Posted on Nov 22, 2013
Gay Army couple says chaplain barred them from marriage retreat
18.9K
759
266
9
9
0
Your thoughts? Should Chaplains have the right to do this to soldiers?
A same-sex couple at Fort Irwin, Calif., says they have been denied participation in an Army marriage enrichment program because of their sexual orientation, even though they are legally married.
Marriage
Chaplain
LGBTQ+
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 67
34
33
1
Yes they should, because each Chaplain is 'sanctioned' by a religious entity, be it the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, etc. If they act in a manor that appears contradictory to that organization they loose their sponsorship and are removed from military service.<br><br>It is a thin line the walk between service to God and service to the Military, especially when the two seem to be in conflict. <br><br>Perhaps a second Chaplain should have been brought in to conduct the classes for the same sex couples during the retreat. One who is sponsored by a denomination that supports same-sex marriage. <br><br>When we tell our chaplains to ignore their religious convictions, we make them useless to the people of faith they minister to.<br>
(34)
(1)
CPT Jason Torpy
When the chaplain's religious denomination funds and organizes the retreat by and for those in their denomination, then they can decide who comes and goes. When the military funds and promotes the event for all military personnel, then chaplains can do their job or refuse to do their job. Sanctions for refusing to do their job are a different conversation, but the event itself must be open to all service members.
(8)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
This is a great thread, but let me add an old Sergeant Major's opinion to it. BLUF, you are confusing your books. By books I am talking about the Manual for Courts Martial (the one you are sworn to uphold and obey) and the Bible (the one we try to live our life by). At the end of the day, the Army says that Homosexuality is ok. Strong Bonds is paid for by through monies allocated from the Army. All Soldiers in the Army shall recieve fair and impartial treatment. If the Chaplain does not feel as though he can uphold to this, he needs to step aside and allow one that can to hold the retreat. If you are finding yourself in an ethical dilemia over gays being allowed in the military, then it is time for you to step aside and find some new employment elsewhere. But before you do, understand that there are gays in all walks of life. While you dont have to support, you must be tolerant. In the civilian sector, being gay will not even cause most people to blink.
(9)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
What if the CH was aligned to a belief the women are second and one meant for child related activity. Maybe they refuse to care for females as they have no business working outside of the home? Btw not theoretical belonged to that church as a small child. How about something more sever? Read Leviticus or the witches hammer. Church sanctioned torture or murder. Stop me at anytime. But, this is your belief not mine.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Rev. Frederick C. Mullis, AFI, CFM
So, Article 125 has been rescinded, and anyone can sodomize anyone and anything they want in today's Military. With that news is the Military going to go back and let back in all those who were given dishonorable Discharges under 125 in the past? Are their records going to be expunged of those entry's and any benefits they lost going to be reinstated? So the Same Sex can go to a married Couples retreat? If one happens the other should happen as well, Right?? Time has nothing to do with when it happened...
(0)
(0)
14
14
0
I've read some interesting things in these responses. I suppose I'd like to add my "2 cents". As an openly gay service member, I'm a little beside myself here. My personal convictions and my commitment to the Army and the Nation sometimes collide. I honestly believe that I put a uniform on every day to guarantee constitutional rights, defend the citizens of this country in times of unrest and war, and to defend the soil that makes up this awesome country of our's. While I'm a bit disappointed that this event happened the way that it did, I cannot find it in myself to fault the Chaplain for standing by his beliefs. Yes, I would love to see a nation and an Army where true equality for all citizens exists. However, I'm not so unrealistic in my hopes that I believe that change will occur "overnight". It took the Department of Defense decades to come to terms with homosexual service members serving in the military period. It took a forced repeal to allow open service. We cannot expect opinions and convictions to change in a year or two, this will take time. It will take time whether we feel it should or not and there really isn't anything anyone is going to do about it. Yes new regs could be published, and yes military members would be forced to ACT a certain way. But the bottom line is you cannot force anyone to change how they FEEL or THINK.<div><br></div><div>As much as many of you might hate it, I'm comfortable with the approach the military is taking. The effort is there. That is more than we could have asked for just a few very short years ago. Yes, I have hope that things will improve where this issue is concerned. Let's just remember that in order for things to improve, the problems must first surface, be discussed and analyzed, and then acted upon. Yes, this could have been handled differently. Perhaps a solution is to make each retreat have a pair of Chaplains with one being willing to counsel and minister to same sex couples. I am NOT AT ALL in favor of forcing the Chaplains to set aside the beliefs that I fight to protect for them. There are much better ways to solve this issue that will be good for everyone involved.</div><div><br></div><div>As for service men and women attacking other service men and women because of their beliefs, honestly the only thing I can say to you is stop doing that right now. It is possible to have an educated, mature discussion without attacking one another. It is unprofessional and shows a lack of the tolerance you claim to have and want to uphold. So stop, be professional, be respectful and be open. Those are the traits that you are asking for so do try to set the example by doing so yourself. Thanks for your time.</div>
(14)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SFC:
As a minister of the Gospel, I preach that same sex relationships are a sin. I am God's messenger. It's His message. Just as I followed the orders of my superiors when I was enlisted, I follow God's orders more so. My allegiance to Christ offends many. It may offend some in this forum. My duty is not to question God, it is to by FAITH, obey Him.
If you were a member of my congregation, I would preach the truth of God's Word to you in love. The same Lord that commissioned me to preach against your lifestyle is the same Lord who gives you the freedom to live contrary to His teaching. You and I both possess free will. You, as I see it, are following your heart. Yet, the Bible teaches that our hearts can deceive us and can be desperately wicked. My heart was desperately wicked, until Jesus Christ became Lord of my heart and soul. It is His will that all men should be saved from their sins - not that we should die in our sins.
Your respect for the Chaplain's right to hold to his conscience is refreshing. Many times when Christians who believe same sex relationships are sinful try to hold a straightforward conversation with others who support it, we are treated as hateful, insane zealots. We are simply holding to our faith, not hating you.
I don't know you. I may never meet you in my lifetime, but one thing I can share with you is that God loves you. That does not mean He condones everything you do - neither does He condone everything I do for that matter. And yet, while God loves you, He wants you to repent and accept the person He created you to be.
What I have learned from God concerning this matter is that the question is not whether or not you were born gay. The issue at hand is SIN. And as far as whether or not your lifestyle is sinful according to the Holy Scriptures - there is no question at all. According to the Bible, unnatural sexual relations is a sin - whether it be man with man; woman with woman; man with animal or even deriving sexual pleasure from self-stimulation rather than from your spouse. Rather than getting into quoting many Scriptures, I would recommend that you prayerfully read Romans 1-2.
What I counsel congregation members is that God has a problem with sin. It doesn't matter what shape, color or form it comes in. Resisting sin is part of bearing my cross. Even if I did have tendencies to desire other women - the Bible declares that it is against the nature of God's creation and sinful, therefore, I must reject the sinful thoughts. Many times we as Christians want to justify our own sins, but we must confess our sins to Jesus because He died so that all our sins would be forgiven. When I reject thoughts of sin, I am obeying the Spirit, and not my flesh.
What keeps me from murdering someone when I am angry with them, surely it is not the law? It is my faith. My sincerely held convictions that agree with God who says "Thou shalt do no murder." Have the thoughts ever come to me, while a Christian, sadly yes. Yet, my character is not defined by my thoughts and fleshly desires, but by my actions. I don't have to obey every thought that comes to mind. I am not a slave to sin! With the help of God, I can and do obey His laws. The Bible actually commands me to resist the Devil, and he will flee from me. My part is to resist. God makes Him flee. It may come to someone's mind to kill themselves, but should they do it? God has given us power over our thoughts. He has given us His Spirit and nature. The very essence of God's nature is Holiness and sinlessness. When we become Christians, we receive the nature of our Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ lives on the inside of us, empowering us to keep God's commandments. Whenever we are in disagreement with His laws by our actions, we are subject to fulfill our sinful lusts. When we practice sin as a lifestyle - the final wages of sin is death.
You may be wondering if I have ever had any same gender loving couples as members of our congregation. YES!!!! I counseled them to forsake their lifestyle of sin. I asked them why did they decide to join the church, knowing that I preached that their lifestyle was a sin. Their response was that even though they knew what I believed, they had never felt such genuine love from a Christian whom disagreed with their lifestyle. For one, they had not attended church since childhood, for the other in over 10 years. Why did I welcome them into God's house? #1-It is God's house, not mine. #2-How can they learn the truth if they could not hear it? #3-How could they hear it without a preacher? And that's where I come in!!!!! Just to preach, not force any one to obey the Word of God. What was the end result you ask? One forsook the lifestyle, while the other continued in it.
In conclusion, I just want to again thank you for opening up to a group of strangers about some very personal matters. I used to sin much before I became a Christian, and as a matter of fact, sometimes I still fall short, yet one thing I have learned is that Jesus came to forgive sinners. He forgave me. He can forgive you. Just ask. If you ever need to talk. I'm here. I'm praying for you.
As a minister of the Gospel, I preach that same sex relationships are a sin. I am God's messenger. It's His message. Just as I followed the orders of my superiors when I was enlisted, I follow God's orders more so. My allegiance to Christ offends many. It may offend some in this forum. My duty is not to question God, it is to by FAITH, obey Him.
If you were a member of my congregation, I would preach the truth of God's Word to you in love. The same Lord that commissioned me to preach against your lifestyle is the same Lord who gives you the freedom to live contrary to His teaching. You and I both possess free will. You, as I see it, are following your heart. Yet, the Bible teaches that our hearts can deceive us and can be desperately wicked. My heart was desperately wicked, until Jesus Christ became Lord of my heart and soul. It is His will that all men should be saved from their sins - not that we should die in our sins.
Your respect for the Chaplain's right to hold to his conscience is refreshing. Many times when Christians who believe same sex relationships are sinful try to hold a straightforward conversation with others who support it, we are treated as hateful, insane zealots. We are simply holding to our faith, not hating you.
I don't know you. I may never meet you in my lifetime, but one thing I can share with you is that God loves you. That does not mean He condones everything you do - neither does He condone everything I do for that matter. And yet, while God loves you, He wants you to repent and accept the person He created you to be.
What I have learned from God concerning this matter is that the question is not whether or not you were born gay. The issue at hand is SIN. And as far as whether or not your lifestyle is sinful according to the Holy Scriptures - there is no question at all. According to the Bible, unnatural sexual relations is a sin - whether it be man with man; woman with woman; man with animal or even deriving sexual pleasure from self-stimulation rather than from your spouse. Rather than getting into quoting many Scriptures, I would recommend that you prayerfully read Romans 1-2.
What I counsel congregation members is that God has a problem with sin. It doesn't matter what shape, color or form it comes in. Resisting sin is part of bearing my cross. Even if I did have tendencies to desire other women - the Bible declares that it is against the nature of God's creation and sinful, therefore, I must reject the sinful thoughts. Many times we as Christians want to justify our own sins, but we must confess our sins to Jesus because He died so that all our sins would be forgiven. When I reject thoughts of sin, I am obeying the Spirit, and not my flesh.
What keeps me from murdering someone when I am angry with them, surely it is not the law? It is my faith. My sincerely held convictions that agree with God who says "Thou shalt do no murder." Have the thoughts ever come to me, while a Christian, sadly yes. Yet, my character is not defined by my thoughts and fleshly desires, but by my actions. I don't have to obey every thought that comes to mind. I am not a slave to sin! With the help of God, I can and do obey His laws. The Bible actually commands me to resist the Devil, and he will flee from me. My part is to resist. God makes Him flee. It may come to someone's mind to kill themselves, but should they do it? God has given us power over our thoughts. He has given us His Spirit and nature. The very essence of God's nature is Holiness and sinlessness. When we become Christians, we receive the nature of our Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. Christ lives on the inside of us, empowering us to keep God's commandments. Whenever we are in disagreement with His laws by our actions, we are subject to fulfill our sinful lusts. When we practice sin as a lifestyle - the final wages of sin is death.
You may be wondering if I have ever had any same gender loving couples as members of our congregation. YES!!!! I counseled them to forsake their lifestyle of sin. I asked them why did they decide to join the church, knowing that I preached that their lifestyle was a sin. Their response was that even though they knew what I believed, they had never felt such genuine love from a Christian whom disagreed with their lifestyle. For one, they had not attended church since childhood, for the other in over 10 years. Why did I welcome them into God's house? #1-It is God's house, not mine. #2-How can they learn the truth if they could not hear it? #3-How could they hear it without a preacher? And that's where I come in!!!!! Just to preach, not force any one to obey the Word of God. What was the end result you ask? One forsook the lifestyle, while the other continued in it.
In conclusion, I just want to again thank you for opening up to a group of strangers about some very personal matters. I used to sin much before I became a Christian, and as a matter of fact, sometimes I still fall short, yet one thing I have learned is that Jesus came to forgive sinners. He forgave me. He can forgive you. Just ask. If you ever need to talk. I'm here. I'm praying for you.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SPC Johnson,
Thank you for both your concern and your thoughtful response. Again, I am just me. I fully support every citizen's right to be who and what they are. I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me regarding your faith and your love of God. I thank you for your comments regarding my support for the rights and duty of every Chaplain to hold to the tenets of both their faith and their denomination. I hope that you have a great day and wish you luck in your endeavors.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
You are truly welcome. I can tell that you are a kind and mature leader. I wish you all the best as well.
(3)
(0)
COL Jonas Vogelhut
There are lots of commandments in the bible. Judaism teaches 613 of them. If homosexuality is a sin that causes leaders to treat folks differently, why not some of the other commandments? Do we criticize folks who wear clothing of mixed fibers? Do we check to make sure not to eat the fruit of a tree for three years from the time it was planted? When are we getting around to appoint a king? My point is there are lot of rules, and we need to take a common sense approach of what we enforce to make a society work for everyone.
(1)
(0)
11
10
1
<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15.390625px;">The bottom line here: The Strong Bonds Program (which is what we are discussing - please read the article cited in the original post) is NOT a religious program. From the Strong Bonds website: "Strong Bonds programs are offered by Army Chaplains with the full support of your Commanding Officer. You’ll gain practical, useful information based on world‑class curriculum developed from years of research. In small groups, you’ll participate in activities that renew bonds with your peers. And, as a couple, you’ll practice communication and relationship‑building skills, as well as share intimate moments." Check the whole site out for yourself: </span><a href="http://www.strongbonds.org/">http://www.strongbonds.org/</a>. <div><br></div><div>I agree that the Army cannot mandate performing religious rites, (marriage, last rites, the sacrament, etc) which are under the purview of Chaplains' individual religious doctrines. This is not at all what happened here. This Chaplain barred participation in an event that is does not belong to him or his religious sponsor organization. It belongs to the Army. </div><div><br></div><div>Personally, I am a Jew and the child of an interracial couple that married in 1963. I am very sensitive to all the little ways that people try to veil bigotry. This is bigotry. If a Chaplain cannot carry out his or her own basic duties because he/she disagrees with how the Army wants to run things, this is a volunteer Army and there's the door. Goodbye and good riddance! I do not restrict this view to Chaplains. If you don't want women in your MOS or a homosexual Soldier in your platoon. BYE! These are not "social experiments," these are people; more than that, these are Soldiers, your bothers and sisters, looking to serve their country. </div><div><br></div><div>Get over it...believe me, you will be a better person for it. You will be a better leader.</div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.strongbonds.org/resources/common/clear.gif"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.strongbonds.org/">Welcome to Strong Bonds</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">This is the homepage of your site.</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>
(11)
(1)
CPT (Join to see)
There is a huge distinction between performance and ownership. Are you under the belief that running Sexual Harassment Training means you own the SHARP Program and can dictate policy about it on an individual level? At the same time, there is little value in having someone run that training if they do not believe in the program goals. And what do you think would happen if a CDR announced he/she does not want to conduct SHARP training? In the military, you do not get to decide what you will and will not do on a personal level other than your personal obligation not to follow unlawful orders. Again, if any Soldier, regardless of MOS, feels he/she cannot conduct his/her basic duties due to personally held beliefs, he/she should seek separation.
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Ma'am i do feel as the person running SHARP or AT level 1 training I am in fact taking ownership of the units program, as I am expected to per my commander. Just as the Chaplain was placed in charge, and was thus responsible for it. When it was made part of his responsibility he had to handle it in accordance with the doctrinal rules of his sponsoring agency.
(2)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
Does the EO program "belong" to the Commander or to the Army.
Do you think a person who is under ivenstigation for Sexual Assault should be conducting SHARP trianing? How do you think a bunch of people would feel in SHARP training with an individual like that sitting next to them in class?
As the facilitator of that class I personally would not let that person attend, because it is a distraction to everyone else at a minimum. It is not good for that person or that class.
Then I'd talk to the Commander and explain why and if he wanted me to I could give him his own class.
(3)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
"Then you go on to call that bigotry? Really? You're a Jew so if you don't believe in Jesus as the Christ then I can call you a bigot? By your own logic you are bigot against the very people you are accusing." How did you arrive at this conclusion? Bigotry is discrimination against a person for WHAT they are rather than WHO they are and is founded upon prejudice, ignorance, and assumption. Disbelief does not equal bigotry. Also why can only chaplains facilitate the curriculum? Is that an Army thing? I'm truly curious because I've been to several of these through A&FRC and I don't recall the chapel's involvement. A chaplain, I think, led one of the workshops, but that's about it; all the other facilitators were civilians. And ironically, I'm pretty sure everyone's favorite one was gay; I know for a fact that the Latin dance teachers they sometimes invited for an ice-breaker were atheists.
(3)
(0)
9
9
0
and just because it is legal, doesn't mean that any religion is bound to endorse or accept it. This concept that one groups rights supersede another groups rights is malarkey......
(9)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Ones right to swing his fist ends at another's nose!
Homosexual SMs can not ask for the right to pursue their beliefs and then ask for the beliefs of others to be ignored so they can pursue their beliefs.
Hypocrisy!
Same goes for the religions, dont ask to pursue your belief in the same breathe you ask for homosexual beliefs to be ignored.
I sincerely believe that the office of Chaplin should be more along the lines of Psych, marriage counsel and mortuary affairs. NO RELIGIOUS COUNSEL OR RELIGIOUS TIES. If you want to get religious help go to your civilian pastor, rabbi or priest, whatever the case may be.
If you have a biased opinion based on your religion or if you cant look at the information objectively because of your religion then what good are you to the SM seeking your help??
(2)
(0)
SPC Davie Harvey
There is a huge difference between accepting and treating equally. You don't have to agree with the lifestyle, but at the same time, while you are wearing that uniform... if the US ARMY recognizes that marriage as a legal one, that that soldier and his family should be able to go on a marriage retreat for married soldiers.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
While I don't believe in same sex marriages, I support equality of beliefs. I have seen many comments about the Chaplain being wrong, I feel he followed his belief, now if that is a violation of military policy that is for his superiors to decide not us in this forum. Would most of you ridicule or punish someone who refused to execute an order to punish a soldier for something you didn't feel that they should be punished for, a true leader would not follow that order and would work with the superior who gave it especially if it was in the heat of the moment as most likely this was when the couple applied for the retreat. I don't condone the refusal of letting them attend, but you also have to look at the bigger picture, would the couple attending have made the hetero couples uncomfortable, that needs to be considered as well. The Chaplain in question may have looked at the whole picture besides his beliefs, we need to give him the benefit of the doubt, there may be to the story than we know, we all know the media is famous for half-truths and not full reporting of sides of an issue.
I feel that it is an issue that needs further review from all here and from higher up as well before judgment is passed.
(9)
(0)
SFC James Baber
SSG Williams,
I agree with you, but if this is supposed to be a relaxing environment to learn about needs and understanding each other, having the stress of not feeling comfortable is not conducive to the whole event, especially if the sponsorship of the event is not comfortable that will be felt by all the, hetero and homosexual couples alike, then everyone is uncomfortable all around, then nothing is accomplished or taught/learned by anyone at all.
This where common sense and other arrangements or personnel needs to step in and adjust fire as needed.
You seemed determined to vilify this Chaplain without knowing all the facts as I mentioned in previous post, you continue to espouse how wrong and lack of tolerance everyone is showing, but you are just as guilty because you are refusing to show tolerance to what I said about getting all the facts and not relying on media for the total source.
Practice what you have been preaching before you blast the next comment.
(5)
(0)
SFC James Baber
SSG Williams,
You are a lost cause, you have a one-track mind and tunnel vision, you refuse to acknowledge any other point of view as being just as correct as your own, I think you are enjoying the arguing more than the true meaning behind all of the discussions, it is one thing to believe strongly in something it is another to repeatedly brow beat every single person who is not of the same thought as you, that is also the same intolerance that you profess, as well as the ignorance as well. You have come close to disrespectfulness to a few of the posters here, and if it was one of your Soldiers having the discussion/argument with you, I feel the circumstances would be quite different. I would suggest that you have your opinion as many other do here and leave it at that and discontinue the almost abusive responses that you have levied at some.
(3)
(0)
8
8
0
At this point why is being Gay even an issue anymore? I have a great deal of respect for anyone who is gay and served their country even before the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Going by the teachings I've had from my years as a Catholic, the idea of judging people based on their lifestyle choice is wrong. <i><a name="1">1</a></i>
Judge not, that ye be not judged. comes from The Gospel According to St. Matthew. You don't have to agree with a person's lifestyle but at the same time you don't have to be a jerk to them. Even the new Pope has eased the Church's stance on homosexuality. In any deployment, I never cared about the religious beliefs, or orientation of the men in my unit, only that I could count on them if something went wrong. If this incident really did happen the gay couple should have been applauded for seeking to improve their relationship and attempting to be closer to God. <br>
Judge not, that ye be not judged. comes from The Gospel According to St. Matthew. You don't have to agree with a person's lifestyle but at the same time you don't have to be a jerk to them. Even the new Pope has eased the Church's stance on homosexuality. In any deployment, I never cared about the religious beliefs, or orientation of the men in my unit, only that I could count on them if something went wrong. If this incident really did happen the gay couple should have been applauded for seeking to improve their relationship and attempting to be closer to God. <br>
(8)
(0)
CMC Robert Young
<p>Cpl. Well spoken. You're tracking! Why are we discussing other people's choices or lifestyles when there is no direct negative impact to our choices and lifestyle? People's character, commitment, skills, and dedication are defined by so many things that it's crazy to form an opinion about an individual, or treat them differently based on one insignificant issue. I agree with you that far too few of our Christian brethren read the small parts of the Bible that support their own narrow agendas without acknowledging their personal failings. We all come to the Throne by mercy and grace; not by being who we should be. Something of which we should all be mindful.</p>
(3)
(0)
MSgt Paul Persson
Ray, you are spot on, Brother! I belong to a national organization of combat veterans with varying degrees of combat experiences. We've had this issue rear its head at our national level as well, and the response for the most part has been consistent with what you've said here.
I have served in the military and civilian law enforcement with many homosexual people, and never once did I care about their orientation, rather ONLY that they had my back when stuff got real. And as for cutting them out of retreats and such, much like the good Captain said above, I believe in inclusion of ALL veterans, and NOT the exclusion of even a few for any reason.
And just some food for thought - if you've served and think you went through one enlistment or a career with never having served with someone who is homosexual, you are quite naive.
I have served in the military and civilian law enforcement with many homosexual people, and never once did I care about their orientation, rather ONLY that they had my back when stuff got real. And as for cutting them out of retreats and such, much like the good Captain said above, I believe in inclusion of ALL veterans, and NOT the exclusion of even a few for any reason.
And just some food for thought - if you've served and think you went through one enlistment or a career with never having served with someone who is homosexual, you are quite naive.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Well said CPL. Please remember though. Homosexuality isn't a "lifestyle choice". It is how we are born. I didn't choose to be gay, I simply am gay. I seriously find it hard to even think that a person would choose a life as an outcast to ridiculed and beaten. No, we don't chose to be who we are, we are born who we are. It is what we do with the life we are given that defines us, not the sex of the person we fall in love with.
(9)
(0)
SSG Philip Cotton
SFC Donald...Very well put. As a Gay service member, It was never ever a choice. But since I am, I am going to embrace it and be proud of it.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
A response for CPT Michael K to this comment:
Or, there may be Christians who interpret scripture differently than you do, or whose traditions interpret scripture differently than you do. It's why denominations exist, and it's why people of faith can rationally disagree.
Southern Baptists (not all, but most) believe that 'speaking in tongues' is satanic, while the Scriptures state no less than four times that 'tongues' is a gift from the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals in their core beliefs, do not believe a person is, or can be, born again, UNLESS they speak in tongues, while the Bible clearly states that it is a gift not meant for all people, but given to 'some'.
Continuing from that example, the babbling noises we hear in many churches are not 'tongues' as the Bible describes it. The Bible is clear that 'tongues' is a spiritual gift that enables one to speak words that can be understood by those who do not speak the language the words are spoken in. This can all be found in Acts.
The swine, as a food, has been declared an "abomination" in the Scriptures. Again, referencing Acts, people have 'interpreted' Simon's dream as declaring that 'anything' can be eaten, though on two occasions, Simon declared that the dream made it clear that it was now permitted (ending a ban from God) to teach the gospel to people NOT of Jewish lineage.
So yes, people 'interpret' the Scriptures differently - especially when they do not study them, but take denominational teachings at face-value. I have been involved in Biblical study since 1981. I do have a head full of knowledge on the intricacies of the Book.
Regardless of how people 'interpret' Scriptures, they say what they say.
I stand by my comment, Good Sir. You are free to disagree with ME all day long. I know what the Scriptures say, on this topic, about homosexuality, and how God looks at it as far as what is written in the Bible. Interpretation by man does not change God's mind, opinion or thoughts regarding any subject.
So, as I said, picking bits and pieces of Scripture does not a truth make, but it does help form opinions, and sadly, that is the problem with 'denominations', 'traditions' and 'interpretations'.
That said, my comment was based not around denominational differences or interpretations, but of those trying to throw a single verse around as justification for a specific issue. Perhaps in your wisdom as an officer, you can re-read what I posted and understand what I wrote, and not 'interpret' it to mean what you thought it meant.
Please feel free to carry on a bit more. Please don't take me personally, but if the boot fits, Sir, lace that bitch up and wear it. ;)
Or, there may be Christians who interpret scripture differently than you do, or whose traditions interpret scripture differently than you do. It's why denominations exist, and it's why people of faith can rationally disagree.
But I'm glad that you have all knowledge under the sun, and that I may carry on."
First, I appreciate your snide attitude. Very becoming of an Officer. It helps to demonstrate my point. Yes, I do contain, between my ears, an extremely vast knowledge of the Bible, denominations, Scriptural interpretations and things related. Thank you for recognizing that in so few words.
Secondly, yes, many DO interpret Scripture differently, thus creating different denominations. These denominations were designed by people who did not want to live according to how the Scriptures were written and intended, but still wanted to live under a form of Christianity. One version of the Bible (printed in the early 20th century) has completely omitted any and all references to homosexuality. Does that suddenly mean that God is okay with it?
A perfect example from the ten commandments:
The original texts read (as translated tot he most accurate English-language version, the KJV):
Exodus 20:
First, I appreciate your snide attitude. Very becoming of an Officer. It helps to demonstrate my point. Yes, I do contain, between my ears, an extremely vast knowledge of the Bible, denominations, Scriptural interpretations and things related. Thank you for recognizing that in so few words.
Secondly, yes, many DO interpret Scripture differently, thus creating different denominations. These denominations were designed by people who did not want to live according to how the Scriptures were written and intended, but still wanted to live under a form of Christianity. One version of the Bible (printed in the early 20th century) has completely omitted any and all references to homosexuality. Does that suddenly mean that God is okay with it?
A perfect example from the ten commandments:
The original texts read (as translated tot he most accurate English-language version, the KJV):
Exodus 20:
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
The Catholic (Douay-Rheims) version reads:
3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.
The Catholic 'interpretation' is that we are not to have "strange" gods, where as the original texts (supported fully in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest known works) say no "other" gods. The interpretation of the Catholic Church allows, then, for praying to Mary and other entities, as they are not "strange".
The Catholic 'interpretation' is that we are not to have "strange" gods, where as the original texts (supported fully in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest known works) say no "other" gods. The interpretation of the Catholic Church allows, then, for praying to Mary and other entities, as they are not "strange".
See the difference between "graven image" (KJV) and "graven thing", the difference between "bow down" (KJV) versus "adore", and so on.
Remember Martin Luther? He recognized this first. He is the reason Protestantism exists. It is for similar reasons to Catholicism that various denominations exist.
Remember Martin Luther? He recognized this first. He is the reason Protestantism exists. It is for similar reasons to Catholicism that various denominations exist.
Further denominational differences based on varying interpretations:
Southern Baptists (not all, but most) believe that 'speaking in tongues' is satanic, while the Scriptures state no less than four times that 'tongues' is a gift from the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals in their core beliefs, do not believe a person is, or can be, born again, UNLESS they speak in tongues, while the Bible clearly states that it is a gift not meant for all people, but given to 'some'.
Continuing from that example, the babbling noises we hear in many churches are not 'tongues' as the Bible describes it. The Bible is clear that 'tongues' is a spiritual gift that enables one to speak words that can be understood by those who do not speak the language the words are spoken in. This can all be found in Acts.
The swine, as a food, has been declared an "abomination" in the Scriptures. Again, referencing Acts, people have 'interpreted' Simon's dream as declaring that 'anything' can be eaten, though on two occasions, Simon declared that the dream made it clear that it was now permitted (ending a ban from God) to teach the gospel to people NOT of Jewish lineage.
So yes, people 'interpret' the Scriptures differently - especially when they do not study them, but take denominational teachings at face-value. I have been involved in Biblical study since 1981. I do have a head full of knowledge on the intricacies of the Book.
Regardless of how people 'interpret' Scriptures, they say what they say.
I stand by my comment, Good Sir. You are free to disagree with ME all day long. I know what the Scriptures say, on this topic, about homosexuality, and how God looks at it as far as what is written in the Bible. Interpretation by man does not change God's mind, opinion or thoughts regarding any subject.
So, as I said, picking bits and pieces of Scripture does not a truth make, but it does help form opinions, and sadly, that is the problem with 'denominations', 'traditions' and 'interpretations'.
That said, my comment was based not around denominational differences or interpretations, but of those trying to throw a single verse around as justification for a specific issue. Perhaps in your wisdom as an officer, you can re-read what I posted and understand what I wrote, and not 'interpret' it to mean what you thought it meant.
Please feel free to carry on a bit more. Please don't take me personally, but if the boot fits, Sir, lace that bitch up and wear it. ;)
(7)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I completely agree with the principle of your argument, however, "Southern Baptists" do not believe that speaking in tongues is satanic, any more than the State of Kansas believes that "God Hates Fags". Just because some people in a group have a personal opinion, does not make it the groups belief.
See the below link to the SBC's FAQ page:
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp#8
See the below link to the SBC's FAQ page:
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp#8
Many, if not most, answers to common questions
about the Southern Baptist Convention can be found by reviewing
the material posted under the "Faith & Facts" menu
...
about the Southern Baptist Convention can be found by reviewing
the material posted under the "Faith & Facts" menu
...
(3)
(0)
6
6
0
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Burns,
As an Officer my gob is to give NCO's what they need to complete a mission. Do you need a Hurt Feelings Report? Cause I can get you one.
As an Officer my gob is to give NCO's what they need to complete a mission. Do you need a Hurt Feelings Report? Cause I can get you one.
(3)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SSG Burns:
You were not being engaged because some were using M-16s and you were using a machine gun! LOL! Your rapid fire is killing 'em! Drive on!
You were not being engaged because some were using M-16s and you were using a machine gun! LOL! Your rapid fire is killing 'em! Drive on!
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
What would a straight couple be doing in a class teaching on the difficulties of raising a child in a same sex household?
Would you say that class is discriminating against straight couples, or does it just simply have nothing to do with them.
Stop turning everything into a complaint and the whole world is against me.
(6)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
I am enjoying this too. What portion of the program is religious? Again, perhaps the AF version is just different, but religious curricula is not mentioned anywhere on the Strong Bonds site. How is this portion of the program handled when the couples are not Christians? Or not religious at all? Also, I'm glad to hear the couple was ultimately able to attend; I wasn't able to find the link you posted (such a pain to search/navigate a thread here). Would you mind re-posting it?
Since the couple was able to appeal and attend and you could likely do the same for a lamaze class you were barred from, your analogy is back on...it just doesn't carry any weight since any number of benefits could be gained by attending - they're all subjective and hypothetical so pointless to argue of course - but they do exist.
I still maintain that marriage, in practice, is marriage. You know, a rose by any other name and all that. A person of faith not sanctifying or condoning or even recognizing a particular marriage doesn't change the nature of it. It doesn't cease to be a marriage. The couple doesn't cease to have the same need for communication and bonding and everything else this program is designed to develop. I mean, you don't think a chaplain's personal or institutional biases change the needs or nature of a married couple's relationship do you? Wouldn't it be more productive to focus on how the couples are similar rather than different? In fact, I expect that I can name more similarities than you can name differences.
Lastly, I keep criticizing your analogies because you're not comparing like to like in any of them. A lamaze class, ladies-only yoga class, miscarriage counseling, etc. all have EXPLICIT requirements that you don't meet. The Strong Bonds program does not have an EXPLICIT requirement that a same-sex married couple fails to meet, and despite your repeated claims there is an IMPLICIT one, the fact remains that for whatever reason the Army did not impose an explicit "no-gay" clause. And since the Army's correction was to side with the "injured party," it would seem the Army agrees with me and CPT Walk that: The chaplain was in an awkward spot and had a legitimate concern, but that he also mishandled the situation and "...should...have made efforts to include the couple AND locate a member of the clergy that could individually minister to this couple..."
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
From the Strong Bonds website: What curriculum is used at Strong Bonds events?
The foundation for the Strong Bonds curriculum is comprised of training material from the most sought after and respected practitioners of faith-based and secular relationship building programs.
Also if you follow the link to the actual books used you will find more information. Also the Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage portion is mostly about the book of Solomon.
(2)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
This is also an article with participants complaining that Strong Bonds is TOO religious and that they are trying to jam the bible down your throat.
It’s one thing to disagree with another person’s ideology. It is quite another to participate in an event for the sole purpose of denying others access to that same support and religious liberty.
(1)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
SSG Burns,
Thanks for the links; they were enlightening. I think I have a new bone to pick with the program. "Faith-based" is exclusionary enough, but "Bible-based" excludes more than 20% of the force doesn't it? Even so - as long as it's explained in advance to the applicants so they're not "blind-sided" by the prosletyzing I think it's fair. I happen to think there should be an alternative for non-christians too. The most elegant solution would be a secular retreat with optional religious activies as a supplement where the non-religious just get time for reflection and bonding. I couldn't get the MOI to open, but the article suggested that the course is already inteded to be primarily secular with faith-based activities both supplemental and optional, the specifics of which to be determined by the unit. Anyway, thanks for pointing me at those articles. We did digress a bit. I think if a couple is legally married it should be entitled to attend a marriage retreat. I also think it desrves to be informed of the nature of the retreat and, as long as the format does not deviate from what is advertized, the duly-informed couple rescinds its right to whine. It is the responsibility of the attendee to sift wheat from chaff and take away what helps them, discarding the rest. If the "rest" is religion, so what? Maybe the theists blow off the secular stuff. Most of the advice is the same anyway isn't it? It's just phrased differently
Thanks for the links; they were enlightening. I think I have a new bone to pick with the program. "Faith-based" is exclusionary enough, but "Bible-based" excludes more than 20% of the force doesn't it? Even so - as long as it's explained in advance to the applicants so they're not "blind-sided" by the prosletyzing I think it's fair. I happen to think there should be an alternative for non-christians too. The most elegant solution would be a secular retreat with optional religious activies as a supplement where the non-religious just get time for reflection and bonding. I couldn't get the MOI to open, but the article suggested that the course is already inteded to be primarily secular with faith-based activities both supplemental and optional, the specifics of which to be determined by the unit. Anyway, thanks for pointing me at those articles. We did digress a bit. I think if a couple is legally married it should be entitled to attend a marriage retreat. I also think it desrves to be informed of the nature of the retreat and, as long as the format does not deviate from what is advertized, the duly-informed couple rescinds its right to whine. It is the responsibility of the attendee to sift wheat from chaff and take away what helps them, discarding the rest. If the "rest" is religion, so what? Maybe the theists blow off the secular stuff. Most of the advice is the same anyway isn't it? It's just phrased differently
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Sorry, but this is not an issue of MARRIAGE, but an issue of a service provided by the Chaplain's in the Military. I know from first hand experience as a member of the teams that worked CREDO Retreats for the Navy Chaplains at Norfolk, VA, that we served all people. We did not care about their sexual orientation, religious affiliation, branch of service, marital status (even for marriage retreats - if they were a couple), etc. Our job and the job of the Chaplain assigned to go out with the team for the weekend was to provide the service the participants expected. None of us had the right to or even the desire to reject any of the participants, our job was to guide and protect them as we guided them through THEIR experience; this was done with God's love, not prejudice or hiding behind and set of rules from any religious order.
(4)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
Ok so a marriage retreat is not an issue of marriage? No one is making them counsel? The entire thing is marriage counseling in small groups using an organized curriculum. What in the world are you guys talking about? Have you even been?
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
I really think that the issue her is not about the Marriage Retreat - BUT - if the Chaplin has the right to deny a couple the opportunity to attend the retreat based on the Chaplains belief that this couple (a legally married homosexual couple) did not fit the Chaplain's conception of what a married couple should be. The Chaplain is paid to provide a service to service members - not to rule on who is entitled to receive services. SO NO this is an issue of if the Chaplin can deny services based on his beliefs instead of what he is supposed to provide.
(1)
(0)
SGT Suraj Dave
@MCPO Treants
He will lose his job is he does against the beliefs of his sponsoring denomination.
(0)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
SGT Suraj Dave, I understand that, however, this is a Marriage Retreat. This type of retreat is offered to participants on a non-denominational basis. It is not offered to memners of only one religion and not even to Christians only. I have been on this type of retreat as both a participant and a team member (leader) and we have never asked the religion of the personnel attending.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google