Posted on 12/20/2010 11:56:32 AM PST by LonelyCon
I would agree with your assessment, had he not made such a swift and dramatic statement to the Washington press corps.
He’s the Commandant of the Marine Corps. It’s his job.
I’m simply not willing to join in on the scape-goating. I think we have better targets. He’s caught in the middle between a policy that he abhors, a Corps he loves, and his duty to follow the orders of those placed over him.
There is a new policy. He hates it but it is his job to develop and implement a plan to enforce it. He will do this to the best of his ability.
We’re all angry about this latest Congressional turd laid on the doorstep of the Pentagon. I’m angry about it. But I’m not going to be angry at the guy who... truth be told... obviously hates this as much as we all do. He’s got a Marine Corps that he loves more than life itself and he’s not going to abandon his marines now.
I don’t suppose that he’ll last very long now. He’ll do what he can to blunt the effect of this crap, but once his personal capital is spent, he’ll be given no real choice but to retire. He’s not the one to vent our anger on.
It’s Congress.
The point I was trying to make is that “NO” Candidate was running on or belching out “Repeal Don’t ask Don’t Tell” ...
It just wasn’t there until the Lame Duck session where they Rammed it up (er) through again I say against the will of the People
TT
You have an unfortunate Screen name ... or I am just too sensitive to what this Lame Duck Congress is doing to “US”
TT
BS, screw him, he’s a suck up, kiss a$$ idiot.
Their already are gays in my classes, but I don’t have to shower around, undress around, sleep around, or spend time alone out in the combat with any of them.
Why should leadership *always* imply followership? What kind of mindless automaton are you? Those kind of marines are not to be respected...they are to be feared.
I can respect that. But I'm not sure there is a Christian duty that requires you to refuse to work with gays if ordered to do so in the military. It certainly is offensive morally, and there's nothing wrong with condemning the behavior. And obviously, there's no reason to support or endorse it.
Under your logic, Christians should essentially considered themselves morally barred from serving in the military from this time forward, which would leave perhaps the most Christian major nation in the world almost defenseless, and far more vulnerable to militant islam.
I can't see how that approach would advance the cause of Christianity.
I don't see why we need such a long lag between the election and seating of the new Congress and president. In the UK, the transion occurs within days. There's no reason we can't do that here. And in fact, we should, as it would eliminate all these anti-democratic "lame duck" shennanigans.
If you are the leader of a company and are on record as opposing a proposed policy and that policy is forced upon you by the Board of Directors, then certainly you should resign on principle.
I agree that homosexual acts are sinful, but I don't see why serving with homosexuals is morally offensive. Didn't Christ associate with sinners?
Just in case there's not confusion, I'm not a proponent of repealing don't ask don't tell. I'm just making the point that there is nothing in the Bible that says Christians aren't allowed to work or associate with sinners, so long as they do not condone the sin.
What moral crime are you talking about?
Nonsense. They always have and they always will.
There always have been and always will be active homosexuals, and there will always be Christian churches who teach that homosexual acts are sinful. Since the churches can't control active homosexuals who refuse to accept the gospel, and active homosexuals can't shut down the churches, the two groups will neccessarily always coexist.
That is the way things work in a society that guarantees freedom of religion.
Really? You need ask this question?
Welcome to the thread. It's nearly 300 replies, but even if you did not read the article, I have to assume you at least skimmed a few replies.
The moral crime in question is the advancement of the homosexual agenda.
Do you not know the difference?
I agree. I was trying to make the point that while homosexuality itself is a sin, there is no Christian "duty" to refrain from working with them. That would mean you'd be required to quit your civilian job if your employer happened to hire someone who is gay, and I just don't see that as some sort of moral commandment or duty.
Of course, it is still a terrible idea to repeal DADT, but to argue that (essentially) all good Christians must quit the military seems a stretch to me. Although I certainly wouldn't condemn someone who decided to resign for exactly that reason. Personally, I can't imagine it possibly working in any of the Marine units I was ever in.
I can just see it now. A group of Marines are all sitting around, and some start talking (as many will), about some (perhaps highly embellished) experience they just had with Suzy Syphilis they met at the club the night before, and then some guy pipes up and starts talking about this really hot guy he met....
Not good at all.
Again, this issue isn't about an individual practicing homosexual behavior, and a Christian's reaction to that. Christians may or may not wish to associate with individuals who practice homosexual behavior.
Rather, this is about homosexualism, which is a Marxist movement that seeks to destroy the traditional family and traditional values with the godless promotion of unnatural and pathological sexual practices without restraint, responsibilty, or morality. Now when this sort of agenda is FORCED upon a Christian at the workplace, the Christian is at a disadvantage. Why? Because now, the tyrants who have imposed godless immorality onto the workplace have the fist of the law behind them. Should a Christian object to any part of the homosexualist agenda, then it will be he who leaves himself vulnerable to the force of law. By the repeal of DADT, and this victory for the homosexualist agenda, those who overtly push the homosexualist agenda in the military will be a protected class.
That said, every Christian in the military must decide for himself whether he can serve in an institution where his values will be mocked, his religious speech silenced, and his Bible vilified.
And how, exactly, are servicemembers being forced to advance that agenda? Surely they aren't doing so by the mere act of serving alongside homosexuals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.