yourself and don't mind dismantling God's Word. God sees now as yesterday simultaneously.
7. “Jesus and Paul condemn judgmentalism” – How then did Jesus say, depart from me sinner, I never knew you. Isn't that a judgement? We are not to judge the heart of others. We must judge in our everyday lives. “Is this guy getting ready to stab me?” is a judgment.
8. “No single sexual ethic or morality in the Bible” – Once again old versus new convenant stuff. Polygamy was done away with. Endogamy was required to keep the lineage pure until the coming of the Messiah. After that, it was not needed. Interacial relations are throughout the Bible.
Wow. You a pastor at this congregation, Kat?
Kat. I didn't make that up about Dahlmer. It happened.
If a Christian believes in forgiveness from God, then who are they to say that God does not forgive?
And I made it quite clear that if his heart was pure. If you sincerely ask God's forgiveness, he will forgive – His words not mine. You don't believe that?
And I KNEW you'd turn this into a “Jeff is calling homosexuality a sin and it's disgusting” situation. I did not call it sin, Kathy. My God did. I refuse to hate and dispise homosexuals. I refuse to mistreat homosexuals. I refuse to condone their behavior. And I refuse to accept their campaign to accept their behavior as normal – no matter how many media outlets they take hostage.
You're right. It's about time for this thread to end. I'll never convince you to actually be consistent with the Bible/Torah/Cat in the Hat or whatever book it is you follow. Judging by the comments you've made, I think you make up your faith as you go along. I could be wrong on that. But I will remain consistent, because I do not try to take away from the bible or add to it.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
2 Timothy – 3:16
“Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. Trouble and anguish have taken hold on me: yet thy commandments are my delights. The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live. I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O LORD: I will keep thy statutes. I cried unto thee; save me, and I shall keep thy testimonies.
-Psalm 119
My God!
So many comments just to try to justify discrimination against a segment of our population?
Unvelievable.
And most of it in the name of God? Your God, my God, our God?
Even more unbelievable
Dorian
Dorian,
If you remember correctly, I had no problem with gays serving their nation. I propose no discrimination against gays, nor do I support any person that condones that gay sailors aren't productive and useful servicemen. Not once have I done that. I have stated that I refuse to say that homosexual behavior is condoned by God, nor will I support any legislation or executive order that presents homosexuality as acceptable “normal” behavior.
But when Kathy backs up her claims with Jewish/Christian references, she is wrong. As Christians, we are to love ALL of our fellow man. We are not, however, to condone, support, or turn a blind eye to ungodly behavior implemented with our money (tax dollars). And that is ONLY Christians. I know that their are many non-Christians/Jews in America. They can support it if they chose. I merely stated that Christians should obey the God in which the claim to have faith. I refuse to accept that they just rewrite the Bible or claim that it “isn't for today's world” in order to justify their agenda. I think that is a very fair statement.
JD:
I am on travel and it is difficult to access the internet and post regularly. But out of respect for your opinions, let me reply and summarize mine.
First, I am totally perplexed by your conflicting statements and claims.
You say you have no problems with gays serving their nation, then you turn around and state that you will oppose any legislation (i.e. repeal of DADT) that would allow them to serve (By the way, legislation is not intended to define morality nor to legislate that a homosexual is “abnormal.”)
Second, you have claimed in the past that you love your fellow human beings and then you turn around and call your fellow homosexuals' behavior “UnGodly behavior.”
Whose God, by the way. Yours?
Finally, we should not use God, the Bible, or our Founding Fathers to, today AD 2009, deny our fellow human beings equal rights because of sexual orientation.
You have every right to oppose such, but so do now a large part of the American people have the right to oppose your views and support equal rights for gays and lesbiams.
Anyway, good discussion, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
By the way, My God is my conscience, my heart, my soul, my mind. As long as a human being does OK by those, I think he will do well by anyone's God.
Dorian,
Who's God? Mine? No, not necessarily.
The founding fathers had a “generic” dieist God in mind. Christian God, Jewish God, Muslim God, Greek God, Hindu God, etc. Their point was that, no matter what you call Him, keep Him in the mix, because the Constitution will only work or succeed with that condition. This is not theocracy which says, worship this way or else. This is simply the inclusion of God, in any form. I would assume they made those statements, since the absence of God (present company exluded of course) typically means evil.