Written by Laura Stevens
The DADT prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members, but barred openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. On September 20, 2011 the DADT was officially repealed. Now gays and lesbians can serve openly, but they still have to abide by some standards involving public displays of affection.
So what does this mean to you? Should Christians be against this repeal? Will it really make a difference? How do you think this will affect the morale of the military?
A former infantry man, Caleb Murphy, shared his opinion on the repeal of this act.
“The mindset of the common soldier in a combat job is much different than the mindset of a soldier who serves in a support job, so the repeal of DADT might not affect the morale of a support job unit. However, it will affect a combat unit. Guys in combat units are aggressive, love to fight, and cocky. Imagine what happens when a soldier like that is hit on by a gay man...Here's another problem. Two male soldiers are in a relationship, the platoon is ambushed and one of the men in the relationship gets shot. Is the surviving partner going to be able to focus on gaining fire superiority and killing the enemy or is his mind going to be on whether or not his partner is going to make it? I think there are plenty of issues with this repeal. Living as an enlisted man, you don't have much personal privacy, and I think that straight soldiers are going to have a hard time sharing a fighting position or using the shower trailer...while knowing that a gay soldier might be checking them out. To close, I think this is going to cause a lot more problems than President Obama and some of the higher ranking officers who sit in chairs all day think that it will. The Army actually has rules stating that straight soldiers should try to keep their sexual habits to themselves as much as possible, and I think this should apply to homosexuals as well.”
19 comments:
First off, thank you Caleb for your service in this the finest military on the planet. I believe Caleb brought out many good points. While two soldiers may have the choice to be in a homosexual relationship, I do not believe that there should be legislation passed to hinder or advocate this lifestyle. My main concern, as Caleb pointed out, is when they are under-fire and one of them gets shot can they focus on fighting the enemy instead of morning their love. However, as a Christian, I cannot condone this reversal of DADT.
First, I will state that I believe that being gay is wrong, but I also believe that we as Christian are just as bad of sinners as someone who is gay. I don't think we can discriminate against their sin as being worse than ours, also we can't expect a non-Christian to act like a Christian.
As for what the solder you talked to said, it seems like he is in the minority. For example, I am not attracted to every girl I see, I don't hit on and check out every girl I see, even when I was single and even if I wasn't married, I still know when an appropriate time for those things are. From the solders I've talked to and heard from, this is how they act, very respectful. Also, from what I've been told, gay men aren't really interested in straight men (I understand that isn't 100% but it seems to be the rule not the exception). Also gays in the military a very rare thing (from what I've heard) and those gays being single and/or interested/dating another man in their unit is very, very unlikely, to the point of making his point moot.
I guess I say all that to say, often we as Christian treat being gay as a cardinal sin, the worst and most base of all sins. But in God's eyes being gay is just as much of a sin as legalism and pride (something we've all seen in our very own churches.) Jesus spend time with prostitutes and tax collectors, and what did he do? He had dinner with them. They are people first, just like you and I, sinners in need of Christ, and attacking them because of their sin isn't going to bring them to Jesus.
In response to James,
First off, the article was not about gays being worse off sinners then those who are save by His grace and still falling to sin. With the same token, God is very strict when it comes to this matter. Paul demonstrates this extremely well in Romans 1:22-32. Paul refers to this sin as "worthy of death". I (and Paul) am not saying that all homosexuals should die. Our goals as Christians should include reaching out to and evangelizing homosexuals because they are just sinners who need Christ's forgiveness.
On a second point, you seem to use "what you've heard" as the proofs for your position. We are not asking them to act like Christian either because without Christ living a Christ-filled life is impossible.
Stay on topic...The article, interview, is not saying that there are lots of practicing homosexuals in the military, or that a homosexual wants to be in a relationship with everyone in his/her unit. The article was about one soldier and his experience in the military. Granted we cannot just apply this 100% of situations in the military. The article was meant to show how a military man felt about laws regarding a policy that deals directly with himself.
Ya, you're right, I did get a bit off topic there. But I still stand by what I said, Jesus said the wage of sin...not some sin...all sin, is death. So to pick out homosexuality as if God is more strict about it is reading into the passage. All sin deserves death, one is not worse than the other.
I digress, as for what "I've heard" that all I can go by as I'm not in the military, but from the military personnel that I've been in contact with and heard from, this is a non-issue. I understand that it will make some people uncomfortable, but they seems to be in minority. It seems like it something like 5% that it bothers...again that of people I've been in contact with, so take it with a grain of salt.
I'm glad they repealed DADT, from a Christian stand point, as I don't believe that we should look down as someone because of their sin. As from a political stand-point, if seems like is a issue with voters not military personnel.
My bad, I just read your comment more carefully and realized that it was an interview. So I apologize about my comments, I thought it was a discussion piece. I didn't mean to disrespect the interviewee. I'll be more careful in the future.
I wish DADT was not repealed. I think homosexuality ought to be a punishable offense not a lifestyle. Homosexuality in the millitary ought not to be tolerated. I know this seems to be a harsh position and I know that for some people it is a non-issue, but it is wicked. Homosexuality needs to be rebuked in society not compromised. I think open homosexuals should not serve in the millitary at all.
Let's remember that this blog post is about the policy of DADT and not about homosexuality specifically. Please stay on the topic at hand - Thanks.
Just to chime in because I'm interested in the way this discussion has developed...
James. I do not think your comment was off base. I understand that it was not necessarily the point of the article-- but it is a logical extension to discuss. I wish homosexuality was a non-issue. Now, I hope that doesn't get taken out of context. My point is from a Christian worldview, if we are practicing in the footsteps of Christ, it shouldn't matter white, black, gay, bi, trans, three-legged or mentally slow, we should love. All that to say: I agree with you.
I understand, this is still directed at James, that from those in the military you have interacted with the issue of gay soldiers hitting on straight soldiers just isn't a problem. But I wonder if you think the possibility of such a thing could be a problem? Let me set this up. I don't know all the jargon so you will have to forgive my use of incorrect terminology.
Take a unit of combat soldiers. This hypothetical group being remarkably tolerant and accepting—it is a group that has gone through agony and unbelievable amounts of pressure. After months of working together one tells his comrades, men he considers his brothers, he is gay. We both agree that ideally this would make no difference—regardless of world view. But, what if it does? What if it makes a huge difference? What if it hinders a team?
Now look, I am not saying I am one way or another on DATD. I may even be inclined to call it a non-issue. But my question is for the sake of discussion: Is there a possibility, in your opinion James, that DADT could in specific cases have drastic consequences?
That got long.. I'm almost done.
Zach, I have a slight concern with your post. I am inclined to disagree. I'm curious if your opinion is because of your understanding of the Bible or if it is your opinion? If it is the first, I am troubled. My understanding of a Biblical God is a God who does not measure sin-- a God who sees all sin as an atrocious slight against His own character. This being so, one sin, regardless of the sin, deserves no more rebuke than the next sin. I would also like to separate holding non-Christians to a Christian view. I do not believe my God permitted or commanded me to condemn another-- that is entirely His place, not mine. And before scripture is taken out of context, we are to hold one another (in a Christian context) accountable, but we are not to take God’s place as judge.
Just some responses and attempts at continued discussion.
Take from it what you will.
First things first, DADT was implemented so that homosexual soldiers would not be treated differently or attacked for their choice of sexual attraction. It was not made to protect heterosexual soldiers in the armed forces. It seems to me that there is a slippery-slope mentality when looking at this issue. For some reason, it seems like people against the repealing of DADT think that homosexual soldiers will lose control of their bodies and just go after every able bodied soldier around them. Obviously, the sane among us would disagree with that thought process however, it seems like that is the number one argument for DADT, that gay soldiers cannot control themselves and are going to be a menace to their heterosexual counterparts.
As far as the gravity of this issue concerning the Christian goes, I think that the repealing of DADT is a non-issue. However, if the topic was about homosexual marriage then that would be a different story but as far as American homosexuals serving in the military go, more power to them. If they have what it take to make it and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country then who am I to say that they are unworthy to do so.
Finally, homosexuals serve openly in Israel and they have very few problems with the commingling of the homosexual and heterosexual soldiers. Obviously there is no way that sexual assaults will ever reach zero but assuming that the repealing of DADT is going to cause gay soldiers to become a menace to their straight brothers in arms is unfounded and misleading.
Zach, what kind of punishment is fit for a homosexual soldier? Imprisonment? Fines? Also, why punish homosexuals only? Why not adulterers as well? It seems like you are high on old testament law but low on grace. I could be wrong, but I think all of us would benefit if you expounded on your positions. So, please do.
Joel,
Great points, I agree with you totally. Because homosexuality is a lifestyle by choice, I do not believe it is up to us (humans) to deal with. We don't punish people when they are divorced. This is a moral issue for each to decide for itself. I believe homosexuals can serve in our military unless they prove that they can't handle the stress. Until each person gives reason of doubt in fulfilling their position, they should be allowed to serve just like any other soldier.
Jessica,
I'll give you view on it, but as I'm not a solder nor am I gay, take it with a grain of salt. First, I would doubt that DADT would neccessarily stop this situtation from happening, it would certainly discourage it, but I don't thing it would complete stop it. Whether you agree or disagree the world is becoming much more tolerant of the gay community, especially one who don't act 'gay'. In the miltary you aren't going to get the overly flamboyant gay without knowing from the get go.
As for your situtation, I think that every change has growning pains, but that doesn't mean it's not for the better. As long as someone sees the gay before the person there will be issues. As for your example, they've been through fire with this guy, I doubt it would change thier view of him.
That all being said there are exception to every rule, but we shouldn't make a rule for every exception. It may make a differance in a group, but it more than likely won't. If it does, it's a shame and you address it at that time. In this case, I don't feel that a piece of legislation would change your situation.
EDIT: this is the same comment that I deleted above. I had to correct some spelling and I can't edit my comment, only delete.
Zachary,
If you take this stance against all sin, and are consistent with your view to all sin, then I commend you. I disagree with you, but I can respect what your saying.
General Comment:
Now, this isn't meant to sound holier than thou, but it is the opinion I've come to in my understanding of the scripture. I ask myself what would Jesus do? We have a couple examples of Christ directly interacting with 'vile' sinners and his response always amazes me. Let's that the women at the well, for example. He have a exposition of her sin? Did he even confront her about her specific sin? No, he told her to come to him and drink of the living water. Did He point out to the thief on the cross that steal is wrong? No, he said he'd be with Christ is paradise. What did Jesus do with the prostitutes and tax collectors? He had dinner with them. He didn't require the sick to repent, and then He'd heal them. He healed them then told them to sin no more.
Now does this mean he didn't care about their sin? No, He is the son of God, He has to care. But, from what I understand, He was tolerant of their sin while they weren't a follower of Him (tolerance isn't affirmation). Once they came to Him, He showed them who God was and who He was, and through that they were made aware of their sin. When he preached, he preached to his followers, to those who already had come to him.
I believe that it's the Holy Spirits job to move people to acceptance, not our job to point out their sin to them in order to get them to repent. Being a Christian isn't about being sinless, it about our relationship with Christ and the closer we get to Him the more sin we see in our own life.
I realize that I've once again gone off topic, but I feel that it's relevant to current conversation in the comments. If it's not, let me know and I'll shut up.
First, I think the rest of you are being rather harsh on Zach, although I do not necessarily agree with his position. It does disturb me to a degree that some of you are willing to be so "tolerant" of sin. I'll go back to the example of Jesus and the woman at the well. While he did offer her the water of life, he also confronted her over her sin ON THE SPOT. There were no if's, and's, or but's about it. He clearly told her about her lifestyle with her five husbands and the man she was living with. Also, Christ did not always use an example of caring acceptance. He was very staunchly against the Pharisees and their vain practices. He pulled no punches when he called them such names as "whited graves that are filled with dead men's bones." He called them liars who were born of the father, the Devil. He wasn't gently holding a lamb when he was literally forcing people out of the temple court; he had a whip! Scripture does not always picture Christ as accepting everyone with their sins. I think we need to find a medium where we do not necessarily tell people to "come as you are." The Bible does not say, "Believe and repent." It says, "Repent and believe." Jesus himself said, "Except you repent of your sins, you shall never see the kingdom of God." People need to understand that they are sinners. If that message is unpopular or offensive, so be it. We do NOT compromise on the truth. Jesus never made people believe that their sin was acceptable in his sight. People need to understand they are sinners before they get saved. Now, having said that, we do not condemn the person, but we must condemn the sin! We always are to condemn sin! We let God deal with the person.
Going to what Joel Joseph said, my question would be, "Has God changed since the Old Testament?" No, that would be a heretical claim. God still hates sin, and I do not think He would be too pleased with how we've condoned homosexuality in America. And I'll raise another question, are all sins really created equal in God's eyes? I mean, they are all an affront to Him; but then, why did he not prescribe death as a punishment for all sins in the Mosaic Law? Why does the Bible seem to indicate degrees of punishment for specific sins? Obviously, the punishment for all sin is eternity in Hell, but as far as punishment right now, does God really view homosexuality and stealing a cookie from the cookie jar as equally offensive and deserving of equal punishment? I'm not necessarily arguing for "sin levels," but it is something to think about.
Ok, now, again, as far as just day to day life experience is concerned, I'm not sure if the repeal of DADT is going to make that big of a difference. If a homosexual wants to serve in the armed forces, we really have no right to stop him or her. Homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle, but it is that person's choice. Now, do I believe that our politicians should be condoning open homosexuality? Well, that's another sticky issue. I do not believe that God is happy about our government doing that, but at the same time, the government's job has not been to tell someone what their sexual orientation should be. It is also not the job of government to define marriage, which they seem to think that it is, but that's another point. The real point here is, should homosexuality be a criminal act? The government cannot control people's minds. I realize that the work of the grace of God in a person's life is the only way to truly deal with sin. However, what the government can do is limit the activity of sinful or evil behavior. It is against the law to murder someone. We would never question that as a legitimate law. Could the government do the same thing with homosexuality? Would that be Biblical? I honestly don't have an answer currently, but these are some good questions to think about.
This is a good discussion. I just went back and read the women at the well passage. I'm going to have to disagree with you, Jesus certain let her know about that he knew about her sin, but I don't feel as if he condemned her because of, and it certainly wasn't the first thing that He said. I also believe that Jesus made an exception of people who claim to know Him and/or the Father and were using for personal gain (Also note he wasn't trying to convert them (I knew someone was going to bring this up)). We're going to have to agree to disagree, He wasn't always holding a lamb, but I believe that when he bring people to himself he was. And that how I treat people who need Him. I can be tolerant of their sin while they don't know Him, that doesn't mean that I agree with it, and it also don't mean I'm not going to teach them what Jesus has to say about sin after they come to Him.
James,
You're right about the disagreement. I believe Jesus knew when or when not to be confrontational, but I do think that Jesus was confronting the woman over her sin. I never said that he condemned her over it. Jesus himself said that he did not come into the world to condemn it. Jesus used situations to show people their sinfulness and their need of him, and he realized that the same method was not going to work for every person. Obviously, the miracles of compassion he did had no great affect on the Pharisees, even though some of them saw them first hand. The Pharisees needed a different method than someone who was sick or blind or demon-possessed. Again, I believe that people can't come to Christ and not be broken over the fact that they are sinners. What does Jesus save us from? Well, he saves us from sin! People need to know what they're being saved from before they could be saved. The Holy Spirit's job is to convict people of sin, to let them know that they are already conemned because of their unbelief, however you can't tell a homosexual that it is okay to go on being a homosexual if they're going to trust Christ. The basic truth is that a homosexual needs to understand that they are sinners, just like anyone else. They need to understand that their sin has put enmity between them and God and that they need Christ, just like everyone else. The entire world stands condemned, even if they don't realize it. The Holy Spirit is what convicts us over our sin and our hopeless state, and shows us the fact that we need Christ for forgiveness of our sins and hope for an eternity in Heaven!
I think we're saying the same thing from from slightly different views. I never said it was ok for some to be a homosexual, I said I could tolerate it while they don't know Christ. The very definition of tolerate includes the idea that you disagree with it.
Also, I do believe that people need to be repentant of their sin, its in the very nature of salvation that you need to be save from something, but I don't feel it's my place to inform them what they should feel convicted over. In time and through understanding and a closer relationship with Christ everything is going to come out anyway. I don't tell a drunk that he has to give up drinking before he can come to Christ. Now, if he convicted of it then he will repent, and if for whatever reason the Holy Spirit chooses to not convict him over that particular sin at that time, the Holy Spirit will convict him of it in His time.
I know you've disagree with this, but I feel that homosexuality is no worse the stealing a cookie and steal a cookie is no better that being a homosexual. With this, I will take my last swing of at this dead horse, otherwise I may be guilt of vain repetition :)
NOTE: deleted and edited for grammar
Post a Comment