Every person has a right to serve his country, gays included. All have a right to serve their country openly without hiding who they are. It's kind of odd that so many heterosexuals who are not prepared to make that kind of sacrifice, refusing to enlist in the military and preferring instead to live as armchair warriors, are condemning those with a patriotic passion to fight for freedom.
The other day a woman called my radio show on WABC 770AM in NYC to argue with me. She was adamantly against the repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell.' She said a homosexual lifestyle was dirty and against the Bible. I asked her whether she had children of military age and whether they, as good, clean, heterosexuals would enlist in place of the gays whom she would ban. She responded, "They are doing other things to serve their country." I thought so.
Homosexuality is a religious sin. The Bible makes that much clear. But it is not a moral sin. Rather than being like the moral (and religious) sin of adultery, in which lying, deception, and injury to an innocent party are committed, homosexuality is an infraction between G-d and man. In that sense it is akin to lighting a fire on the Sabbath, an act strictly forbidden by the Bible. No moral sin has taken place, but it is forbidden on religious grounds.
I am a Rabbi and I take the words of the Bible seriously. But I will not call gay men and women names, I will not become a homophobe, and I will not make the error of mistaking sins that are deeply unethical, like 'Do Not Steal,' with those that are simply irreligious, like gay men living together.
On the same radio show a member of the military called in and said, having served with homosexuals in the military under 'Don't Ask Don't Tell,' he too was opposed to the reversal of the ban. 'Too many gay men hit on me in the showers and the barracks, and were pretty aggressive about it, for me to think that they should ever be allowed to serve openly in the military. It will only make things worse." To be sure, I don't agree with the sentiment. I have worked with gay men and have become very close to many of them and they have yet to hit on me even once. Granted, I am about five-foot-six, have a bushy beard, and have a monopack rather than a six-pack. But jokes aside, even if I disagree with the sentiment I respect the veteran offering the opinion because he actually served. He fought, he sacrificed, and he has earned the right to a strong opinion on the matter. I believe his opinion is flawed in that it is probably more of an argument for the complete and utter separation of men and women in the military than it is against the repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell.' Still, he is a veteran and has earned the right to be strongly heard. The rest of us, however, who have, for the most part, put personal considerations like fear of injury or love of making a little bit more money that what's on offer in the military ahead of giving our country a few years of our lives, and perhaps life itself, should perhaps be a little bit more humble about elevating our opinions on a par with those who have enlisted.
In general, America has become homosexual-obsessed. In nearly every election cycle it's all-gay's-all-the-time. Rather than talking the need for values in American life, like greater spirituality and less materialism, we talking incessantly about gay marriage. We have a 50 percent divorce rate. We've got about half of all teens having heterosexual sex at ages where they are absolutely not ready for that kind of adult experience and it is deeply injurious to their ability to later create bonds of intimacy. But do ever talk about this stuff? Nope. Because the breakdown of marriage, many contend, is all due to gay marriage. But if we straight people were just a little bit more honest with ourselves we would have to confess that we've done a pretty good job of ruining marriage on our own without any outside help, thank you very much. There is no need for easy scapegoats.
The Bible uses the word 'abomination' approximately 122 times. True, it uses it for homosexual sex, but it does so also for envy, jealousy, and arrogance. Perhaps, at times, we religious heterosexuals are guilty of allowing our principles to spill over into outright homophobia, which is a sin against G-d and might just constitute something of an abomination itself. For all are G-d's children, and all try their best, amid a fallible nature, to serve G-d and country as best they can.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the founder of This World: The Values Network, has just published 'Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life.' www.shmuley.com. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.
Follow Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiShmuley
“I will not make the error of mistaking sins that are deeply unethical …..with those that are simply irreligious....”
This is a sensitive and empathetic piece from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and all credit to him.
But he is trying to convince people who “take the Bible seriously” not to take the Bible seriously. Rather they should decide for themselves whether each sin mentioned in the Bible is “religious” (as he puts it) or “moral”.
This is asking a lot from the millions who depend for moral proscription on the Bible, supposedly lead their lives according to its precepts, and who have not been encouraged to question it.
I suggest that religious leaders produce an annotated version of the Bible, indicating which “sins” are not really sins and can be ignored. For that matter they could annotate those entire passages which should be taken with a pinch of salt. Let's clear up biblical ambiguity once and for all.
B) the religious argument is immaterial, whether you find it acceptable to your religious doctrine or not. Our nation does not base rules via religious arguments, but rational arguments. "I interpret my book declares...." isn't a rational argument.
C) I really wish people would stop pretending the *existence* of gays is somehow open to debate, let alone negotiable. (speaking more towards many of the comments). As if a preference or desire will magically change reality. You are surrounded by gay people, and the only reason you aren't aware of it is because a bunch of closed-minded bigots are scaring them, but they are still there, taking showers near you, sleeping near you, making crude jokes with you about the opposite sex.
All rational arguments need to start with some basic facts before they can advance, and whether you like it or not, gays exist.
Thats not the only eason. I don't personally tend to share my sexuality with many I work with, becasue I don't really think who I sleep with matters at all in professional interaction. Some of my closest co-workers know, but thats beacsue we all talk about what we do in our time off and see the pictures on each others desks. In fact people are often surprised to find out down the road.
Most (there are weird people in every group) gays and lesbians are just like everybody else. Being gay is not our single defining term. I lso happen to be allergic to cats and band-aid adhesive, but most of the people I work with don't know that either nor do i need to tell them.
Compare the casual information that someone is a christian vs the information of being a muslim, or an atheist, or being gay. I don't mean to minimize being gay by placing it in the same category as a mere religious stance, but it carries a lot of religious confrontation with people that think in such terms.
I don't think anyone is shocked or drastically changes their opinion of a person, finding out they self-identify themselves as a christian. But you can't say the same for the other self-identifications I brought up, along with several others I could bring up.
What else do you call an activity which involves men dressing up
in different colored costumes for the explicit purpose of poking (more or less lethal)
holes in each other ?
I have to go back to this statement because it is highly suspect.
In my 42 years, I have always found that gay men, while in hypermasculine situations and environments, are extremeley reserved and cautious in regards to making sexual advances, as doing so would mean almost certain retaliation in the form of harassment or even physical confrontation or a violent attack.
Methinks this caller is either blatantly lying or perhaps he himself was actually actively participating in the flirtation, which led certain men to believe it was welcome.
In MY lifetime I have had many gay friends, and they have all confided in me that they have never, ever, EVER wished to be straight.
They DID however - universally - wish that heterosexuals didn't go so far out of their way to make the lives of gay people as much of "hell on earth" as possible.
BUZZ
Disqualified player.
Anyone who starts with an assertion that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" is disqualified for being COMPLETELY out of touch with reality.
Thanks for playing!
In my experience, very often straight men think gay men are hitting on them but it turns out to be paranoid delusion.
Also, making such a claim would be an easy lie (ends justify the means, no pun intended).
Why shouldn't we question whether it's a lie? After all, the institution, via DADT, has actually promoted blatant lying.
You think we would be past this by now.
I NEVER believe the straight guy that walks around whining that gay men hit on him in the shower. The loudest homophobes are often closeted gay men or openly gay but self-hating.
Our tendency to over focus on the "faults" of our fellow humans serves only to distract us from the important issues facing us. Have you ever wondered why we are so encouraged to hate gays and Mexicans (or African Americans or insert person here)? Who needs to usurp the banks when we can throw rocks at our neighbor? Who needs to hold accountable insurance, gas, coal executives when we can spew hatred at soldier's funerals? Who needs to worry about education or health care when we can stick pins in the homeless?
1. Most men are completely incapable of being adults in the presence of women who are dressed, so imagine it with them in the showers.
2. Most womem don't really want to share a bathroom with men because men don't seem to care if they pee on the floor.
Second, the Torah forbids lighting fires, as does the Old Testament (really much the same). The New Testament does not forbid lighting fires on the Sabbath, but merely calls for the day being one of rest and prayer to, and reflection upon, God.
The Courts have repeatedly decided that there is no Right to serve. While I admire your argument, you are wrong. The Congress and President may decide to change the law, and it does appear they will. The military will go on, but will discipline and good order be diminished? Will combat effectiveness be diminished? Will recruiting be adversely affected? All of these are important questions to ask when we consider allowing a tiny fraction of the potential force to openly display their homosexuality!
Semper fi
Semper fi
First--Please point out where, in the constitution, a right to serve is denied to homosexuals.
Second--Since Jews don't follow the new testement I doubt whether the new testement's change really alter's the rabbi's reading of the religious law.
Washington brought in Baron Von Stueben to instill discipline, good order, and combat effectiveness. And he was gay. And it was known that he was gay.
Since it can be argued that DADT may be keeping qualified homosexuals from joining the military--and since we've lately seen the military have to lower it's standards in order to fill the ranks--it could be argued that the repeal of DADT may positively affect recruitment.
And finally--Semper Fi--"Always faithful" Please indicate how gay troops--who are fighting for country that doesn't afford them full rights and privleges--are being unfaithful to one of the true ideals of America--equality under the law?
2. The Rabbi speaks of the Bible, but makes no reference to the Old Testament. If he had, I would not have questioned him on this point.
3. Please provide a citation for Von Steuben's homosexuality.
4. You may argue till you are blue in the face about the benefits of open service. I disagree, and argue that the experiment is better NOT undertaken.
5. I have not argued that homosexuals cannot serve honorably. I'm sure many have. I question the usefulness of changing the policy, and argue that it may adversely affect combat readiness!
Semper fi
Serving in the military is not a right. Only about 30% of military age youths in the US are even eligible to serve due to previous drug use, police records, education deficiencies, obesity, or for various other reasons. Should we let everyone else that is currently ineligible to serve also even if it hurts readiness (war-fighting capability)? This is all that should matter, will allowing gays to serve openly improve, decrease, or make no effect to the military's current readiness ability.
When I was in Afghanistan there were multiple male on male rapes in common shower areas on one of the larger NATO bases. Were these committed by members of the US military? No. They were by foreign forces and government contractors.
Alright. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it is determined by some study or data or whatever that allowing gays to openly serve, decreases the military's current readiness ability.
What then?