Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 2010 Articles 
Sunday, May 30 2010

Last Friday, Democrats led the House of Representatives in passing legislation to allow the open practice of homosexuality in the United States military for the first time in our history.  This is a catastrophic move that is coming as the result of political correctness trumping common sense.


It also demonstrates the extraordinary success of the rabid homosexual lobby that has, in a matter of just a few decades, successfully altered the landscape of this and other debates regarding depraved sexual conduct.  Because of their ceaseless onslaught of propaganda, a majority of Americans (some even within the church) have come to believe in the existence of a group of people whose natural state is "homosexual."  We now casually use this terminology, assuming that there are "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals."


When we accept this baseline, we have detached ourselves from rational thinking.  We have allowed the debates over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," marriage rights, hospital visitation and other legislative objectives like adoption privileges to become ones of civil rights and fairness.  And once those advancing homosexuality have successfully framed these debates in this way, those holding to traditional morality are helpless.  They are easily portrayed as cruel, discriminatory, hateful bigots unwilling to extend the rights they want for themselves to others who are not like them.  Needless to say, this is all by design.  It has been the stated strategy of the homosexual agenda from the start.


Yet all it would take to undo this fraudulent charade is basic common sense - the greatest enemy of political correctness.  So here it is: all sexual behavior - married heterosexual conduct, adulterous heterosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, homosexuality, pedophilia, coprophilia, polyamory...ALL of it - is chosen behavior.  No one is compelled into any sexual conduct.  Even those who choose to abide by God's design for sex within the confines of a married, monogamous, man/woman relationship, how, when and if they engage in sexual behavior is a choice.  It has nothing to do with unalterable, unchangeable, immutable characteristics.


A person's natural state is that of male or female.  From there, people choose what kind of sexual behavior, if any, to participate in.  They choose whether to conform to Biblical standards, societal standards, or no standards at all.  But since what they do sexually is always chosen behavior, it has nothing to do with their identity.  Who a person is, is different than what a person does.


Once we regain this rational baseline for our thinking, we soon realize how terribly (and intentionally) skewed this debate over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has become.  The ban that has existed from the infancy of the American military until today has not been on any group of has been on the open practice of a chosen sexual behavior.  Moreover, homosexuality is but one of many sexual practices that has been banned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Even attempts of heterosexual adultery are forbidden.  Is that discriminatory against heterosexuals?


Therefore, the proper debate regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should not be held as one that will determine whether certain people can serve.  That is a false premise.  The debate should be held over whether or not those who do serve should be banned from participating in certain sexual behaviors. 


Since the Uniform Code of Military Justice seeks, "to promote the well-being, morale...and good order and discipline" of our armed forces, we should be asking whether the open practice of men having sex with men is dangerous to military cohesion.


We should be asking whether or not the devastating physical effects of men having sex with men is conducive to a healthy and strong fighting force.


We should be asking if the preponderance of sexual transmitted diseases found in men having sex with men represents any concerns with the necessity of battlefield blood transfusions.


We should be asking if the same reasons the military forbids men and women from sharing barracks (avoiding sexual aggression, harassment and counterproductive distractions) should not preclude the open acceptance of men having sex with men.


These are the rational grounds upon which this debate should be fought.  Failing to recognize, articulate and demand as much guarantees the outcome - one in which grounded and clear thinking individuals are labeled bigots, and in which the most powerful military in world history surrenders to its most dangerous foe...political correctness.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 08:53 pm   |  Permalink   |  17 Comments  |  Email
I agree that this topic should be discussed on rational grounds, but your basic assumptions are incorrect. Who you have sex with is chosen behavior; being homosexual is not. You would identify yourself as heterosexual even if you never had sex again, wouldn't you? Your argument keeps going back to "men having sex with men" (it is interesting that your focus is solely on men and not on women serving in the military). Why not look at what is working or not working in countries like Israel, Sweden, United Kingdom, South Africa, Korea, Spain, Canada, Germany, Australia, and many others, to bolster your arguments? Let's make this less emotional and more fact-based.
Posted by John Knowles on 06/01/2010 14:29:35
I think Peter just talked right past you. When you say, "being homosexual is not" you did exactly what Pete was commenting on - you are confusing people's natural identities with their chosen sexual behavior. If I follow the excellent argument Pete is making, his response to your question would logically be, "I am a male who practices heterosexuality." I notice Scripture refers to homosexual conduct and homosexual offenders, but not "homosexuals." I think you've hit on something profound here, Pete. Don't be surprised if you get a kickback cause this pierces through the radical agenda that, as John demonstrates, has effectively encrusted our minds and corrupted our debate. Very well done!
Posted by Frank M. on 06/01/2010 20:10:23
Maybe, John, he focuses on men having sex with men because our combat forces are all men? Just a thought.
Posted by Beyonce Knowles on 06/01/2010 20:11:55
Do you really think that letting a handful of gay people into the armed forces will turn the barracks upside down? Every modernized Western county allows open homosexuals into the army. Look at the list of the countries that don't: Syria, China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. The "preponderance of sexual transmitted diseases" has always been a problem that the military has coped with. Letting gays in is not going to change that. I'm a conservative on most issues. However, on this one, I don't understand all the whining. Religiously, I have a hard time with homosexually, no doubt. But keep in mind...this is the U.S.A. and you can't push your religious views on others.
Posted by myuscavage on 06/02/2010 05:33:50
Not why you're losing the gay debate, but you have lost the gay debate!
Posted by Batman on 06/02/2010 19:53:23
Pete just continues to reveal his utter ignorance at the issue of what it means to be gay, oops wrong term here. Are you Pete suggesting we should have sex police in the military checking up on the behavior of the armed forces? I am a proud gay man who happens to love another man. Why, who knows but after dealing with this in the conservative evangelical world for over 20 years I discovered God and others are OK with who I am. We love, cry, have emotions, care for others, govern, lead, support, parent just like every one else. Time to deal with the reality that we are in every nation across this globe and we are not going away. Fear based laws will not stop this reality.
Posted by Jeff on 06/02/2010 21:14:56
Wait a minute, I thought Peter was a "freedom-loving American". Since when should that big, bad government tell me who I can and can't have sex with? I am a grown adult and can make my own decisions. If I want to have sex with the same gender and bravely serve my country, shouldn't I be afforded that freedom? Seriously, this isn't Iran, Peter. "We should be asking if the preponderance of sexual transmitted diseases found in men having sex with men represents any concerns with the necessity of battlefield blood transfusions." Should we have the same concerns with sexual transmitted diseases found in soldiers having sex with women (like, prostitutes)? I swear, if Peter had his way, he would take our country back to the stone age.
Posted by Ted Haggard on 06/02/2010 22:34:48
This is something that I, too, struggle to form a concrete opinion about, but this article seemed to have a few good points. More food for thought, I suppose;) The question all comes down to how your politics and faith fit together and also how they don't. I don't want to promote sin, and yet I don't see how keeping or abolishing DADT will save anyone's soul and it seems so worldly. 'render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's"
Posted by David on 06/02/2010 23:00:32
@myuscavage Who says i cannot push my religious views on others? YOU! I take my orders from above, specifically Jesus Christ. Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. I don't see any exceptions do you? How about Matthew 28:19-20 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. All scripture from KJV.
Posted by Edward Mann on 06/04/2010 16:36:30
"We the people" are aware America's Founding document established the basis for how "Rights" were to be "entitled" in the very first paragraph. The premise is, does it violate "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." While "LGBT" does, "entitling" Rights regardless of race does not."Male and female created He them." Gen 1:27 says nothing about race, just gender. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? MT 19:3-6 "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" Heb 13:4. Until "We the people" begin to proclaim Jn 3:16-21 instead of just 3:16, progressives will continue to dupe "We the sheeple."
Posted by Gary W Kelly Sr on 06/05/2010 21:12:55
"Ted Haggard" ignorantly writes (thinking he's making a great point): "Should we have the same concerns with sexual transmitted diseases found in soldiers having sex with women (like, prostitutes)?" Uh...yeah, Ted...that's why it's banned by the UMCJ. Thus, you completely destroyed your own argument and proved Pete's. Well done! Perhaps that demonstrates why you won't put your name on your work?
Posted by Jason Matison on 06/06/2010 12:06:59
A common point opponents of gay rights, specifically opponents of the rights of gay people to be parents, is that their VILE AND SINFUL LIFESTYLE will mis-calibrate their child's moral compass, leading him or her to commit all sorts of crimes against man (and nature). Well, sorry folks; the children of lesbians turn out to be better people than those of us raised in good ol' American traditional families: To preempt claims of bias from sources of funding for the project: the study used well-developed methods to test for the child's emotional well-being, etc. The rest was just simple statistical analysis, not prone to bias.
Posted by some dude somewhere on 06/07/2010 14:12:15
Jason, Are you suggesting that there are no soldiers having promiscuous sex? Riiiight.
Posted by Ted Haggard on 06/13/2010 12:09:47
Ted, you are an incredible idiot. I'm sorry, but the fact that you can't even see how you've imploded your whole argument is incredible. Or perhaps you're proud of it. Let me put this succinctly for you: I nailed you to the wall. And this was your comeback?! You keep killing yourself with your own arguments. If they are having promiscuous sex (which they may well be), they are doing so AGAINST the code. JUST LIKE should be the case with those engaging in homosexual sex. If they do it, it should be AGAINST the code. That's the whole freaking point of Pete's column! Good gosh, Einstein.
Posted by Jason Matison on 06/13/2010 18:52:17
BEING a homosexual is not a violation of the UMCJ. Logic clearly indicates that this faux concern over battlefield blood transfusions is a concern over promiscuity, not homosexuality. My point was simple: a promiscuous straight man presents a very similar threat. Jason, you are clearly letting your emotions obstruct logic here, but if juvenile yelling and name-calling make you feel better about yourself, but all means fire away. You are only exposing your own uncouthness.
Posted by Ted Haggard on 06/16/2010 09:58:12
How delightful...a lecture on logic and couthness from a guy who rails that Pete wants to "take us back to the stone age." Your credibility is so well established, Ted, we anxiously await your next lecture.
Posted by GD on 06/17/2010 14:06:52
Oh my gosh, Ted. The whole point of this friggin column was to say that we should be talking about behavior (promiscuity, homosexuality, beastiality, etc.) rather than falsely talking about identity and civil rights. You blasted that column, but then proceeded to start condemning behaviors! Then, to top it off, you lead off your last post with "BEING a homosexual is not a violation of the UMCJ (sic)." In other words, you fail to grasp the whole point of this column by falsely idenitfying a group known as homosexuals. You are out of your league. Go back to the playground if you can't keep up with logical arguments.
Posted by Jason Matison on 06/17/2010 14:10:19

Post comment
Email Address

(max 750 characters)
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here