God&Neighbor

The article Carpe September 20th appeared at Time.com (Time Magazine) in the magazine’s Battleland blog the day the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was repealed. The author, “Officer X,” is an anonymous gay serviceman who regularly writes about his experience in the military in anticipation of the DADT repeal, writing here about both the joy and fear of “the next chapter of being gay in the military.” My comments and resulting debate are below.

———————————

Mike Johnson

Lies, secretiveness, hollowness, cold-heartedness and belittlement are not the typical hallmarks of an honorable relationship. Just an observation.

———————————

nedraggett

No, no they’re not.  Real shame they had to be forced into them over a stupid and horrible policy that only penalized people who wanted to serve their country.  Wouldn’t you agree?  Or do you go around getting your kicks out of being bitter against those who had no recourse?  I don’t know Officer X as a person, and I would be a fool to claim that essays capture a full portrait of a soul — I’m sure he’d agree — but I do know from his various posts over these last few months that he has shown more in the way of intelligence, passion and consideration than you care to demonstrate in your two lines of hypocritical scolding. Go off and tell your partner how noble you were today with your comment, and wonder if it’s something to be proud about.

———————————

Mike Johnson

Those are illusions. The DADT policy isn’t to blame for “forcing” feelings of shame or guilt about a relationship; our consciences do that when we are aware of sin. DADT existed to protect people who want to serve, not penalize the few who want to be openly gay during service. “No recourse” is another illusion (Genesis 2:24).

———————————

Mel

Wow. That’s the most outstandingly asinine post I’ve ever seen. What would you have the guy do? Deny who he is, or abandon his life calling? Which would *you* do?

There is dishonor in this situation, but it belongs to the military, not to Officer X.

———————————

Mike Johnson

“What would you have the guy do? Deny who he is, or abandon his life calling?” 

Neither. His service to our country in the military is honorable. The dishonor lies in the the rebellion against our Creator’s original design for human relationships (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:4-6) by choosing to pursue and celebrate a homosexual relationship. The need to lie about the relationship (which is not unique to the military) in the first place should be an indicator that it isn’t how relationships are supposed to be.

———————————

RUDY

Mike you have a point but what officer X is saying is he agrees. He doesn’t want to do this or be like this. The situation he found himself in, in order to serve, put pressure on his relationship. Now until you have walk a mile in the man’s shoes who are we all to question his motives. I am not gay. I am not a service man nor have I ever been. What I am is a human being. I ask you to ask yourself would you deny someone their ability, their God given right to just be in order to make yourself feel better? In the end you need not agree you just need to be human.

———————————

Alex

Leviticus 25:44-46 “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.”

gonna take me as a slave a**hole?

———————————

Aaron

And what about people 100 years ago who had African American or Native American heritage, but were at least half white and able to pass as such? There were all sorts of laws concerning where they could eat, who they could marry, and they probably still felt the “The need to lie about the relationship”.

Dude, you are a minority. Get over it.

Even your two biblical references are loose condemnations at best. The Matthew reference just rehases the Genesis reference, and Genesis 2:24 says nothing bad about men marrying men. You are just assuming that because it says X+Y is good, X+X must be bad.

There are many things the bible Explicitly preaches against that I am sure you practice (as do most people)

———————————

pcriz

Who says your book of rules is his book of rules.. Show me a man that follows every rule to the T in that archaic book and I will then shed a tear because it is a true Christian, not some judgmental zealot. The relationship was corrected.. Between him and the military. No reason to lie anymore.

———————————

Mike Johnson

Re: Lev. 25, Alex, if everyone interpreted literature as you have apparently without taking context into account, there isn’t a book that would be properly understood.

Aaron, in Gen. 2:24 God defines marriage between one man and one wife, and the Matthew passage has Jesus affirming that in the New Testament. Same-sex marriages are not included in that description. In any case, if you require more explicit texts, there are plenty of other passages that define same-sex relations as immoral, i.e. Romans 1:24-27.

pcriz, “your rules are not my rules” doesn’t work in reality. Try the argument on a cop when you’re pulled over for speeding. Moral law is universal and absolute, and everyone presupposes that (otherwise, we wouldn’t debate anything; all truth would be equally valid). And if you’re looking for a Christian who follows every rule perfectly, you’re not looking for a Christian, because that’s not what it’s about. The opposite is true. Christians accept that they cannot follow God’s law perfectly and thus accept Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice for our sins. But awareness of our sin is the first step.

———————————

Liz

You are the one with the illusion – using modern interpretation of an ancient book that was written by other men 2000 yrs ago – the bottom line is that Officer X is fighting for human rights in a country where there are few with an establishment that represses his own human right to love whomever he loves

———————————

Mike Johnson

Liz, you are “using modern interpretation of an ancient book” when you assert that all humans have inherent rights, including the right to love. The Biblical view that we are created in the image of a God who loves is the best explanation for human beings with inherent value who yearn to love and relate to others, even though in our sin we misapply it. Certain boundaries are a reality and are a good thing, including boundaries in human relationships.

———————————

Steve

I think you folks are missing the point…first of all, I’m a soldier serving as a medic in the Army.  Personally I have no problem with what other people do, as long as it has no bearing on my life.  With that being said, open sexuality (any) is a problem for the US military.  In my experience, most young men have a very difficult time dealing with this topic and frankly it impacts the mission.  I also find it funny that folks who have never put on the uniform tell those that have what policies they should implement…I guess that’s a different topic.  Not that you shouldn’t have an opinion, but what is it based on?  Your deployment to Iraq?

I feel that ALL sexuality is a private and personal matter that should remain that way…there is no place for ANY open sexuality in the military…not that anyone should feel the need to lie or live other than they would like, however I’ve personally had to deal with young men and women who did not have the emotional maturing to deal with this topic. Even recently, my unit has had brief after brief of how this affects us, what we can and can’t say, what will happen to us if we do etc..that time should have been spent training or with our families.  Again, impacting our mission as others are trying to keep us politically correct. I have a sense that people have lost touch with the reality that as a soldier my job is to do the mission…now my priorities are placed elsewhere.   As such…the true impact remains to be seen.

———————————

zenprincess

Martin Luther King, Jr. used the Bible to advocate for freedom and equal rights.  Obviously, other people use it to try to deny those rights.

An individual’s sexuality is not Mike Johnson’s or anyone else’s concern.

———————————

Mike Johnson

Zenprincess, if an individual’s sexuality is not anyone else’s concern, what is “coming out” if not an invitation to pay attention to it? As Steve points out in the previous post, it has no place in the military as there is no way to keep open homosexuality from becoming part of public attention and conversation.

What MLK Jr preached from the Bible ought to be true to what the Bible says, and as far as I know he was faithful to it when he advocated for freedom from racial discrimination. What the Bible says and what science has been unable to refute is that homosexual behavior is ultimately an act of the will, so it’s a different matter. The freedom you’re alluding to is freedom from going about relationships in the way we were made to relate.

———————————

Koob

You like to quote from the Bible, so I may assume you as devotedly religious. You have my congratulations on discovering your vocation for life. However, if you are so narrow-minded to think that the whole universe must be strictly guided by a book, you have my pity. There’s nothing wrong about being in a gay relationship, as long as it is to cherish and strengthen the actual force that governs life: love.

———————————

Mike Johnson

Koob, a book that communicates a moral standard we are all held to. Where else would you get the idea that love should be a worthy and governing force? By the way, ALL views are narrow, exclusive, and “strictly guided”, including the one you’ve laid out.

———————————

There were no more responses to my comments.