Defining the Narrative

The ongoing debate on the “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” policy of the Pentagon has ended with the President signing into law the repeal of a policy instituted by President Clinton. This came in the waning days of a lame duck Congress which knew they had to pass the law before the new Congress came in. Now homosexuals are not only permitted, but encouraged to join the ranks of the military.

After a quick check via Google, a United Nations website, unaids.org, netted some startling statistics. In North America, parts of Latin America, Australia, New Zealand and most of Europe, 70% of all AIDS cases are transmitted by male on male intercourse. As many as 56% of those are suspected of bisexual activity, which then calculates into 39 of 100 women engaging in intercourse with bisexual men can be exposed to HIV. The remainder of cases are attributed mostly to injection drug use .

The average life expectancy of a homosexual male is early 40’s. Not only does HIV/AIDS weigh in heavily but a myriad of other sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) create health problems along with drug usage, which more often than not is a factor. It is a very destructive lifestyle and when Kinsey was doing his infamous sex studies, less than 1% of his homosexual men were 60+. A 2008 published study shows the overwhelming majority of deaths in homosexual men occur between ages of 25-45.

A man for whom I have a great deal of respect is a retired Lt. Colonel, US Army who served 26 years including Vietnam, where he was Special Forces, wounded in combat and treated other wounded soldiers in combat. Dr. Rich Kiper recently wrote some editorial letters and an article expressing his outrage over the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and with his permission, the following is a graphic excerpt of one of those articles from “Pioneer Pathways”:

“Few members of Congress have served, and even fewer have combat experience…I believe there is no understanding of what occurs on a battlefield. Hence, they and the public, view the gay issue only in terms of some bogus civil right rather than the life-and-death matter that it actually is.

I want to be clear that I am speaking only from my personal experience. My experience was that I was wounded in a fight where my unit took over 50% casualties-fortunately no deaths. It was terrifying and chaotic. Back then there were no such things as rubber gloves for the medics or anyone else. It was a situation where the medic was treating a lot of people and was being assisted by those who were able to do so, all the while fighting..for our lives. I find it hard to imagine that, even if the medic had had enough rubber gloves, that he would have been able to change them between every wounded soldier. I am not trying to be dramatic; that was the way it was and Congressmen and women and many liberal military-hating so-called journalists don’t have a clue about such situations, or if they do simply don’t give a —-

Now, what if a wounded soldier were gay? With blood all over, with bare hands, with wounded soldiers bandaging wounded soldiers, blood is going to be mixed. What if that gay soldier is HIV positive? How many other soldiers could be infected by his blood? Does anybody give a damn? Apparently not the Congress; not the media; and not the American people because they certainly did not raise a major outcry against repeal.

A sucking chest wound inflicted by a bullet is not uncommon in combat. It is necessary to get the chest cavity sealed as quickly as possible. Ideally, the person treating the wound will have rubber gloves. What if none are available? If the wounded soldier is known to be gay, someone has to make a decision whether to use his hands to cover the bullet hole while applying a dressing, or letting the guy die. What member of Congress is willing to make that choice? I have seen traumatic amputations in combat. There is a great deal of blood. The first reaction is to wretch. Apparently the idiots that voted for repeal of the gay ban actually believe that it is possible to treat that wound without getting the blood on oneself. In another fight I had a medic give mouth to mouth to a soldier who was mortally wounded to try to sustain him long enough to be med-evac’d. How much of his blood did my medic ingest? Apparently the 315 medical doctors in the House and Senate who voted for repeal have a good answer to how future medics will provide similar treatment to gay soldiers. Again, the choice – treat the gay soldier and possibly die yourself, or don’t treat him and let him die.

What if the medic is gay and is treating the wounded although wounded himself? Or has cut himself while taking care of the wounded? I guess for the gay rights advocates it will be perfectly acceptable for him to infect wounded soldiers, because, after all, the gay person is a repressed minority so cannot be condemned for anything.

How does this sorry bunch called Congress propose to prevent an HIV positive person from being in the situation in which I found myself? Will everyone have to undergo HIV testing? How often based on the incubation rate? We know damn well there will be no requirement that only gay soldiers get frequent testing because that would be discriminatory. Better to let a gay soldier go untested than have a heterosexual soldier die after being infected…

How about the Congress simply decree that gay soldiers may not serve in combat units? Therefore, gay soldiers will have the least amount of risk for being wounded. Just let heterosexuals face the bullets and the RPGs so tainted blood will not be an issue. I would not be surprised if some moron in Congress actually proposes that.

…the ones who pay the price are not the bastards who voted for it, but the soldiers and the families who volunteered to serve the nation. This vote has the potential to devastate the military. …10%-15% of the military say they will get out. If that happens we will be in an extremely serious situation.”

Dr. Kiper’s graphic and impassioned argument does indeed give one much to think about and although he also addressed the moral/Biblical view, this is an aspect of the argument most never think about.

But this issue is not only front and center in Washington, but many city councils are being forced by the gay lobby to address the issue of special rights for homosexuals and codification of the lifestyle. One of these is Manhattan, Kansas where the Council recently narrowly passed an ordinance that would wage heavy fines upon any business or landlord’s discretion in hiring or housing homosexuals.

The move was hotly debated within the community, with anyone who took a Biblically based moral stance being labeled as “homophobic, hateful, bigots”. It is remarkable that, when activists have only emotional arguments with few or no facts, they quickly digress into name calling, hissing, and shouting.

I enjoined in the written debate and was soon told that since Christians were supposed to love everyone those opposing the ordinance were hypocrites. Then, that Jesus never spoke out or taught against homosexuality, and the Old Testament passages referring to it were null and void since Jesus cancelled out the Law. These arguments are often used as ‘proof’ that Jesus never condemned homosexuality and thus Christians, who refer to the Bible when opposing these types of moral issues, are just wrong.

Ok, a Biblical response:

Firstly, Jesus Himself declared in Matthew 5:17-18 that He did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament) but to fulfill it. Then He goes on to say that until ‘heaven and earth pass’ not even a punctuation mark will be changed in the Law till it is fulfilled. He further states that if you break one commandment you have broken them all. Not only the actual doing of the thing but the very thought of the sin is enough to condemn you. “If you look upon a maid to lust after her, you have committed adultery in your heart already.”

[The New Testament begins at the ‘death of the Testator’, Christ, according to Hebrews and every estate judge in the land. Jesus walked the Earth in an Old Testament economy. Yeah, I know…it’ll take a minute to grasp that one!]

As a matter of fact, Jesus does speak against fornication (sexual intercourse outside of marriage) which includes not only homosexual activity, but also heterosexual intercourse, pedophilia, incest, bestiality and so forth. While Jesus does not specifically name “homosexuality”, but neither does he specifically name “incest, pedophilia, or bestiality”. Does lack of specific mention codify or legitimize sexual intercourse with a minor child or animal, or even necrophilia (with the dead)? I would hope that you would agree that it doesn’t.

I would allow that certain individuals may have a predisposed propensity for homosexual attraction, but so do pedophiles, and zoophiles. Alcoholics also have a predisposed propensity for their weakness. If these could not be controlled there would be no “sober” alcoholics, just as there would be no “former” homosexuals. Obviously there are many who have overcome these predispositions.

The question of sexuality is not even necessarily a simple “religious” question concerning morality but is as much a scientific or biological question and environment plays a huge role in development. What is the purpose of copulation in nature? In nature every species “mates,” only at specific times, for one purpose: Propagation of the species. Ours is the only species that is capable of spontaneous copulation, or “recreational” intercourse (for mutual pleasure), propagation of the species notwithstanding, and the only one equipped to look into the eyes of our mate while engaged. (The Bible says the eyes are the window to the soul; thus for humans, sex is a spiritual act/communion as well.)

Nonetheless, the baser “natural” lust of mankind, becomes tempered by morality; a philosophical if not religious attitude that contains our urges, lest we succumb to our “desires” in every public venue. So then, there are advantages to societal limitations (moral guidelines, if you will) on what behavior is ‘acceptable’ and where, especially when you consider public viewing of these activities, age of consent (pedophilia), interspecies copulation (bestiality) and so on. Everyone lives according to someone’s morality, even if they claim to be amoral. Society demands it.

The logical conclusion to the matter is that open sexual activity which is harmful to society therefore is, and must be regulated; if not by law, then at least by some moral principle which has been established by that society in order to maintain a social order which will preserve and propagate the society. Read Greek and Roman history to see examples of great societies which fully and openly embrace homosexuality to understand the effect it has.

The real problem here is not even that LGBT’s want to do what they do, but demanding that the rest of society embrace or condone it. I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your bedroom. I just don’t want government telling me I have to embrace it by providing you that bedroom to do it in. That infringes upon my Constitutional rights, which are in fact apparent, and lacking no uncertainty.

Hearkening back to “What would Jesus Do?” I can’t help but pose the thought that those practicing homosexuality and refuse the call of Jesus to “go and sin no more” are no different than those people with any other sin, be it another “lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, or the pride of life”. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Experiencing God is not just for the afterlife; it is for this life. This is the “abundant life” that Jesus spoke of.

A person who refuses reconciliation with God either thinks himself too great, or God too small.