Hegseth orders Navy ship USNS "Harvey Milk" to be stripped of its name

The first Christians being executed for refusing to join the Roman military arriving in heaven: "Oh jeez, now you tell me!"

 

My post had nothing to do with gay people.

 

That raises my eyebrow anytime an adult has a relationship with a teen and he had a long term relationship with McKinley. That doesn't take away from all of the good Milk did in life and why the tanker was named after him.

 

I'll disagree with you here. Any officer that was facing those charges today, regardless of sexual orientation, would be court martialed.

 

And frankly I don’t care about that in terms of the ship naming as it had nothing to do with his military service. The only connection I’ll make is that it seems consistent with his character to not follow any of the societal norms when it comes to sexual behavior. In other words, we can play the “He was persecuted because he was gay” game, but no one, gay or straight, is allowed to sexually prey on enlisted personnel as an officer. Increasingly, such rules about disproportionate power relationships in the workplace are more common in the civilian world. Similarly, no adult, gay or straight, is allowed to sexually prey on minors. Milk certainly understood those rules, but they were not for him.

 

No, I do agree with that. That was why I worded it as I did that the charges would be the same. I also do not think the accused would be granted a face-saving OTH discharge in 2025. A court-martial with a dismissal would be far more likely.

 

The point that a lot of people are missing is that the naming of this class of ships was considered political and controversial back when it was done but they seemed to have missed it. This was done by a SecNav that is not well remembered and probably should have resigned after the Fat Leonard scandal.

Republicans in Congress fought against these ships being named after politicians when there were still military members they could be named after.

Navy ship naming policy dispute

 

The major problem with your claim here is Jesus preached on bearing fruit in keeping with repentance in Luke 3. A group of soldiers were in the crowd and they asked Jesus, “And we, what shall we do?” Jesus answered, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

The answer clearly demonstrates Jesus’ approval of their vocation, and it demonstrates what Jesus considered to be faithful fruitful Christian living in that vocation. Regardless of what people in the years following Jesus’ and the apostles’ ministry did or did not do, if you deviate from divine revelation, then you have deviated from the religion that Jesus and the apostles preached and practiced.

 

The Tailhook Scandal

Female Hilton employees were advised to avoid the area at all costs during the Tailhook Convention, but female conference attendees weren't always so lucky.

Several dozen women reported being fondled, groped or assaulted after being forced to "run the Gauntlet" during the conference.

On April 23, 1993, the DoD inspector general released its report, finding 83 women and seven men who were assaulted during the Tailhook Symposium. The bulk of the victims were civilians who were unconnected to the military, along with female government employees and military spouses. Three hundred officers were identified as having committed some sort of offense over the weekend, but only 140 were referred for disciplinary action. None of them went to trial, and most were given non-judicial punishments, fines, official reprimands and, at worst, demotions.

None were charged with sexual assault, instead facing charges of indecent exposure, conduct unbecoming an officer and making false official statements.

(Hetero) boys will be (hetero) boys. No need for all of the tedious court-martialing or discharge paperwork.

 

Are they naming a ship after someone that was at Tailhook? I have friends that came in to the Marine Corps in the mid to late '90's that are aviators and had to positively affirm they were not at Tailhook when going on promotion boards.

 

So, if its a matter of vocation, the commandments are void. If the state commands you to kill or steal, you are good. If you arent really gay, but you prostitute yourself for pay by servicing the same sex and dont complain about your wages, you are good. Jesus was friendly with a prostitute, so clearly he didnt disapprove of that vocation either. I'm starting to like Christianity more now, you can do whatever you want as long as you get paid for it, as there is a bunch of fine print that isnt actually in the Bible you can just make up to justify it.

 

No. The commandment is not void because the commandment does not teach pacifism. The simple solution here is to acknowledge Jesus knew the Torah very well, a Torah that clearly authorizes the use of lethal force in warfare…read Deuteronomy 20 for instance. Jesus upheld the teaching of the Torah, which did not forbid warfare because it is not a violation of the 10 commandments.

 

You are wasting your time and casting your pearls before swine.