The Flight Deck

Comment from Quartermaster
Time: May 15, 2010, 10:22 am

Dave, you make some good points. Homosexuals were some of the people Christ came to die for. But, and the point that the other side keeps missing, is Christ died to save them from their sins, not in them. He delivers from it, not just the consequences, which is important, but to get us out of them.

Anyone that tells me they are Homosexual and Christian is stating an oxymoron. Repentance includes repudiation. That doesn’t mean there won’t be a hammer and tongs battle since habit is a very strong thing in the life of a human, but anyone that does not fight against temptation is a sinner in the true sense of the word.

The aspect of this that is important to the military is the great desire of the Homosexual lobby to force this down our throats. And the more that are doing the forcing, the better. Regardless of what Salamander and MaxDamage want to assert, the repeal of DADT will fatally damage the military. We are seeing the effects of making the colleges a hostile place for normal young men, with young men increasingly reluctant to go. Anyone who thinks it won’t happen to the military is at best incredibly ignorant. Say good bye to winning wars if they get their way.

Another issue is history. No civilization has survived the destruction of the family. The gay rights boondoggle has led to just that in Scandanavia and the incidence of marriage has gone through the floor since gay “marriage” came into legal existence in Sweden. The overwhelming majority of kids are no longer born to a married couple, and the social pathologies we see among blacks in the cities are being seen among them as well. Add the fact that Homosexuality is a sterile lifestyle (come talk to me when a man, with the normal male equipment, gets his boyfriend, also with only the normal male equipment, pregnant).

This is an issue that will not pass away either, alas. God dealt with it when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and as long as sinful man resides on the earth, homosexuals will create more homosexuals (they are recruited through means we have know for quite some time as the hoax of being born that way has been debunked time and again).

Frankly, I think there is little more to say. Those who won’t really look will never see anyway. Those who want what they want, will resort to any means they can use to reach the goal they are after. They are demeaning the civil rights struggle, and will use anything else they can find.

This time around, however, it won’t just be Sodom that gets it, no part of the world will be untouched as evil is rising in a way that even Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim, or Pol Pot would have a hard time with, and God is going to deal with it decisively and harshly.

Comment from NaCly Dog
Time: May 15, 2010, 7:16 pm

Good comments. Can we have good order and discipline without DADT? I’m not sure. Seems a big risk for little gain to me. DADT is a small part of a bigger problem. From what I’ve heard and experienced, Big Navy is failing as it falls further into “diversity” errors. Can we return to the best fitted individual, regardless of quotas, being selected? Or do we continue to have protected classes of individuals with core identities orthogonal to their designator or rating. Can we look at doing the job, not at being “one of them”?

QM, there is a lot troubling the world, but there are pockets of cultural sanity that will survive the present day evils. Yes, even in the US of A.

I have no skin in the game any longer, but I’ll go a different direction.
What would we do if a chemist developed a small molecule drug that could preclude molecular developmental errors like homosexuality? Should we give a shot to every pregnant woman? Can a DADT homosexual contribute to the Navy? I say yes, based on those that served in the past. As we learn more about cellular development, we may have this choice.

Comment from MaxDamage
Time: May 16, 2010, 12:54 am

Quartermaster, I fear you may have jumped to an improper conclusion with respect to my argument. I’m quite in agreement with you, the repeal of DADT will gut the military.

It wouldn’t have to. If the sexual harassment statutes already in place were enforced and were sex-neutral suddenly some guy telling me I’ve a nice ass would be no more protected than my saying “Nice rack” to a female shipmate.

Which is the ideal. She’s a ship-mate, not a bunk-mate, and if I can’t talk with her without discussing her breasts we have a problem. Likewise, if I can’t talk with her without her staring at my well-formed and dare I state manfully tight and rounded buttocks (this is my story, innit?) we likewise have a problem.

The problem is one of professionalism. I don’t care, I’m not your friend, I want to do my watch and hand over to somebody.

The moment somebody demands I accept them or condone their behavior, no matter how rational it may seem to them, is the moment the chain of command is broken and the respect of one’s superiors is lost.

– Max

Comment from Curtis
Time: May 16, 2010, 2:49 am

Read your well reasoned position on the issue David.

Tolerance. You know Hillcrest right? When I joined my second ship you’ll never guess where my brother found us an apartment. Telling the skipper, in the wardroom in front of all my brother officers that I lived in Hillcrest, with another guy-tolerance. We both had our own bedrooms.

Acceptance- He worked at Seaworld. I’d come home to my place, a navy LT and find half a dozen fags there. It seems all the guys that worked in Seaworld, fags.

One time, came home with a colleague (groomsman many years later at my wedding) found the bro in the candlelight in the tub with the girl he married and has two boys with. Nice girl. Kind of left the fags behind.

Were there fags on the ships? As surely as they were all over the place. I think most of them did a much better job of hiding it. Didn’t need to for me. Those guys could have played an accordion and piano duet and clueless me, who purely did not care so long as one did one’s job would have entirely failed to notice.

Girls. I had command with them. We shared tents in the field. My guys used to come back aboard from the tender which we lay alongside and bitch about the bitches that would drop their trou to ‘tuck’ in their chambray shirts in the radio room or TTY repair shop in the PG. It was no surprise to me that most of the women went home pregnant from their tender deployments.

It seems to me that 3rd and 7th Fleets and 5th Fleet will little note nor care about those attracted to the same sex. Second and Sixth? They probably greatly care. Either one or both is bound to write a 300 page instruction banning it. They don’t think guys and girls should have sex. God keep us from 10th Fleet or 4th Fleet. They probably think having a dick is a crime.

Dave,

You took the trouble to get here and take a position. Never mind the snark.

When you get ordained I think this topic might be relevant. I hope that you will be there to counsel the youngsters. I grew to accept my brother’s friends. Frankly, at the start, they annoyed the hell out of me. bitch this and bitch that. It was like they knew no other words. I don’t think a man of God has to tolerate. That, frankly, isn’t your job. Dealing fairly and equitably. Punting them out the door. Suggesting that there’s all kinds of places for them but some less so than others.

Think about it.

There is no chance that you will change their alignment. Thinking about those we think of as strangers to God, worth thinking about. Particularly in your profession.

Last weekend I attended my little girls baptism. Read my bible again! (yeah, it’s been years) King James version. You’re close to Minister/Chaplain. I just wrote that and find that I don’t know anything. Tolerance or scarlet letter. So OK, in the greater realm, I’m gonna leave it those who really do know what God thinks.

Comment from MaxDamage
Time: May 16, 2010, 10:45 pm

I believe in Leviticus, especially chapters 18 and 20, God pretty much says homosexuality is an abomination and a sin.

Fine. That’s his opinion. Mine too if I base my moral code upon the Bible and what faith tells me, not to mention as an Infallable Supreme Being ol’ God probably knows his stuff.

I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where it said I had to confront homosexuals, condone their behavior, kill them, judge them, or fear them. In fact the whole judge thing is really up to God himself, I’ve been taught.

So what is the sailor to do when a shipmate is gay and happily shares that upon boarding? Maybe it’s the same thing a Christian person, believing as above, does when they discover a co-worker or a boss or a family member or even a long-term personal friend is gay.

If you’re not all sweaty in a pile of disheveled sheets at the time, chances are this bit of news is not relevant to your current relationship with this person, and you can go on with your life pretty much unchanged.

A Christian may feel a need to reach out to this person and warn them, try to save them from their fate, the same as one who understands smoking causes cancer might inform any random smoker he finds of this fact. He may pity the person, or do as much as possible to disassociate himself from them, but so far as I can tell there’s no penalty for working with, living with, or being friends with homosexuals. At least, none from God — I don’t know what your mother would think.

The whole point of the military it to kill people and destroy things. Which sort of goes against that whole love thine enemy idea, but I’m pretty certain the same God that parted the Red Sea and then drowned an entire Egyptian army in it has already worked that one out.

A more interesting question is, of course, if I think homosexuals an abomination, can I be forced to work with or live with them? By the military, I mean. They can’t force me to eat pork if I’m Muslim or Jewish, though they can make me work on Saturday. There usually was fish in the galley on Fridays, along with other choices. And yeah I worked Sundays too. Can they force me to work with a homosexual? Probably, since that has nothing to do with the work. If all are equally oppressed it would be fair and consistent.

Can they force me to share berthing space with a homosexual? Could they force me to share berthing space with women? Would they mind doing so with somebody blond, high cheekbones and a C-cup please? If her uniform has those stocking with the line that goes up the back that’d be just peachy.

So, Major, what exactly *is* tolerance? Love the sinner, hate the sin. Christian love (more specifically, agape) means we love them as a person and want the best for them, yet we see the self-destructive or sinful behavior and realize they are sinners.
Do we have to work with them? They’re as unclean to Christians as the pork fritter in the galley is to the Jews and Muslims, how would one counsel a ship-mate on this one?

You know, if this goes through you might just have your next 30 or 40 sermons and a thesis coming out of this very topic!
No better time to be a man of the cloth than right now!

– Max

Comment from MaxDamage
Time: May 16, 2010, 11:44 pm

Quartermaster? I can’t resist. Sorry.

Homosexual recruitment methods have been well-documented over time and, it turns out, are more effective than initially thought.

Presently only 50% of gay men report being born that way.
The other 50% were sucked into it.

BaDump-Chink! Thank you, thank you, we’re here all week!

Seriously, how does one recruit into homosexuality? Because, unlike those selling addictive drugs or offering membership in a gang as a surrogate for a missing family life, your average middle-aged homosexual has two things to offer — his money and his body. Well, his money is no greener than anybody else’s, and as for his body it’s pretty much the same as every other middle-aged male which is to say not all that impressive.

Now in ancient Greece it was perfectly acceptable to send your son off to some older pedophile who was wealthy — he got a boy-toy and your boy got an education and a chance to move up the social ladder, not to mention all the advantages of not starving in times of famine and becoming a full citizen of the city-state. It was one method of making a better life for your heirs, which is what parents tend to want.

But really, today, how many 15 year-old boys are going to look at your standard flabby 40 year-old man and think, “Ya know, if *that’s* all I gotta do to get a Nintendo, a Malibu and some new jeans that just beats hell out of mowing the lawn and cleaning the cat box like Dad wants.”

Now there may be something to the free sex motivation. Guys want sex, and in the late teens they want it pretty much every moment of every waking day. Late teen guys have so many hormones in their veins a drop of blood examined under a microscope looks like a hormone convention. I’m pretty sure that whole “wet dreams” thing means they’re thinking about it while they’re in REM sleep too. So sex is going to be a motivation.

The one thing having sex with men has over sex with women is convenience. Women require affection, romance, foreplay, the whispering of sweet nothings, etc… As we’ve already established, men are ready for sex all the time and so any convenient commercial break while watching television is enough time to enjoy a quickie. Added bonus, neither of you has to explain why you want a beer and a sandwich afterword. And without the possibility of procreation the whole thing is risk-free except for the STD’s that can kill you.

Sex with a flabby 40 year-old guy is quite a bit different than sex with a nubile 18 year-old perky woman, and if you’re 18 as well there is a *possibility* of sex with the woman. Why would one give up hope so early in their life?

There’s also the self-gratification route. If all I’m after is an orgasm, well, who knows better what it takes to achieve that than me? Why would I want to involve some older guy who probably has his own needs and wants which are beyond the mission I’m after? For that matter, there are machines and toys and things that can be blown up to address this — I’ve seen so on the internet. I don’t see where middle-aged fat guys really bring much other than a belly to the table in this regard.

Let’s face it, nobody is going out and recruiting heterosexual high schoolers into becoming homosexual. There is also no evidence that we are genetically wired as hetero or homo.
They may be taking advantage of confused or emotionally distressed youth, but they can’t change the basic wiring in the brain of that kid to like girls or guys.

The body is a complex thing, the mind even more-so. Women tend towards a man’s posterior as the most sexy shape, we spend time in the gym pumping up our arms and chests. We like breasts and hips, women starve themselves and lose the fatty tissue first, which happens to be concentrated in the breasts and hips.

I’ll tell ya, the wonder isn’t that we’re all confused about sex and roles and all that, the wonder is that our species has survived with all the added baggage we’ve placed upon ourselves.

– Max

Comment from MajHarvey
Time: May 17, 2010, 12:33 am

To me, tolerance is about accepting the individual as a person and has nothing to do with condoning their behavior. Frankly, I dislike the term since to tolerate something implies that I continue to allow it without raising any objections to it.

I “tolerate” homosexuality within society in the same way that I tolerate fornication or freedom of speech – what consenting adults choose to do with one another is their own business – we are not a theocratic society (like the early Israelites), so enforcing a sexual morality is a dodgy business, except where it crosses certain bounds, i.e., pedophilia, bestiality, etc.

When I view homosexuality through the same lens as any other form of fornication (sex outside of marriage), I have less of a problem in accepting the individual. Most men have struggled with sexual lust in some form or another, so that whole idea is not foreign to me. This homosexual individual just happens to struggle in a way that I don’t.

As for my response to them, it really depends on what their religious beliefs are. If the person is a Christian, and accepts the authority of the Bible, well, that gives us a common ground to start from. If they’re not saved, why would I expect them to follow Biblical morals? Seems like putting the cart before the horse to me. You don’t expect someone to *act* like a Christian before they actually *are* a Christian in my book.

So let’s say I’m a chaplain and a non-Christian sailor/Marine comes to me for counseling, and the issue of his homosexuality comes up. Would I focus on that and try to dissuade him of his proclivity? Probably not. Would I tell him of his need for Christ and attempt to talk about salvation with him? Probably. If he wanted to discuss how to make his relationship with his gay lover better, well, I would politely decline and refer him instead to some other counselor who could meet his need, I suppose.

Comment from MaxDamage
Time: May 18, 2010, 12:01 am

Major, so you’ve come to a similar conclusion as I, that tolerating doesn’t mean lack of objection, it means deferring action to a higher authority such as God or The Law. I can’t be my brother’s keeper, best I can do is make plain to him what I think and let him do with his Free Will what, umm.. he will.

My fear is that in-your-face I’m-different-and-protected will break the chain of trust in the military. We all start as pretty independent folks, all sorts of opinions and self identity and I would never do that, then we get to basic.

At that point they tear us down to mindless, simpering robots, and build us up into a team. A cog in a machine that knows only to react and our pride is the team, not ourselves. From there officer candidates are selected, those who might by chance lead this group.

There is a sort of parallel to this in the teachings of the Bible, we start life innocent but by the time we can exercise our free will we are full of sin and in need of redemption, we need to be taught the ways of the righteous, and from the righteous comes the holy, the saints, the prophets and other leaders.

I’m hoping the mentality is wiped during basic and the goal is the mission and the team first and foremost. Should that parallel with faith remain we might just do OK.

Should basic not do this task, the chances of integration are nil.

– Max

Comment from Curtis
Time: May 25, 2010, 4:24 pm

There was another bit of advice I learned at the knees.

We don’t talk women, religion or politics in the mess. Obviously, inescapably we agree that Meg Ryan is the cutest and smartest girl in life older than our cuter and smarter daughters.

If the others could just not share it with us, broadcast it, adopt totally silly and pointless mannerisms that make it fucking obvious we so seriously wouldn’t care.

Comment from Sim
Time: June 3, 2010, 3:05 pm

Padre-

Sorry to drag uo an old post but it’s been a while since I wandered through yee old Flight Deck.

Coming from an Anglican (Church of England) background, though non-observant I can see where you’re coming from.

Here’s where my dirty little secret comes in, about 10 months ago I was diagnosed with chronic depression. At the time of initial assessment it was at the level where most people commit suicide (IIRC I was .75 off a maximum score).

Depression is as little understood as PTSD, often the response is along the lines of ‘get over it’ or ‘harden the fuck up’.

I am hard, despite myself I have got myself educated (hell, I even skipped ninth grade) managed a team of 60 people and otherwise tried to make myself useful.

You know who were some of the most understanding and helpful friends while I was letting people know I was struggling?

My gay friends. They knew what it was like to tell people something they may not like or understand fully (hell, the male ones I don’t get at all).

If there is a God, and God is love I will proudly stand by them and argue their compassion, their love and their dedication to a mate well outweighs who they decided to spend their life with.

Comment from Quartermaster
Time: July 24, 2010, 6:32 pm

Max, your statement, “Let’s face it, nobody is going out and recruiting heterosexual high schoolers into becoming homosexual. There is also no evidence that we are genetically wired as hetero or homo,” is a demonstration of massive cognitive dissonance. Homosexuality is a serious mental illness. Any man who sees another man in the same way a normal sees a woman is one very sick puppy. These things normally come as a result of seduction and/or abuse. There is no evidence that homosexuals were born that way (every attempt to show that has been quietly dumped after it was hyped to the max).
Consequently, the only way they are created is by some form of influence in life.

While I go for your and Dave’s working definition of tolerance the reality is that isn’t the definition the queer lobby uses. For them it means acceptance. Period. End of Story. To accept anything else is bigotry of the worst sort and you must be punished for it. And if queers become eligible to serve, that is exactly what will happen. Dave will not be able speak against it in any way as a Chaplain, or his career will be ended. Given the way the diversity racket is administered in the services now, those goal posts will constantly move, and Dave’s career will be ended early. No serious Christian can allow a person in serious sin to keep going without warning them of the consequences, and that is the essence of hate speech to the moonbat left that is pushing the end of DADT.