Homosexual activists
may be delighting in Fred Phelps' loss in the court battle and
thinking it is a win for them against Christians, but it isn't!
Phelps is not representative of the vast majority of Christians and
to suggest he is would be a bold-faced untruth most likely presented
to make it look like those mean Christians are at it again. See how
these mean old out-dated Christians refuse to move into the 21st
century with the evolved attitudes of the rest of the world.
Zealots, wing-nuts,
fanatics and so forth are some of the labels applied to Christians,
and a few may be, but this is no more true than of any group. To
label all within one category just because they don't happen to
agree with something--homosexuality in particular--is at best a
failure to use reason. Many are against the "act", not the
homosexual person directly. How many churches have even agreed to
allowing homosexuals to serve in the ministry as long as they don't
act out their compulsions? And that is where one of the
problems rests.
Having someone's
sexual proclivities thrown in your face is not something most people
invite or enjoy. Why then must we accept homosexuality being thrown
into our faces? What is the difference between that and the "Girls
Gone Wild" commercials? I don't appreciate the latter, so I turn the
channel or walk out of the room. Why do some think we must openly
accept and "celebrate" homosexuality when we aren't even expected to
give approval to immoral heterosexual activity? Why is
homosexuality such an exception? Why do activists feel we are
obligated to accept a behavior we clearly see as unnatural? Just
because there are exceptions to sexual norms, does not the rule
make, nor does it make it acceptable.
Bob Ellis of Dakota
Voice, has written several informative article dealing with
homosexuality and the military. As he points out, the policy of
"don't ask, don't tell" does not over-ride the rules of conduct
(Uniform Code of Military Justice) nor should it. The military isn't
the boy's club joined for social events and entertainment. It is a
commitment to serve with truth, honor, loyalty and that includes
being loyal to the standards and rules that the military has set
forth for it's members. And, as Bob says in
Gen.Pace: Homosexuality Incompatible with Military Service,
"Our national defense is too critical to subject it to politically
correct social experiments."
He additionally says
in
Military Too Important for Trendy Political Causes, "For
instance, military people frequently are quartered together in the
barracks or tents or even foxholes. The military doesn't quarter
male and female troops together in these settings, however, because
of the problems that come with sexual attraction across the sexes.
"Now if you quarter
two men or two women together in a room or tent, and one of them is
a homosexual, then you're setting yourself up for a lot of problems
and conflicts that you just don't need in a military environment.
The military is there to fight the bad guys and protect our country;
that effort is too precious to waste energy on worrying about some
other guy coming on to you, flirting with you, making a move on you,
and all that. You wouldn't subject a woman to that kind of
environment, so why should you subject a man to it? The troops don't
need the distraction and the command staff doesn't need the
distraction."
If we take care not
to place military men and women in situations where sexual
temptation is likely to become strong, why is it required to do that
when it comes to homosexuals? It isn't an affirmative action
situation after all, this is a matter of avoiding problems before
they ever get far enough to be problems. It is common sense.
Homosexuals in the
military is not good policy, especially in potential combat
situations. However, for someone such as Fred Phelps and clan to go
to a funeral of military personnel and picket a solemn ceremony,
such as he does, is outrageous. How is the serviceman or service
woman responsible for the ills of the world? How can this person be
held accountable in God's eyes for the tolerance of homosexuality,
especially if they had nothing to do with the movement or approval
of it in the first place? Why would God decide to kill only that
person or a few people (few in comparison to the total number of
military) as punishment for America's tolerance for homosexuality?
And who is this man Phelps to say that God hates anyone, especially
when God says He sent His Son to die for the whole world,
which he loved?
Christians come in
all sizes and shapes, with just as many variations and degrees of
specific beliefs. However, to suggest that all Christians hate the
person, rather than simply the behavior, is an unfair assumption. On
the other hand, we are not required to stay in the same room with a
man and woman getting overly friendly, so why should we be required
to stay in that room if it is same activity but with same gender
people--and in military quartering situations you sometimes have few
options?
It doesn't take
Christian activism to make it clear that we should be under no
obligation to hang around, or be overly tolerant of behavior, simply
because some think to be so is a sign of evolution, evolved
intellect and politically correct. After all, politically correct is
merely the current trend and nothing that will build a lasting
societal model. Maybe that means instead of hanging onto it, we
should be hanging on to the beliefs we know are true and hold close
to our hearts. Maybe we should be hanging on to what we know is
morally right!
Carrie Hutchens
is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is
active in fighting against the death culture movement and the
injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
