Organization: Virginia Department of Health
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:23:21 EST
From:         "Michael A. Kline" <MKLINE@VDH.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
              20 Nov 1992 09:11:09 MST from <std_freemanb@HG.ULETH.CA>

On Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:11:09 MST Bruce Freeman said:
>I have written privately to Michael Kline suggesting to him that(...)
I sent a note to Bruce. I don't know if I got his note or not. I really
do try to answer *ALL* personal notes. I'm working on a Standards
Document setting up programming procedures to meet Local Audit and State
Audit requirements. I'm working on a $2.5+ million dollar budget, I'm
working on an automated Service Request system and last week was 51
hours plus for work and probably 10-20 for CHRISTIA. I'm not too clear
about what happened.

I attempt to answer him, but I'm not going to get pulled into this
bit of homosexuals any more. The next time someone has a point to
make like this, please just post the lines I sent and say "And just
what did you mean by this?" and I'll do my best to explain. I feel
at a significant disadvantage here, but I'll give it a try...

Also, try to send me a personal copy as well as I have not been
following the "gays" conversation that close any more. I caught
this one as it had my name on the first screen before I hit the
del key...

>from both a moral and biblical standpoint his argument in favour of
>the exclusion of gays from the military is problematic.  As
>he did not respond to my e-mail but yet continues his verbal
>assault against homosexuals, I would like to comment on this issue
>to the general list.
Please...
  1. When I shared on my "marine five", they were NOT Christian and I was
     attempting to show how I perceived the non-Christian would address the
     "problem" of gays among such as these.
  2. Other comments were from people who called into Rush Limbaugh and
     700 Club summaries.
  3. Is the military the place for social experiments? I could see perhaps
     a base or two to start, if that goes well, then fine.
  4. As far as "assault", I have never advocated any "punishment" for those
     who are gay. Jesus died for the gay, Jesus *CAN* and *DOES* make the
     sinner into a saint. If you want to talk about those who kill the
     unborn, then I suppose that you would convict me of verbal assault on
     abortion providers. When did it turn from expressing my opinion to
     verbal assault? Is your post an opinion of what you think of my posts
     or a verbal assault on me? In my case, I'll give you the benefit of
     the doubt and figure it is your opinion.
>
>"what do gays in the military have to do with practical Christian
>living?"
No more than anything else. But, by our silence, we say I approve, I
see nothing wrong with it, therefore I say nothing about it.

>(...0 I believe they can be summarized as:
>
>     1.   Homosexual activity is sinful.
Yes.
>     2.   God hates sin.
Yes.
>     3.   God punishes sinners.
Yes. In this life or the next. Same as anyone else.
>     4.   AIDS, therefore, is God's way at controlling sin.
No, no, a thousand times no. AIDS is a result of God saying not to do
something, man does, and MAN opens himself to AIDS or what ever else they
happen to get. In a small town in rural Virginia, 25 couples now face AIDS
because partners were unfaithful. Is AIDS punishment of unfaithfulness? No,
no more than traffic accidents are a punishment of driving 100+ MPH. Why,
you might actually get away with it. So, since I have not been punished,
am I "right"? Not necessarily...
>
>Many scholars argue that the reference to homosexuality in the
>Hebrew Bible is ceremonial law and, therefore, for Christians, is
>not binding.
Rom 1:26 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affection: for even
their women did change the *NATURAL* use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 - And likewise also the men, leaving the *NATURAL* use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their
error which was meet.

Here God defines *NATURAL* and He says what is not natural. So, we have
some who say, "Well, I, Sam, don't "lust" for my boyfriend, Pete.", so I
don't disobey God's word. I'm doing 50% of what God says to do, so I make
it. It's funny that we can say the person guilty of adultery is in serious
trouble for not letting go of a married woman, but we can't the homosexual
is. Of course not, that would be verbal assault.

>
>The references St. Paul made about homosexuality are similarly
>problematic.   (...)
Again, if we can somehow "change" the word of God to make our sin
acceptable, we "make it" and don't have to repent. Give me some verses
that say that Godly married couples don't make it into heaven because
the verses don't really say "married" or don't really say "Godly"? See?
We don't hear those arguments because almost universally it's accepted
that a happily married couple are doing the "right thing".

Atul is my Unix person that is in charge of 39 unix sites and is Hindu.
He "hates" homosexuals, thinks they are totally unnatural and refuses
to work with them. Even as a Hindu says "God made them male or female
and that is what they will be all their life. Even if they get a sex
change, they will still be male or female in their genes. They can't
change what God made them, no matter what they do." The point being,
you may well say I shouldn't force him to be a Christian, but I should
"talk to him" and convince him that his hatred is wrong. As far as I
know his faith doesn't care if he thinks this. He don't talk much of
what he believes... Anyhow, hopefully the point's been made.

>
>The bottom line to all of this is that it remains highly
>problematic as to whether or not God actually considers homosexual
>behaviour to be sinful.  For Christians I believe this question
>needs to be considered in light of Jesus's teachings: both from the
>the standpoint of His morality and what He did or not say on
>on matters of human sexuality.
Would you say "it remains highly problematic as to whether or not God
actually considers marriage behavior to be sinful." No, at least I
think not. But now we're talking about homosexual behavior, so we
have to ask "What *IS* natural? Could you explain this to me? What does
it mean to not lie with a man as with a woman? I don't understand."

>In his argument on gays in the military, Mr. Kline suggests that
>AIDS is a factor which must be considered.  He uses the notion of
>AIDS as a "gay plague," invoked by an angry God to punish sinners.
>This idea must be considered from a critical perspective.
From what I can get of State and national figures, about 85% or more can
be attributed to homosexual behavior. Not a "gay plague", but we are
talking of putting them into barracks, sleeping together, showering
together, etc. and think that everything will be just fine. Many of the
"other" innocents can well be traced to blood from gays. It *IS*
changing, and heterosexuals are becoming infected as with the 28 couples
I mentioned.

From what I learned later, as far as I know, AIDS is *NOT* a factor because
if you have HIV you are OUT. So, on this I was wrong. I do believe that if
HIV can be traced to homosexual or drugs, lifetime medical coverage should be
denied. I, as a taxpayer, can't afford it.

>
>A second issue which should be addressed is what motivates people
>to link sin and illness.  Susan Sontag, in her essay "AIDS and its
>Metaphors," offers insight into "Mr. Kline's agenda".
I don't really mind, but you keep saying Mr. Kline's agenda.
I know this is only your opinion and not verbal abuse, but it
hurts a bit. I'm 41, I won't be in the military. My son's
only 4, so he's got a while to go. The rest of my children are
girls. Of course, they may well get drafted when they get older
because of the feminists. Anyhow, the other parts were my "marine
five", Rush, 700 Club, still not my agenda.

>advance a return to a previous era, one in which civil religion
>dominates:
The "civil religion" today is not Christianity. I can't see what it has
to do with "my agenda".
>     specialists in ugly feelings insist that AIDS is a
>     punishment for deviant sex, what moves them is not just,
I addressed this. No more than speeding an auto accidents.
>     --- of intolerance, of paranoia, of fear of political
>     weakness --- has fastened on this disease.
Like I said, since HIV is dismissal, the argument concerning the military
is a mute point. I am totally with out basis. If gays get in and are healthy
then my point was again proved without basis. If gays get in and 60% were to
be dismissed, my point is still without basis since HIV is grounds for
dismissal.
>
>Mr. Kline's posts overflow with metaphor.   In his attempt to
>construct gays as the quintessential "other", he defines them as
>being morally corrupt to the extent that they are polluting to
>"normal" people.  While Mr. Kline claims that his motivation is not
>one of hatred, his discourse is characteristically xenophobic.  As
You must have missed my post on being a "Child" is xenophobic fear
of Xerox machines?

>was pointed out in a previous post, if in his argument one was to
>substitute "blacks" for "gays," it would without doubt be
>considered racist.  Mr. Kline, unfortunately, is unable to
>recognize the extent of his own bigotry.
First the bigotry. For about 2 years I ate breakfasts with Jim Wells. He
hated toast, and I didn't normally eat breakfast, but I couldn't see him
throwing away his toast, so I ate it. There was once a time that someone
was giving me grief. Jim said he had friends that he could talk to that
would take care of this person and they would never bother me again. I
only say this to show the extent of his devotion to me, not as a gay or
anything like that, but as a friend. One day around Thanksgiving Jim
called and the Lion's Club had taken up a food donation for us and Jim
thought we should have it. I shared all of this with my wife Linda, the
breakfasts, everything Jim and I would talk about, the works. One day
Jim came to visit and he got to meet Linda. When he left Linda told me
"You never told me Jim was black." I said "Are you sure?" She said "No."
and I responded "I guess it wasn't important..."

Boy, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that if I saw two blacks kissing each
other when on leave and then took a shower with them I couldn't feel
safe, but this is only because they are black and has nothing to do
with them being gay. If I were to substitute gay for American clothing
it may have been anti-American.

I think the "other" post was the one about my "marine five" where is was
not expressing my opinions but what I was seeing from other people.
>
>I mentioned above that I feel that this topic is a relevant issue
>for discussion by Christians.  This is because ideas such as those
>advanced by Mr. Kline can be extremely dangerous.  Neo-nazis in
>Germany are today adopting a similar rhetoric: a return to fascism
>in Europe is no longer considered to be an impossibility.  There
>are also supremacists in North America with a similar agenda.
>Religious beliefs are a powerful device with which to bring about
>such a change; but, fortunately, they are also a most effective
>method with which to prevent it.   An important question is whether
>the religious ideas Mr. Kline espouses are essentially "good" or
>"evil".  Is the gay person Mr. Kline labels "other" really all that
>different after all?
None what so ever from the "carnal" man. You are absolutely right.
>
>Bruce Freeman
>
Maks.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia