Here's what you don't seem to understand: a gay soldier is not being disrespectful to a Baptist's (or Baptistlike Jewish person's) values. He is simply a gay soldier. Your outward expression of disdain for that soldier is not your values, it's your animosity. It is animosity which is prohibited, not values.
#2, a hot 3 months out of the academy, a female recruit(she isn't even considered an officer until after 1 year) was assigned to a particular housing unit while the regular officer was recuperating an injury. She started up a relationship with a known high ranking gang member(I need to be fair here and let you know that this particular officer was white only to denounce Nova's contention of demographics). She not only forgot her undue familiarity training from a few months prior, she, in order to set up rival gang members, brought in razor blades which pretty much put everyone inside the secure perimeter at risk.
I've been at the prison since 2004 and lost count to how many female officers and other staff who lost their jobs because they decided to screw a $1.30 a day inmate.
In the case of the new policy, the Baptist chaplain who is ordered to officiate at a gay wedding is being coerced to act against his values. It is not his so-called "animosity" that is the issue, but the administration's (and your) animosity towards his values.
Finally, allow me to point out that, when confronted with facts that undermine your narrative, you attempt to change the subject or ignore the facts. In this case, you demanded proof that Manning's conduct was flagrant and questioned whether his being granted a clearance was the result of of a stop-loss, rather than political considerations. I provided that proof, and asked what action you would have taken as his commander, but you did not respond. You asked for proof that service members were being subjected to politically correct reprisals for actions or comments which were perfectly permissible prior to the change, and I provided a list of examples. Again, no response. You cited GEN Petraeus as an example of heterosexual misconduct and demanded to know how gay Soldiers were the reason for Petraeus' misconduct (an obvious non-sequitur), but I pointed out that sexual behavior between service members had toxic consequences, regardless of gender, and you didn't respond to that, either. If you are going to make demands for examples that support my arguments, the least that you can do is acknowledge them when you reply.
Once again, I will ask the obvious questions about Manning:
- Given a Soldier with a history of authority issues, who violates OPSEC while in training, but still gets a clearance, and then keeps that clearance while openly flouting the gay ban, cross-dressing and exhibiting mental health issues, including a violent outburst that required physical restraint and the associated behaviors of suicidal Soldiers, what actions would you take as his commander?
- Why do you believe that his chain of command did not act on them, if not for reasons of political correctness?
Two simple questions. Don't change the subject, play grammar Nazi or throw the bigot card down until you have answered these questions. I could ask them of any Soldier and get an intelligent, thoughtful response, but for some reason, I can't get one out of you.
We're not talking about "expressions of disdain." We're talking about the right of a church to follow its values, values which, up until a recent Congressional decision, were regarded as legitimate. The fact that a very politicized decision by a relatively small group of people can make a 2000-year old religion suddenly "bigoted" and open for reprimand is a major problem, both for that church and its military followers who find comfort in its presence on base.
It would help, Nova, if you could distinguish between personal feelings and matters of principle. It might help your argumentation and your relations with your interlocutors. What you have now is an image of being frivolous because you assume everything is a personal, emotional, petty thing, and your responses are flippant and thoughtless.
As has been stated many times here, no society has had "gay marriage." Even in societies where homosexual behavior was well regarded, a man did not marry his male (usually boy) lover. He was married to a wife with whom he had children and the marriage kept the legal standing and property rights of the children intact. The purpose of marriage was to create a legal family and the institution was not applied to same-sex relationships. Simply having sex with a young man did not make him your family. He was not a wife and could not fulfill the familial functions.
Christianity brought marriage to the level of a sacrament: a joining of man and woman by God became a part of the spiritual journey of both souls in the marriage. This sacrament was superimposed on the already existing model of marriage and was not applied to friendships, sexual relations with prostitutes, homosexual relationships, or any other kinds of relationships. The sacrament of marriage was strictly reserved for a man and woman who committed for life and produced children.
Modern life may have changed. The self-involvement of secular thinking has certainly produced problems for traditional marriage and for its status as a sacrament: no-fault divorce, the choice to have children out of wedlock (or not have them at all), and the omnipresent availability of premarital sex without consequences have certainly eroded marriage. Yet the wreckage caused by this erosion is a testament to the value of traditional marriage. Single motherhood, brought on by premarital sex or divorce, is the single biggest predictor of child poverty and lack of achievement. Irresponsible and absent fathers, single or divorced, bring a lack of stability to their children's lives as well as a lack of much needed financial support. Serial marriage, the result of those who divorce and try again (and again) to get it right, is such a negative example to the young that many are now forgoing marriage and just moving in with lovers, setting up house, and having children, all without legal protections.
Now, suddenly, we have "gay marriage" in which we throw away the entire idea of the legal, biological family, and put, in its place, a theoretical legal construct of "marriage" in which any two people, for whatever reason they choose, can legally become family for no other reason than that they feel like it--at least until the highly probable divorce. There is no intrinsic reason for the gay union; there are no children produced naturally by the couple that have to be cared for. In traditional marriage, the potential children and their protection and rights were the reason for the institution. In "gay marriage" an empty and baseless institution drives the acquisition of non-biological children through unnatural means. Two males cannot produce a child and must rely on donors and surrogates. Two females cannot produce a child, and while one of them can contribute biologically, the other is almost always unrelated. (I say almost because there is a rare procedure that allows the DNA of two lesbian mothers to be combined. One lesbian provides her own egg; the other lesbian's egg has the DNA extracted from it, placed into a sperm cell (whose male DNA has been removed) and fertilization occurs more or less naturally after that in the lab. The fertilized egg with both women's DNA is then implanted in one of the women. The procedure is rare, expensive, and there are legal issues with the male who is donating the sperm "shell" even though his DNA is not involved.)
You might argue that some infertile heterosexual couples also use unnatural means to have children, but these have not been as widespread until recently, as women are waiting until their late 30s to marry. Infertility rates for women jump after 35; at 41, infertility is off the charts. Even so, these procedures do not count for the vast majority of children born, even in the US. The WHO estimates that infertility affects 3-7% of couples worldwide. Assuming that the US numbers are a little higher because of women marrying later, let's say 10-15% of US women experience fertility issues and let's say that the whole 10-15% go for fertility treatments. That still leaves 85-90% that are having children naturally. In "gay marriages", the number of naturally occurring births is 0%, always. The children must always come from somewhere else and must always involve a 3rd party, whether it is a DNA donor, a surrogate, a heterosexual ex-spouse, or the guy who provides the sperm "shell" in the rare procedure for lesbians (above).
Now society might decide that our current new eroded form of marriage is just fine and dandy. Society might be fine with serial marriages, same-sex marriages, a 50% divorce rate, children without money, children without fathers, children whose parents never bothered to marry, teen mothers, etc. Society might even feel "freer" in some bizarre way, even as over 22% of American children live in poverty.
But Christian churches do not have to accept this new, eroded kind of marriage as a sacrament. A secular social contract does not imply a religious, sacred ritual. Christian churches have every right to refuse the sacrament of marriage to those couples for whom the sacrament was not intended. The Catholic Church still denies a church wedding to divorced people who do not also have an annulment. This is not a mere technicality: an annulment is a canon law proceeding that involves witnesses testifying to the fact that a sacrament of marriage did not take place even though a legal secular marriage did. There is a certain mental and spiritual mindset required for a sacramental marriage, which is why the Catholic church has a series of classes for the prospective spouses before the wedding. If one spouse married another in the wrong state of mind--he was drunk, not serious, lying about his intent to commit or about about wanting children, was incapable of making a commitment, etc.--and a number of people close to the situation can testify to it, the Church will grant an annulment. It's usually a long thoughtful process.
A minister from any church can deny a sacramental marriage to a couple he thinks are ill-suited, not serious, etc. A minister is not legally or spiritually required to provide a sacramental marriage or a church wedding to anyone who asks. Any and every couple can go to the Justice of the Peace and sign the paperwork. The religious leader cannot stop a bad marriage, but he can certainly deny it church sanction and sacramental status.
The same with so-called gay marriage. A minister or priest has a First Amendment right to believe that a marriage between two men or two women is not a sacrament. Same sex couples can go down to City Hall or to a more friendly venue, but no minister or priest should be forced to perform what would be a sacrilege in his faith. The wall of separation between Church and State is not just to protect to State from Church interference. It also protects the Church from State interference in its faith.
In the past, no pressure group of divorced people accused the Catholic Church of "hate speech" or "bigotry" because it wouldn't marry divorced members without an annulment and said so openly. There was no mass movement to get any church off of military bases because it wouldn't marry non-members, divorced people, or people it considered unsuited for a religious sacrament. Only with gay marriage has this idea of "bigotry" become an issue.
To accuse any church of "bigotry" because it does not believe in gay marriage and will not perform the sacrament of marriage for gay couples is a way of smearing an institution that cannot be coerced by legal means. One act of Congress cannot change a Church's ancient conception of a God-given sacrament and the First Amendment protects that Church's right to its beliefs.
What I think is really happening here is that the gay community wants more than legal marriage: they want the religious community to approve of them and say they are good people. It's an emotional need. Legally, gays will get the ability to legally marry in most of the US fairly soon. But the law can only grant a piece of paper, not social acceptance by everyone. There will still be many people who will not believe a gay couple to be married in the eyes of God, despite a legal marriage license. No law can change that. No piece of paper will change the minds and morality of the truly religious.
So, what the gay activists have decided to do instead is to change what the religious community can say and in what venue. If a church or its followers don't have the chance to say anything, the gay community's feelings won't get hurt. The gay activists basically wants to force acceptance through any legal means they can. They want to force people, by law, to be nice to them. In the process, they vomit up the worst possible insults towards the institutions they feel are rejecting them and are trying, through every curve of a serpentine legal process to get those "damned churches" to shut up. In other words, if the churches aren't "nice" to you and approve of everything you do, you are going to use the legal system to wipe them out of public consciousness.
In the end, it is emotional, personal, and petty after all.
And values don't matter when you are nursing your hurt feelings.
My fear is that this will extend to the civilian world. Churches that take any state money at all--such as school vouchers for poor students--may be forced into marrying gay couples.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|