I have decided to reprint a response to a FB friend concerning her question about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." She was angry with me because I scolded her for never having taken the time to look up the information and her reply had appeared smarmy, but I apologized for having possibly read it wrong. The basics that led to the response, however, are that I was pointing out how the media was mis-reporting the Pentagon's DADT investigation, using the statistics to try to support the point they started out wanting to arrive at. The stats actually show quite the opposite of what they wanted - 60% of soldiers said DADT's repeal would either have as many negative as positive effects in the military, or would have some or massive negative effects. 80% of COMBAT troops responded in this manner. This means only 40% of common soldiers would see it as positive, and only 20% of COMBAT troops would see it as such. This is not what the Administration or the Pentagon sought as support for their desired end.
Anyhow, in response to my friend to offer the other side from what she had heard and believed, I offered the following, which is still only a partial response. Much more could have been stated...
(Name removed), first let me apologize. I get so many snide remarks about this topic, from people who have no desire to get to know the facts or hear the other side, that I presumed about your tone. I would expect that you might have taken advantage of the internet to look at the other side, but it does take time, so below are a few websites I have found that may help you. I would disagree with your presumption that it is wrong for people to rebel against homosexuality, however. It is in man's nature to be repulsed at sin, until such time as they have been won over by it. The revulsion most men feel when faced with the facts of what homosexuality means between two men (sexually) is far more natural than the homosexual sex act. I am not condoning violence or ill will against homosexuals who serve in the military now, or who might be allowed to in the future. However, among many males there is as much revulsion concerning homosexuality as there is against pedophilia. 40 years of media and societal "reformation" have dulled some of that sense, but it still remains. To introduce what may very well be a dsyfunction into society and expect people to accept it as normal violates the conscience and logic - but this response is often defused in this case by labels such as homophobia and bigotry.
Let me pose this before I add the links: Would you feel the same way about men who have multiple wives? Could they serve their country, as well? Or how about people with other sexual proclivities, such as those who enjoy orgies, or who engage in wife-swapping, or even those who would include animals in their sexual exploration? The reason I ask is this: If you can make normal the act of homosexual sex, what moral or legal ground do you stand on to stop any of these other sexual acts? And if it must be legal to do these things, then how can we bar such people from service in the military? Where will you get your moral objection if you abandon the code that has guided us as a country to this point?
With that, I highly recommend the "hour three" podcast of Michael Medved's show from today, 2 December, directly addressing the issue of DADT. I don't agree with him on all points, but his is perhaps one of the best treatments of the issue that I've heard on-air. And a warning: I believe you cannot simply address DADT without discussing the issue of homosexuality as a base societal issue first. If you've already decided in your heart and mind that homosexuality is normal or acceptable, probably not much I share will sway you. These links do include many religious arguments, but there are many social commentaries intertwined, so bear with it. Last I checked, you were a Christian, so I would suppose you would accept the witness of Scripture on the issue, as well...
http://www.bfamilyadvocates.com/homosexuality.htm
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/feb/040223a
http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/men-sexual-trauma.asp
http://www.michaelmedved.com/ (again, 3rd hour podcast from 12-2-10)
http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek/2010/02/04/gay_rights_dont_ask,_dont_think (Great points to think about logically and legally)
http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/12/01/bradley_manning_poster_boy_for_dont_ask,_dont_tell/page/full/ (Take the time to read this - even if you don't like Coulter. Her points are excellent! There is a VERY good reason why homosexuality has traditionally been a disqualifier for intelligence service - just ask Barney Frank.)
There are thousands of other articles out there dealing with the issue, from its social dysfunction in regards to "gay" marriage, the truth behind the homosexual lifestyle that you don't see on t.v. or in the movies, and in how it will affect the military in implementation. How will we handle facilities in the military? Will homosexuals be allowed to shower with straight men? Sleep in the same quarters? Will they be allowed housing together? What about homosexual female soldiers? Do we make "gay" barracks, separate from "straight" barracks? Is it wise to introduce such a vehemently prolific sexual orientation into a war zone? (...and we are at war, and it is that for which the military exists...) I'm guessing you know how "ready for action" heterosexual males are. They are held back only by female restraint. Imagine now if there were NO restraints remaining. Imagine the current fight we have concerning heterosexual abuses in the military (and they are great) since the introduction of greater numbers of women in the services, and especially in war zones, now aggravated by the introduction of admittedly and avowedly unrestrained homosexual males! I believe one of my articles quotes some statistics on homosexual "polyamory," or their practice (almost doctrinal) of having sex with as many partners as possible. Remember, we're not opening the military up only to homosexuals in loving, monogamous relationships, but to all homosexuals.
My final argument is one to which I have already alluded...and my philosophy professors told me it is a fallacy, but I have found that it is a truth when you factor in human nature. If we remove the moral foundations under which we have operated for years (indeed, we are in the process of doing so), what will replace it? Either another, pre-existing moral structure will replace it - such as Islam, Judaism, or another religious perspective - or simply a self-serving, anarchistic, hedonistic, astructural system will replace it. We are on the slippery slope (the alleged fallacy I mentioned). Once we allow the next slip down the slope, we will become comfortable with it, then it will mould our society - one consequence, which deals with me, will be that I will be told I cannot preach that homosexuality is wrong. That would be "hate speech." Goodbye to the chaplaincy in the military. And goodbye to the one person any soldier can go to in complete confidentiality who can impact the chain of command concerning soldier issues.
The next step of the slope includes the forementioned sexual proclivities as the new norms. I believe the ultimate end to it will be a complete collapse of the system, which we obviously cannot afford. It is not popular to refer to the Bible in these debates, but Paul was prophetic about this - Homosexuality is the ultimate expression of a society in decline, who has already left their faith in God and abandoned Him as a real entity, with real designs for Creation, and have created their own god, according to their own image and appetites, who will justify any desire to which they set their minds and affections. This decline will happen in our lifetime, if there is no repentance on our part, if there is no revival of Biblical faith. Not popular, but true. Truth is seldom popular when it conflicts with what we want.
No comments:
Post a Comment