|
|
|
|
By Brody Levesque (Washington DC) Jun 2 | I have often said to friends that the number one reason that I profess no faith or religious belief is primarily because all that should be good and just about any faith intended to uplift the human spirit and condition has long been abrogated and hijacked by people who intend harm and inflict great pain on those who do not toe the line and walk lock-step with them in agreement.
I have been criticised as being unduly harsh in particular for my disdain and absolute distaste for the so-called evangelical Christian movement here in the United States. However, if one examines the principles that they preach, there is no sense of inclusiveness nor any resemblance to the so-called Christian principles that were embraced by the founder of that religion in ancient Palestine all those two thousand plus years ago. The vast majority of these modern day Christan activists in fact make a mockery of that carpenter's teachings.
On the subject of the Gays serving in the armed forces of the United States, here are the latest two offerings of what I can only consider hate-filled rhetoric by two of the more prominent members of what I have deemed the Christiban, the Reverends Tony Perkins and Scott Lively:
My Take: Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Would Undermine Religious Liberty
By Tony Perkins (Washington DC) June 1 | Some people think allowing open homosexuality in the military means nothing more than opening a door that was previously closed. It means much more than that. It would mean simultaneously ushering out the back door anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct, whether because of legitimate privacy and health concerns or because of moral or religious convictions.
This outcome is almost inevitable, because pro-homosexual activists have made it clear that merely lifting the “ban” on openly homosexual military personnel will not satisfy them.
The stand-alone bills that have been introduced to overturn the 1993 law, such as S. 3065, call explicitly for:
Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs.
While not in the defense authorization bill amendment approved by the House of Representatives and a Senate committee last week, this goal will undoubtedly be accomplished administratively as part of the “necessary policies and regulations” mandated by that amendment.
This means that all 1.4 million members of the U.S. military will be subject to sensitivity training intended to indoctrinate them into the myths of the homosexual movement: that people are born “gay” and cannot change and that homosexual conduct does no harm to the individual or to society.
Anyone who points to the mountain of evidence to the contrary - or merely expresses the personal conviction that sex should be reserved for marriage between one man and one woman - runs the risk of receiving a negative performance evaluation for failing to support the military’s “equal opportunity policy” regarding “sexual orientation.”
For no other offense than believing what all the great monotheistic religions have believed for all of history, some service members will be denied promotion, will be forced out of the service altogether, or will simply choose not to reenlist. Other citizens will choose not to join the military in the first place. The numbers lost will dwarf the numbers gained by opening the ranks to practicing homosexuals.
This pro-homosexual political correctness has already begun to infect the military.
As an ordained minister and a Marine Corps veteran, I was invited to speak at a prayer event at Andrews Air Force Base earlier this year. I had every intention of delivering a spiritual message, not a political one.
But the invitation was withdrawn after I criticized President Barack Obama’s call to open the military to homosexuality in his State of the Union address. The base chaplain told me they had received some complaints - about a dozen. I pointed out that orchestrating a handful of calls was a simple task for homosexual activist groups.
If I was blacklisted merely for supporting existing law, what will happen to those who oppose the new, politically correct law?
Those most likely to suffer are military chaplains. While some in the ranks will simply choose not to exercise their First Amendment rights in order to preserve their careers, this is not an option for chaplains. Their ministry is to proclaim the moral and theological teachings of their faith.
But under the new regulations, will they be free to preach from the entire Bible? Or will they be forced to excise the many passages declaring homosexual conduct to be a sin?
In their counseling role, military chaplains assist all service members who come to them, even if they are of other faith traditions. But if a homosexual seeks counseling regarding his personal relationships, will the chaplain be free to recommend therapy to overcome homosexual attractions? Or will he be forced to affirm a lifestyle that his faith condemns?
While chaplains are members of the military, they must be “endorsed” by a sponsoring religious body. Denominations that are unequivocal in holding to a biblical standard of sexual morality may stop endorsing military chaplains rather than allow them to compromise their principles.
This may result in a chaplain corps that has plenty of Unitarian ministers and homosexual Episcopal priests, but a shortage of clergy to minister to the largest religious groups in America, such as Roman Catholics (whose catechism declares that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”) or Southern Baptists (whose Baptist Faith and Message declares that “Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography”).
It was religious liberty that drew the Pilgrims to America and it is religious liberty that leads off our Bill of Rights. But overturning the American military’s centuries-old ban on homosexual conduct, codified in a 1993 law, would mean placing sexual libertinism - a destructive left-wing social dogma found nowhere in the Constitution - above religious liberty, our nation’s first freedom.
DON'T REPEAL “DON”T ASK, DON”T TELL”
By Dr. Scott Lively (Boston, Massachusetts) June 1 |President, Defend the Family International
Repealing the ban on open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military would be a mistake of historic proportions.
First, there would certainly be a mass exodus of normal men from a homosexualized military, leading to the reinstatement of compulsory service. The entire premise of a military system based on voluntary service is that young men will want to serve. But will normal men want to volunteer when they know they will share close quarters with other men for whom they will be objects of sexual interest? It is a recipe for deep and widespread moral and morale problems.
Then there’s the likelihood of physical conflict among the troops. Will proud young men being honed to become weapons of aggression against America’s enemies tolerate being ogled in the showers or touched inappropriately or bunking near sexually-active “gays“? Undoubtedly blood will spill over such (inevitable) indignities.
But what will be the political consequence? Once homosexuals are invited to serve, the authorities will be committed to integrate them into the ranks, which means “sensitivity” training, anti-discrimination policies, and all of the other “politically correct” nonsense that has been such a disaster in the other spheres of our society. These policies have smacked of pro-“gay” fascism in the civilian world; how much worse would it be in the rigidly-controlled environment of the military?
A sizable percentage of men would not willingly subject themselves to such an environment. So, ironically, reinstatement of the draft would be made necessary by “homophobia,” and for that reason the anti-war Lefties would suddenly become defenders of compulsory service.
Of course, no amount of “sensitivity training” will change the fundamental nature of young men and so it is likely that some form of segregated service would eventually be proposed. (We’ve seen this trend begin to arise in public education, where all-“gay” schools are the latest development.) This would be the biggest mistake of all, raising the specter (over time) of a homosexual takeover of the military branches.
Most people don’t realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior societies which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler’s initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach’s homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler’s partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the “gay” Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts.
“Many of the [S.A.‘s] top leaders, beginning with its chief, [Ernst] Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts,” wrote the preeminent historian of the Nazi era, William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
In The Homosexual Matrix, C.A. Tripp writes that “[f]ar to the other extreme [opposite of effeminate “gays“], there are a number of utterly masculine, sometimes super masculine homosexuals. They are obsessed with everything male and eschew anything weak or effeminate. Unquestionably they represent the epitome of what can happen when an eroticized maleness gains the full backing of a value system that supports it.”
Masculine-oriented male homosexuality tends also to be pederastic in nature, meaning that it often involves relationships between adult men and teenage boys. The ancient Spartan army, for example, drafted young teen boys and paired them with adult homosexual soldiers. Brownshirt leaders in Germany recruited boys from the local high schools for sex. Roehm himself once briefly fled Germany for South America over a scandal involving a young male prostitute. This bodes ill for the young men who will be our future draftees.
The scenario I see unfolding if we allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military is an initial period of turmoil in which members of the services would attempt to show their opposition through the limited means available to them. This would result in a clamp-down by military authorities in an effort to force acceptance, accompanied by a sensitivity-training regimen. One or more incidents of violence against homosexuals, real or staged by the “gays” themselves, would ensure prioritization of the politically-correct policies, and justify pro-homosexual “affirmative action.”
Next would come a severe drop in enlistments and re-enlistments, triggering the reinstatement of the draft. This would in turn begin a degeneration of the moral and ethical culture of the services as those with the highest personal values would be most likely to leave, being replaced, in many cases, by men whose motivation is to share a male-dominated environment with others of similar sexual proclivities.
Whether or not a segregated service was initiated, a homosexual subculture of servicemen would form, characterized by intense internal loyalty and political ambition. Eventually, this “army within an army,” buoyed by pro-homosexual “affirmative action,” and the ability to act covertly (due to the fact that some would remain “closeted“) would come to dominate the services. What would they do with such power? The historical precedents are uniformly bad.
Lastly, and perhaps most serious is the loss of our moral authority around the world, especially in the Moslem countries. Until now, we have relied upon the partnership of moderate Moslems in our campaign to marginalize the extremists who already call us The Great Satan for our moral ambiguities. Yet how quickly will we lose the popular support of these people and governments when they know that the soldiers we are sending for “nation-building” on Moslem soil are overt, practicing homosexuals? We are handing the extremists an entirely new and powerful recruiting tool, and undermining the goodwill of every socially conservative nation on the planet, culminating in a net increase of danger for our troops and decrease of respect for our way of life.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was an enlightened compromise when it was first conceived, and has proved to be a successful policy for our military. If anything, we should be expanding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell into civilian life, rather than imposing the “sexual libertinism” of our corrupt civilian culture on the military. If, God forbid, we take that radical step, the consequences of its repeal will be severe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... Messrs Perkins and Lively, far from eschewing entrenched bigotry (apparently) supported (or so claims Perkins) by the World's monotheistic religions, is nothing more than a by-rote diatribe against anything (in this instance homosexuality) that doesn't fit their theological model.
Frankly, I'm so sick and tired of these miscreants being given as much as an eight-second sound-byte, let alone any further opportunity to foster and fuel 'hate' on such a wide scale.
It makes me so angry that I could spit.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The agenda of the conservative right is aptly spelled out by Dr. Scott Lively in his closing remarks:
>Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was an enlightened compromise when it was first conceived, and has proved to be a successful policy for our military. If anything, we should be expanding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell into civilian life, rather than imposing the “sexual libertinism” of our corrupt civilian culture on the military.:-/
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Brody's Scribbles-Hate, Bigotry, & Ignorance Revealed-Again 
