Homosexuality has made the US Military Stronger than Ever

Multiple news outlets reported on Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s statement about the 5-year anniversary of the repeal of the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The most quoted line:

I am proud to report that five years after the implementation of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” our military…is stronger than ever…

In reality, that statement doesn’t say anything. Insert just about any subject matter and time period and the sentence’s assertion wouldn’t change.

The implication, though, and the conclusion trumpeted by gay rights advocates, is that the US military is stronger because of the repeal of DADT.

Naturally, there’s no data to support that implication.  In fact, the Department of Defense (which Secretary Carter runs) has repeatedly said DADT repeal had no effect on military readiness.

It’s also unclear how a US military that is “stronger than ever” could be hemorrhaging pilots, woefully underbudgeted, and have extraordinarily expensive ships and planes that can’t go a few days without breaking down. Is the military in a position of “strategic risk,” or is it “stronger than ever?”  And why does sexual behavior have anything to do with either?

The strength of an organization is predicated on the character of the people within it. The character of those people is founded upon justice and morality.

Undermine the morality of an organization, and you undermine its strength.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Romans 1:24-32

ADVERTISEMENT

tagged with , , , , , , , ,

13 comments

  • Sonny Hernandez
    27 September 2016 2:30 am

    Amen Sir.

  • Donalbain
    27 September 2016 11:53 am

    How do you determine that homosexuality is immoral? By using that method of determination, is worshipping a false god immoral?

    • Sonny Hernandez
      27 September 2016 12:19 pm

      Because of special revelation from God, which explains the design for marriage that He instituted (Gen. 2:24) and that which is immoral (Leviticus 20:13). Additionally, yes, worshiping a false god is immoral, for the same reason I already stated (special revelation).

    • JD
      27 September 2016 8:38 pm

      @Donalbain,

      You might find this relevant, from an article written many years ago (before repeal of DADT):

      [M]ilitary policies govern many facets of life some may consider the purview of “morality…” For example, living (in a marital sense) with a person who is not one’s spouse is still restricted in the military, despite its common acceptance in the modern culture. Military policies also permit conduct religions might find immoral — including contrary religions. Worshipping another god or no god at all would certainly be sin the military not only allows, but protects. There is a significant difference, however.

      The Christian faith acknowledges choice in belief — a person must choose to accept or reject the Gospel; their decision cannot be made for them. In a manner of speaking, the New Testament Christians were the first advocates for religious freedom, believing each person has the freedom to choose — even the freedom to choose to be wrong. Thus, the active support by the US government of non-Christians in military service is not inconsistent with the tenets of the Christian faith.

      Notably, the exercise of religious freedom in the military is mutual. Any military member is free to believe and express the belief any other religion is “wrong.” While respectful treatment is required, military policies do not obligate a military member to acknowledge, support, or advocate the truth claims of other beliefs. A military officer is responsible for protecting the religious freedom and free exercise of his subordinates, and he retains those freedoms himself.

      On the other hand, religious freedom and the proactive support of homosexuality are potentially mutually exclusive. If the exercise of one’s faith includes the belief homosexual conduct is wrong, and homosexual conduct is a protected class, then either religious freedom must be restricted or the protection of homosexual conduct modified. To simplify, the statements “homosexuality is evil” and “it’s illegal to say homosexuality is evil” cannot co-exist; one or the other must be supported by the leadership, and the other must fail.

      This controversy has the potential to present a conflict between personal conduct and the religious liberty of a majority of servicemembers for the first time in the US military’s history.

      Seems it was prescient.

  • Donalbain
    28 September 2016 4:15 am

    OK. So my next question is, should immoral actions be a reason to stop someone joining the military?

    • JD
      28 September 2016 8:19 am

      @Donalbain

      According to the US military, it depends. There are some disqualifying issues which require a literal “moral waiver” to be able to join the military. There are some “immoral actions” which don’t.

  • Donalbain
    28 September 2016 9:36 am

    So, some immoral people undermine the morality of an institution, but others do not?

  • Sonny Hernandez
    28 September 2016 11:36 am

    Donalbain,

    If you want to know what immoral acts that would disqualify someone for military service, I would highly recommend talking with a recruiter.

    If you would like to know more about why immorality exists (total depravity), and why Christ is a necessity, I would be glad to share this with you.

    • Donalbain
      28 September 2016 1:31 pm

      No. I am asking you what you think. Which immoral acts do YOU think should bar someone from serving in the military, and why?

    • JD
      28 September 2016 7:19 pm

      @Donalbain,
      To be blunt, who cares? The military institution decides who does and does not serve, and they have their own “moral” standards for entry into the service.

  • SH
    28 September 2016 8:26 pm

    Donbain,

    We are not the authority of who is eligible to serve, or not qualified to serve, so I agree with JD that it really does not matter.

    I would like to personally encourage you to read the Bible, so you can learn about the penalty for immorality (death), but also the cure (Christ), as focusing on who is not qualified for military service is irrelevant, but who is qualified for heaven is what matters. This is why I preach Christ to all, so that the unregenerate will not be held captive to their sins, but delivered.

    Here is a Gospel message, that I pray you will read, and believe:

    http://christianfighterpilot.com/2016/04/22/gospel-competency-an-imperative-for-military-chaplains/

    • Donalbain
      29 September 2016 1:58 am

      I have read the Bible. I found it unconvincing in its truth claims and pretty horrific in its morality.