Romney = douche bag.

Substitute the word "homosexual" with the word "Negro" in Duncan Hunter's response, and it sounds exactly like an argument from 60 years ago against racial integration of the Armed Forces. I upvoted this only because it shows the douchebaggery of all the respondents.

You could really replace "gay" with any demographic someone might be bigoted against, for that matter. Just shows how much they're trying to rationalize their homophobia.

What exactly are they saying? That those in the military shouldn't treat colleagues with respect and tolerance as would be expected in any other professional environment?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

McCain and Romney said the same thing: they turn to the military leaders for advice on the matter. Sounds good to me.

Romney is right. If it ain't broke, don't fuck with it, and if there is a problem speak with the high rank officials to find out what works and what does not work, and keep the system working. McCain said practical the same the same thing as Romney and probably got a standing ovation.

I hate politics.

OK. Gays in the military won't work for the same reason males don't bunk with females.
When I'm in a group shower, I don't want to be checked out the entire time, and I'm sure a woman wouldn't want to be checked out the entire time either. And don't give me this just-because-he's-gay-doesn't-mean-he's-gonna-stare-at-guys bullshit. That's like saying that just because I'm hetero I'm not going to stare at a naked woman that's lathering herself up. All that aside, another huge reason for gays to not be in the military is the same reason women are not allowed in combat: Emotional attachments. If one man goes down, his boyfriend/lover/whatever will be immediately taken out of the fight with him, effectively reducing available manpower by two instead of one.

Christ, what a bunch a fuckin' Einsteins around here. Reminds me of why I stopped posting anything at this site anymore. final. post. ever. password garbled. ta!

Outrageous MarinegunRock.

The very first sentence is either poorly constructed or poorly thought out. You compare sharing sleeping/undressing/dressing space with the opposite sex, to having gays in the military - *at all*, whether you share that same space with them or not. Might want to add a few parameters onto the end of there, because right now it looks misinformed and unbalanced, where it should only look misinformed.

Secondly with regards to your "staring at me in the shower" comment; think about america's current policy on gay people in the military. Gay people are currently in the shower with straight people RIGHT NOW (ohnoes). Do you think that, because they aren't allowed to admit to being gay, they're physically incapable of looking at you whilst you lather up? THINK for god's sake.
(And that's not even addressing the latent homophobia of the argument)

And i'm not even sure if it's woth mentioning that your last reason is painting gays as, well, small minded, secretive, ignorant animals. As though they would literally be having sex with each other at night and going into battle the next day side by side - perhaps holding hands? If they did take a lover, then as though they would be incapable of, and the army would stand in the way of, splitting themselves up in order to maintain their mental focus. DO YOU EVEN REALISE COUNTRIES HAVE OPEN-DOOR POLICIES TO GAY PEOPLE AND SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH THEY ARE NOT HAVING IT AWAY LIKE RABBITS IN A SACK.

You know what, everything about your post speaks volumes to me. You probably don't consider yourself a homophobe.

Here's a little logic twister for you;
If the army vetted people to make sure they were disciplined and professional, they would NOT be staring at people in the shower. But then you wouldn't be in the army either, because your opinions are not becoming of a disciplined and professional individual.

(and i'm not even gay, imagine if a gay guy read that bull)

As an infantry officer in the Canadian Forces I have to say that the attitude presented by these politicians and some of these comments are not only incorrect but also sickening. I serve with some amazing men and women, some of whom are openly homosexual, and though I too was somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of being checked out in the group shower, as MarineGunrock puts it, I got over it when I realized the professionalism of these soldiers. Numerous armed forces around the world have successfully allowed openly homosexual men and women to serve, with no negative consequences.
I find MarineGunrock's opinion on women in combat disgusting as well. Some may remember that last year Canada suffered it's first loss of a female soldier in combat when Capt. Nichola Goddard was killed in a firefight in Afghanistan. Female soldiers, with the same training/testing as males, are just as good soldiers. I think you Americans need to wake the fuck up and stop preaching freedom when you treat your own people like shit.

The reason the U.S. employs "don't ask, don't tell" is because its attitudes to sexuality are so chronically idiotic that it puts in place a system which is covertly homophobic, rather than trying to mend the problem itself - homophobia. It IS broken because the whole culture needs shifting, and because people shouldn't have to suffer silence, psychological damage and inequality simply because other people are prejudiced. It's the bigots who need fixing.

1) I never said female soldiers/Marines are inferior. 2) I had people in my unit that we KNEW were gay. I didn't give a shit. 3) Those weren't my opinions. Those were reasons that the command gives. kthnxbye

so you had people in your unit who you knew were gay and you didn't give a shit??

so.... i'm confused now, you're for or against gays in the military?

I think we all ought to take the test so we can know who it's OK to hang (out) with:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html

^ Gave me: 8 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."

Which told me nothing i didn't already know, and i doubt it would tell anyone else anything they didn't already know. But its Saturday and i was procrastinating(avoiding something) so i filled it out. That also justifies this post.

All that aside, another huge reason for gays to not be in the military is the same reason women are not allowed in combat: Emotional attachments. If one man goes down, his boyfriend/lover/whatever will be immediately taken out of the fight with him, effectively reducing available manpower by two instead of one.

Interestingly enough, the Spartans encouraged homosexual relationships amongst their soldiers because they believed that a warrior would fight harder if he knew that his lover was fighting alongside him and depending on him in part to keep him alive. Not that I'm saying the Spartans were on the mark, just a little tidbit of history.

My question is this: Aren't the men you fight with your comrades in arms? I mean this with no sense of irony. My friends who have served often consider the men they fought with their brothers. And while this is certainly not the same as a romantic love interest, isn't seeing a brother fall in a combat also very distracting?

Anywho, it seems to me that the shower/bunk issue is more of a logistics problem than a moral one. MG, I'm curious, are you against gays in the military, and if so, do you believe that, even if all the logistics issues like bunking and whatnot were solved, gays should not be allowed in the military?

McCain played the lowest common denominator answer. "We are awesome, so it all works." Catering to patriotism, pride and even stupidity. Ugh.

Completly unrelated, rembar, best lolcat evar.

MG, under don't ask don't tell, you are STILL BEING CHECKED OUT IN THE SHOWER. Just because you think this magic brilliant policy if keeping your Marine showers gay-free.. it isn't.

All don't-as-don't-tell does is make it fair game to be bigots and homophobes and go out your way to poke into personal lives in order to ruin a career. Don't you think the whole manliness and testosterone of the Marines isn't appealing to gay men? I would probably guess you are an above average percentage of gay men in your showers then, say, at the gym in an average location.

The idea is that openly gay men is a distraction, in that dude gets beaten by homophobes. I guarantee you the military is not gay free AT ALL. And you probably are being checked out in the shower, so deal with it and give up your caveman attitudes.

Am I for or against? Really, I just don't give a shit. Like I said, there were a few in my unit over the four years I was in that knew knew were gay. Stare at me all you want. It won't bother me. I know I have a hot ass. And yes, There are a few other Marines that I would consider my brothers, and all the rest, whether we got along or not, I would lay my life down for in a heart beat.

Sidenote: I find it funny that if someone speaks out against homosexuality, they are accused with being a latent homosexual, like it's supposed to be an insult to them. But the people saying it are supposed to be supporting homosexuality, so isn't that kind of hypocritical? To me that's like someone saying "Fucking terrorists need to die" or "Damn racist KKK bastards" and then having someone counter that with "Oh, you're just a latent suicide bomber." or "You're just a latent racist."

Oh, and Danny, I don't care how disciplined I/you/they are. I'll/you'll/they'll be staring at an attractive naked woman in the shower.

MG, I find it increasingly amusing that you frequently start a thread off with some pretty blatant statement that's either for or against something, ie "OK. Gays in the military won't work for the same reason males don't bunk with females." or "I think it's bullshit that I have to "Press one for English.", yet then when confronted on these views you inevitably write it off that you either "don't give a shit" or that you meant something completely different than what your offhand or slightly insensitive remark conveyed.

What the hell is up with that? Did they not teach you to stick to the guns you are firing?

If you would like to have a discussion about the press 1 - I'd be happy to, just not here. I'll spell it out for all to read. I don't agree with homosexuality. That does not mean that I won't befriend someone that is openly gay, because anyone who wouldn't is a shitty excuse for a human being. I've had many friends that were gay, and still do. I'd rather not see it allowed in the military, because I simply don't agree with it. The military (at least the Marine Corps) holds strong Christian values, and homosexuality isn't one of them. I don't give a shit if there are ones in there now, but I'm not saying "Let's let em all in." I just don't feel like knowing about it. Our current policy works fine, and probably couldn't work any better. I absolutely feel that an open-door policy for gays would deteriorate our military, and those aren't just my views, but the ones of about 95% of all the other Marines that I know.
I'm not saying that just because gays are in the military that they're going to start color-coordinating out uniforms or anything stupid like that, rather that most Marines/soldiers simply do not agree with homosexuality. If it's some big news flash, 99% or more of the men and women of our armed forces are Republican, so they hold Republican views.

Heh heh, he said "small tight unit".

I think don't ask don't tell has worked much better than I thought it would. I think the writing is on the wall and sometime not to long from now, openly gay people will be allowed in the military. It won't be smooth, but it will happen, and it would be nice if it happened quietly and naturally instead of at the head of a legal juggernaut.

The trend has a lot of noise in the signal, and signal thus swings high and low, but the trend is unmistakable, and in my case, welcome.

I've never served in the military, I know, but I've got family and friends who served, and several of them are gay (I may delight MG by announcing that most of my gay veteran friends or acquaintances are from the Navy, some are from the army, and not a one of them is a Marine).

MG, here is the problem with the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy that you and most of the Republican candidates thinks is working just fine. Good hard working people, people that you know, people your life depended on can have their military career destroyed if it's just "discovered" that they are gay. Doesn't have to have anything to do with them "telling" or someone "asking".

I agree with what Ron Paul had to say on the matter in another debate.

"And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.

So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." -Ron Paul

I think a largely unspoken reason the military would like to keep a "don't ask, don't tell" policy is because of how other soldiers would react. There were people essentially ostricized in my basic training unit and duty station for people *suspecting* they were gay. I wonder what would happen to a male soldier if he professed to be openly gay while in the military? There would probably be some severe beatings. Of course this doesn't make it right. Also, I knew females that were openly gay while I was in the Army. They seem to be treated differently in that respect since the males don't view this as a threat in any way. It only became an issue during mandatory drug testing since the Army appoints random male and female NCO's as "meat gazers," or people that have to observe you filling a urine cup. Some women caused a problem by refusing to test with the openly gay female observer. Our chain of command knew about it, but no action was ever taken. So, even though this policy exists and allows the military to essentially avoid taking a real stance, it's not really strictly enforced.

On another note on Skeeve's comment about females being trained and tested the same as males. Maybe in the Canadian Army, but not even close in the American Army. Female physical standards can be ridiculously out of line with males standards to the point of being laughable. It's even become a joke in the Army if you train anywhere outside of Ft. Benning or Ft. Knox since they are they only two left that don't train females. In order to pass a physical fitness test, a 21 year old male needs to perform 42 correct push-ups. That's bare minimum just to pass and be considered a lazy dirt bag by your command. You may even be forced into remedial training to score higher. A 21 year old female requires *19* push-ups to get the same passing score. In fact, a perfect score for a female is 42 (a male's bare minimum). I am of the mindset that if you want to be treated equal, equalize the testing. If you are truly capable of performing (and there are many that are, I know) then you will be able to pass on the same scale as a man of equal age.

Grimm and RP ftw

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Bravo Grimm - that's a great Ron Paul quote- and I couldn't agree more.

We won the Civil War with a segregated army. We won World War II with a segregated army. We could with every war from now on with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It doesn't mean we should.

As far as the system not being broken, wasn't there an Arabic interpreter who was outed, as far as I know he didn't go out of his way to 'tell', who was discharged from the army for being gay? When the military is in short supply of people who can read and speak Arabic? Sounds broken to me.

However on the same note yes there will probably be a lot of upset soldiers if gays are allowed to serve openly. It probably won't tear our military asunder, but I'd wager there would be a few very unfortunate incidents. That seems to happen anytime you try to integrate one group with a group that doesn't like them.

That's a great Ron Paul quote, unfortunately his beliefs don't extend to the state level, where it's perfectly okay for the state government to tell people what they can and can't do. But back to the matter at hand, it would be a great policy to implement as far as the military goes, not perfect, but then nothing ever will be.

@Lurch: I definitely understand that, and we have the same problem in the Canadian Forces. Basic entry requirements are 19 proper pushups for the men and 9 for the women. But these are just for entry and once a year to keep your job. Beyond that there are fitness requirements for other trades/units that are the same for men and women which is as it should be.

Gender equality (or any equality for that matter) be damned if one group is allowed to shirk their responsibility. If the person next to you in combat doesn't have the strength to pull you out of harms way if you are wounded that person shouldn't have been there in the first place. And personally I don't care if that person is male, female, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian or whatever; if they passed the same standards I did and have proven themselves to be professional and dedicated, I'd be honored to have them there covering me.

here is the best and only reason for Don't Ask/Don't Tell:

in 3 years, when all of our eager young, myspace generation warriors are dead in Iran and they start trying to draft us GenX old farts to kill/die for oil, I will lie through my teeth and swear up and down that I've polished miles of sausage with my tonsils.

uggggh...why so much shit over a small range of preference on a broad spectrum of sexual fetishes. I like brunettes and nice round asses, should I be shunned and treated differently by those who like blondes with flat booties? Am I oversimplifying it? Maybe, but to me there's plenty of valid reasons to hate an individual other than what they like in the bedroom.

The government should not ever have any say over what you do in your goddamn bedroom.

"Oh, and Danny, I don't care how disciplined I/you/they are. I'll/you'll/they'll be staring at an attractive naked woman in the shower."

Bull. I hope some MORE (thanks Skeeve) serving military members speak up about the professionalism issue and show that what you're saying is just plain wrong. You think everyone is incapable of controlling theirselves not to stare at people of their sexual preference in the shower? That's even more bigoted than your homophobia - if i enjoy eating "Marmite", and you don't, are you going to tell me that i'm obviously wrong and DON'T enjoy it too?

@Lurch - i think that, assuming openly homosexual men would get beaten for being homosexual, then this is an issue of professionalism and discipline wherever you are serving. I've never been in the military, so i'm not gonna say "this is how it should be", because everyone knows what should be and what is are often far apart. However i do know 1 gay dude in the military and when asked about it he just says that it's never been a problem. This is the British army, and i don't proclaim that all gays in the British army have an easy ride either. All i'm saying is, it's possible for people to be bonded and taught in such a way that they don't beat a guy up for being gay.

It's not like he runs around in a tutu and carries his gun with a limp wrist, is it? Or his uniform has a rainbow flag on the arm. No one bothers pushing him on the issue, and just like someone who practised, say BDSM, he doesn't consider himself special or different, and he doesn't march around going "HELLO I'M GAY!!!" (or hello i like BDSM). He's just a guy among guys.

And he doesn't stare at people in the shower. If that's ok with MarinegunRock.

sometimes has a good point.

i am a bit gay myself, let's just say nonpracticing gay, "in touch with my feminine side", "theatregoer". i like colour coordination. i can appreciate a nice ass on either gender, especially if it's all soapy... i could "exaggerate" that fact if necessary. better than shooting myself in the foot in some ditch in somebody else's desert.

To Farhad, once you enlist, they do have a say. It's not just for homosexuals either. The military is an entirely different culture with it's own laws and accepted codes of conduct. They want absolutely no sexual interaction between soldiers of any gender, although it still happens all the time. If you're caught, you will get punished. You can get discharged for adultery, taking multiple partners, sodomy, and all kinds of things the military has decided it does not want for various reasons. In the units I served in, heterosexuals caught fraternizing with the soldiers of the opposite sex were disciplined 100% of the time. This is opposed to outed homosexuals being discharged 0% of the time, again, in my experience. So military leadership *usually* exercises discresion when enforcing this whole "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Of course you still will always have your total hard line, by the book, commander somewhere that will discharge a homosexual regardless (see Arabic translator). The military will probably not change this policy anytime soon because it still allows for gays to enter the service, and they don't really have to deal with it. Everything winds up at the discretion of the chain of command. Does this make it right? No. Then again, being in the military is way different than civilian life. They want to lock down certain behavior that is perfectly acceptable in civilian life. They always have, and they always will. Don't hold your breath for them changing policy anytime soon just to allow someone to profess sexual orientation.

The one type of comment that offends me the most, is always assuming that men shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. A "man" fears another [gay]man (who of course, is not given the courtesy of respect another "male" receives) leering at him in the shower, but sees nothing wrong with leering at a female lathering herself up? I believe that's called self-discipline and self-respect. It's a shame that many in the services never learn that. Until then, allowing openly gay individuals into the services will be fruitless.

So, for those Judo-Christian Conservative individuals who might be offended by having to work closely with an openly gay individual; you offend me and I will not serve next to you.

I'm entering this discussion a bit late, but....

If you want to see some ass kicking gay (and bisexual) soldiers, check out 300, and read the history behind it. The old 'I'm afraid someone is going to look at my peepee in the shower' is a modern construct, and seems a flimsy argument when put under any scrutiny.

Frankly, with the recent mismanagement of the military (Rumsfeld) and our quagmire in Iraq, I'd think we need all the help we can get in regards to recruitment.

http://www.hollywoodwiretap.com/?module=news&action=story&id=12583 (this is not much of an article, but didn't feel like hunting endlessly for a better one. If someone has a better link from the history channel, wiki or something else, lemme know and I'll swap it.)

Homophobia is the fear of homosexuality, which means not only the fear of gays, but the fear of being gay yourself. It stands to reason that homophobia can be a negative reaction to ones own gayness. Though many use this as a cheap shot or an insult, there is truth behind it. I don't imagine that most people who hate racists or terrorists are latent racists or terrorists, so I don't think your analogy holds up.

BTW...I don't get the "group shower" thing anyways. I personally have NEVER been comfortable standing in a room naked with a group of other naked guys. I'm I supposed to feel comfortable in that situation just as long as all the guys are straight??? To me it really doesn't make a difference that 1 out of 10 of those guys "might" be checking out my junk.

Let's lay off MG here. He is honestly telling you his opinion, you should respect his right to have it, and respectfully dissented with if you disagree.

That said, this is complicated question, and it deserves discussion. The reality is that there are gay people in the military, as there are everywhere, and this should be accepted and dealt with rationally. Perhaps, don't ask tell is wrong, because in a way it takes a moral position on something which has no secular reason for being considered so. But I am not sure that current American climate is ready to accept gay people, although I wish we were. The fact that gay people can't get married is a more oppressive statement on civil rights. Once that is taken care of the rest will follow.

"Substitute the word "homosexual" with the word "Negro"

Tired of idgits making this comparison....
born black, not gay.....sorry kids, imprints are a motherfucker....

What's in your sexuality?? It ain't melanin or the lack thereof-

In viewing the clip of Romney I have to wonder, what do people who called John Kerry a flip-flopper have to say about Romney? What a ridiculous bunch of statements that fell from his mouth.

Also, I think it's a great idea for the military to only allow white, straight, Christian men to fight. Let them do Bush's evil bidding. I just hope Jesus has a lot of cots ready.

I've called Kerry a flip-flopper. And I call Romney a douche bag. Read the first comment here.

This quote by Thomas from his First Inaugural Address is more true today than ever:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

Lay off MG? He's the one who said he doesn't want to shower with any homos, then later says "Stare at me all you want. It won't bother me." So, the first comments are just to be incendiary (which I totally respect and admire, because I'm likely to do the same)

Anyways, as to the policy, we would not have Stop Loss right now if they weren't busy kicking out gays. We would have Arabic translators and intelligence, but instead we only allow closeted gays to serve.

Since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came into force in 1993, 12,000 soldiers have been forced to leave the military, either because they refused to hide their homosexuality or because they were denounced by fellow soldiers.

On Friday, human rights organisations teamed up with groups like Log Cabin Republicans and a legal defence network for soldiers to plant 12,000 American flags on the National Mall in Washington to recognise the men and women who have suffered because of the policy.

The generals and admirals who signed the letter to Congress cited "scholarly data" which show that around 65,000 gays and lesbians serve in the US armed forces.

According to a poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation in May, 79 percent of Americans think homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military.

@MarineGunrock: Could you explain for me (I am genuinely interested) what "I don't agree with homosexuality" means? I take it to mean that you think it is immoral, and if that is the case - why?

@choggie: There's no consensus, so you can't say definitively that people *aren't* born with their sexuality (whatever it may be). The best guess we have now is a complex interaction of biology, cognition and environment. There is plenty of evidence for biological factors (prenatal hormones, twin studies, physiological differences etc). Can you explain what you mean by "imprinting"?

Choggie your ignorant nature-vs.-nurture argument doesn't apply. The argument isn't that being black your are born with and have to deal with, versus being gay.

What was compared was the view of allowing certain people to serve alongside others. And that statement is totally correct. The same arguments were used with negro troops in Civil War -> WWII or even black soldiers in Vietnam. The argument about going into battle and depending on them to watch your back.

Choggie, So I take it you being a heterosexual was a choice? You could have gone one way or another but decided to go straight and could just as easily switch teams since you were not born heterosexual?

The number of gays being discharged from the service on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy are on a steady decline. While some are still being removed, the trend to do so is definitely changing. As of March 2007 when the Washington Post article was released, which I'll link to in a minute, the total numbers of gays discharged since the policy's implementation in 1993 was over 10,870. The bulk of these discharges came in the mid to late 90's. In recent years, the number of discharges has fallen quite a bit. Eventually it will change, but the military is always slow when it comes to changing or removing firmly established policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301174.html

Berticus, I can't speak for MG, but I can tell you why I don't agree. Basic Christian values. Simple as that. I find it disgusting. That doesn't mean that I hate gay people. It also doesn't mean I think they should have no rights. I don't believe your religion should ever determine government policy. So while I would support a gay person's right to serve, I still find their lifestyle choice abhorrent and believe it will have to be answered for some day.

Lurch, I'll ask you the same question I asked Choggie since you said "their lifestyle choice". Do you believe being heterosexual is a "lifestyle choice" too? When you say being gay is a "lifestyle choice" you are saying these are heterosexuals who "choose" to be gay. Is that the only thing keeping you straight...that your religion tells you it's a sin so you choose not to go both ways?

@joe: When I say it doesn't bother me, I mean that I'm not going to get all "Aw, fuckin' gross, there's a fag staring at me!" No, I don't want to be checked out, and also no, it doesn't bother me. Kind of like no, I don't want to drive an '84 Corrola, but if I had to it wouldn't bother me.
And no, my comments were not meant to be incendiary.

@berticus: Same as Lurch said, it's basic Christian values, and beyond that, I don't believe it to be natural. If it was, humans could reproduce by homosexual mating. After all, that's all mating is for: Procreation. If two men, or two women for that matter, can not procreate, then it isn't natural.

But I will not shun, insult or demean anyone because of their sexual orientation. I will also not avoid a relationship with someone because they are gay. They are as much a human as anyone else here.

Grimm, believing homosexuality is a choice doesn't mean I'm saying you're born with a blank slate of sexuality. I'm saying everyone is born heterosexual. That's my opinion. Like berticus mentioned, there is no consensus on whether you are biologically predisposed to homosexuality or not. I think the answer is that we are not. That it is a perversion no different than people who have sex with animals, like to be beaten, or hell... 2 girls 1 cup. Religion isn't "the only thing" keeping me straight. I have no interest in sexual relationships with men any more than other perversions involving women. I also believe that even if there were no God, and you were speaking from an entirely evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality would still be unnatural. In that scenerio, if you were born without interest in the opposite sex, then you are missing the drive to reproduce. Wouldn't that just be a way to take you out of the gene pool? Since our bodies aren't built for sexual intercourse within the same sex, why would that be considered normal? Just to make sure we're clear from the last post I made, this doesn't mean I hate gay people or want them to have no rights. I disapprove of homosexuality, but I'll back their rights to military sevice any day. The military has enough rules in place already governing the sexual conduct of enlisted and commissioned officers to be just fine disciplining distruptive actions from any sexual orientation.

Holy-shit, Im amazed at how many people think that homosexuality is a choice. I had no idea this thinking was so prevalent.

There actually is scientific evidence that there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, even in sheep. Anyway, whatever the reason is for this, it doesn't matter. Science isn't there to answer "why" questions, but "how" questions.

From a strictly callous evolutionary perspective, our recent acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle has ironically doomed them... unless we find some way for them to breed anyway. In the past, folks with such desires married anyway and had kids. Now, they don't and don't. Speaking purely as a cold geneticist, this is the recipe for extinction. Right or wrong.

And to Eric, my understanding of the current scientific position on this subject is that there are basically 3 groups that wind up homosexual in the end: (1) those that are very biologically influenced to be so and who choose to accept it, (2) those who are slightly influenced by biology who choose to embrace it, and (3) those that are not at all influenced by biology, but are influenced to be so externally.
I say "choose" in each case because there are cases where such people have chosen the opposite. Human determination can be pretty strong. We have more power over our bodies than most would think.

Oh and on-topic, I have no problem with homosexuals serving in the military. Don't-ask-don't-tell was a way to keep everyone comfortable. It might be needed for a few more years, but then it'll probably be abandoned as unnecessary.

Also on topic, it appears from the media that this particular general was a plant! Still reading up on the situation, but CNN is embarrassed already so that means something was amiss.

Genetic predisposition and imprint-environment-process notwithstanding, evidence favors all sides-perception, and awareness is the key-look at people that could go either way with their interaction with the world, and use it to transcend all this bullshit, this is where the human race belongs- So, labels and opinions mean what???

Heres a 60 minutes piece on this subject

http://www.videosift.com/video/Is-being-gay-a-choice

uh... labels and opinions mean some people can't get married in this country and some people can.

@Doc_M: Bad science. It is most definitely not a path to extinction. Your flaw is in thinking that it takes a gay to make a gay. I also don't agree that "don't ask, don't tell" kept everyone comfortable.

@Lurch: Why would someone choose homosexuality, knowing the amount of grief they're going to have to suffer through? Also, there are hypotheses about how homosexuality could be evolutionarily adaptive.

@MarineGunrock: If sex is purely for procreation, then you have only ever had sex with the goal in mind of making children? Have you ever used a condom? Have you ever had oral sex? That isn't for procreation... unless I have a profound misunderstanding of anatomy.

I refer MG and all "disgusted christians" here:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Middle-SexesRedefining-He-and-She

Lithuania is relatively homophobic, gays are generally seen as defective humans, and probably predatory or at least "trying to get in everybody's face with their gayness".

I totally believe that the ones who are most disgusted are those who are struggling with the fact that they might not be 100% pure hetero (and after all, who is?)

Protesting too much is a giveaway. People who are confident and secure don't go around trying to shove everything under the carpet.

Surely everyone exists on a sliding scale, with most people nearer the middle than they think.

This is an issue of Christian Values?
Have any of you believers actually read the bible?

let's take a look at the "good book":


murder murder kill kill

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

1 Samuel 6:19 And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.





Brokeback Jonathan and (pre)King David

1 Samuel 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

1 Samuel 20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?

1 Samuel 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

2 Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

Hatred
Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.




WTF
Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.

also:
http://thebricktestament.com/king_saul/god_commands_amalekite_genocide/1s15_01-02.html
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html

Its good to know that God also disapproves of a mix-blend garment.

I don't have the time to write a long repose right now. I have to get out and do some snowblowing.
@sometimes: Yeah, I know the bible is full of bad shit. But that was written over 2,000 years ago. Are you saying that beliefs can't change?

mmmmm, when hetros marry, one of them might get swollen and shoot out another human-the symbolic union and ceremony homosexuals want to use as a next peak to conquer.....why does it mean so much, is it the tax breaks? most homosexuals, it seems, since most religion frowns upon their lifestyle, are atheists, and the collective push to undermine a generally religion-inspired event, looks like more spoiled, neglected, or otherwise anemically imprinted child's way of kicking and and screaming....unprecedented acceptance is not here yet, perhaps because societies have not reached the point of total chaos or anarchy.... A yardstick of civilization's demise-Gay marriage??? Get a room. There is a reason other than bible-thumping that the majority of people on the planet, are in agreement on the subject.....religion is not necessarily the most influential culprit-blame the collective unconscious maybe....

Sometimes, if you want to accuse me of never having read the Bible and have a discussion about cherry picking quotes out of context, then start a sift talk post about it. I'll be glad to debate you there, but in here, let's just keep to the topic at hand please.

MINK, I don't understand people that assume that if you don't agree with something, you must be afraid of it in some capacity. I see homosexuality as disgusting because it makes no sense biologically. I agree with Doc_M and I believe he phrased it better with the three basic groups. I think, from personal experience of speaking with gays and lesbians I've known in my life, that most people actually make a concious decision that it is what they want in life and attempt to stick with it. I've known lesbians that stay away from men for reasons other than biology and actually have sometimes wondered why they made the choice they did. I've seen men that are completely masculine that I grew up with make the choice to become gay after coming out of bad home lives and working in an environment with other gay men spouting the same lines as you. "You're probably gay inside." "Who is really hetero?" I think that's garbage. The video that Eric3579 linked to has shown some science involving hormones inbalances that can cause children to come out more masculine or feminine, but there is still no definitive answer on whether that is ultimately what causes homosexuality. If it is 100% genetics or hormone inbalances, that would make homosexuality a birth defect, just like any other. Again, this doesn't mean that they should be treated poorly or have no rights. I just can't agree with people that say this is natural or that everyone that disagrees is a latent gay.

Ok. Back inside from the 20 degree temperatures and done snow blowing (Woo global warming! )

@ Berticus: How does someone having sex with birth control negate the fact that two people of the same sex can not have children?

@ MINK: That "If you argue against it, then you're gay" argument is just lame. Sure, sometimes it holds true. But that is exactly the same thing as calling you a war monger because you want us to get out of Iraq. It's exactly the same thing as saying that Constitutional_Patriot wants to give up his civil liberties. It's exactly the same thing as calling dag (just a random name) a racist because he's disgusted with the KKK. Just because someone is opposed to something, that doesn't mean they are a latent whatever. It just seems like a pretty childish response. I guess I love high taxes.

@ Sometimes: The laws of ancient civilization are not what your average modern Christian people follow. Don't compare me to the WBC or any other nutjobs.

I, on the other hand, DO have enough time to write a long response, so here we go: *cracks knuckles*

1. I,m sorry i wasn't around earlier to get in on this one. I love to offer my opinion and insights into threads like this, since i meet the proper demographics. Male, Caucasian, Heterosexual, between the ages of 18-24. Now, the previous demographics are what makes up a VERY large portion of our armed forces. Being that i AM in the armed forces, (now that MG is out i think in one of the only ones still in that posts around here) I would like to think i can offer some insight to all of this. I will try to stay non-biased, and will let you know when I'm offering MY opinion.

Ok, MY opinion first. I am in the same boat as MG in that i don't believe in homosexuality. I don't hate the people i hate what they are doing. I promise i wont use the Adam and Steve approach as it is way over done, however, if being gay was natural, penis slapping and "scissoring" (the south park 300 episode) would make babies. Well I've seen allot of crazy videos deemed not appropriate for the sift, and i'm pretty sure it doesn't match what i learned in sex-ed way back when. Now, also just like MG, i have had gay friends, but unlike MG do not any longer, only because I've been serving over 4 years now, and they are far and few between around here. I'm not saying gays shouldn't be allowed to serve, by all means, if you have in in your heart to give yourself to your country, be my guest.

Now trying to stay objective. I'm not like most 22 year old guys who would be weirded out by the fact there are gay guys in the shower room or whatever. I honestly don't care. I'm married to a beautiful woman, and my first child is one the way. I'm confident in my sexuality that i can say Pierce Brennan's is a good looking guy. Does that mean i want to jump his bone? no. So personally i wouldn't care if a guy was checking my shit out, and i knew there was a gay guy in the shower. So long as hes not doing it to the point that its obvious. but OTHER soldiers my age, would have a shit fit. Lets face it, This is just the society that people are being raised in. Our culture foster it. now i understand there is allot of action against it. cool. got it. All im saying is that the don't ask don't tell policy does work, but not for keeping gays out, it works by giving the "straight" guys peace of mind. Its human nature. If we don't know its there, its not. So if we don't know this guy is gay, then hes not, and therefore don't have to worry about it. I served with an openly gay gay the last time i was in Korea. Now this guy was ATFU to begin with, but once he came out that brought about a whole new world of shit. Maybe its because the chain of command were bigots, maybe it had something to do with the fact that he asked another kid to suck his dick. (honestly, thats how we all found out)

From talking to soldiers and just listening to soldiers talk, having openly gays in the military would be harmfull. At least until our culture and society accepts them on the whole. Openly gay soldiers will (not all the time) be ostracized, outlasted and lonely (though not from the command, from the tight knit band of the platoon) This one lonesome soldier will more than likely be so depressed by all this they are worth nothing as far as productivity. And if they are not used to being treated like this, have a chance of slipping into depression, and god forbid, suicidal thoughts. And you can't tell me that this wont have an impact on mission readiness/performance.

Moving onto Sometimes:

I applaud your detective work in the scripture. My bible was unfortunately one thing i forgot to bring to Korea with me. I will say this however. The bible is a translation of a translation of a translation. But its the best I have so I will use it. Anyways, what im saying is that a couple line of scripture here and there don't say anything. In a Michael Moore-esque way they do yes, but the bible is all about context. Unfortunately i cant go look all the scriptures up right now, so I don't know what context that is in. I do know however that the bible is basically one huge metaphor. Stoning might not actually mean stoning. Im going to have to look those up. Besides, the argument of Christian values is more or less invalid from your point. If God decrees that something is wrong and someone did it, and the townsfolk stoned him, they were doing Gods work, so yes stoning the little bastard might be in line with Christian values. Again i have to read that scripture.

@ Berticus. you said:

@Lurch: Why would someone choose homosexuality, knowing the amount of grief they're going to have to suffer through? Also, there are hypotheses about how homosexuality could be evolutionarily adaptive.

@MarineGunrock: If sex is purely for procreation, then you have only ever had sex with the goal in mind of making children? Have you ever used a condom? Have you ever had oral sex? That isn't for procreation... unless I have a profound misunderstanding of anatomy.

As far as choosing to do something that brings them grief. I like Michael jack son, and i get shit for it, but i still listen to it. Granted its little tiny shits, but none the less. people like it, so they do it. Now as far as sex for pleasure.. well, Sex is awesome. Hell yes. Allot of people do anal. Straight men love to pound butt. woman kinda butt. they aren't gay. But i'm sure gay men love to pound but. hairy man-ass kinda but. Both kinds of guy enjoy it. Now take your S&M or 2g1c (2 girls 1 cup. I just shortened it. Yeah that just happened) kind of people. Theres no way in fuck your genetically predispositioned to liking people bite your nipples with a pair of vice grips or someone shitting on your face. People choose to like that shit. Yeah i choose to love sex with woman. lesbians do the same.

@ Skeeve, since no one clarified this one yet. We have the same kind of entry standards, but they stay skewed even after entry. Men and woman are NOT equal in the military. Now, if the gays in my army just like the skin flute but can still pull their weight, cool. If they are the kinda HEEEEEEAAAAAAYYYYYY kinda gays, who are too concerned with nails and hair and shit (referred to as fags by gay people that i know) then no, i don't want them. Nor do i want the straight females who do the same thing. Its not always about being gay.

@Farhad2000. You say the GOV shouldn't have any say on what goes on in your bedroom? Thing about it is, when these people enlist they are told these policies and they still joined. Now, its pretty much a policy in every unit,, gay or straight sex is not allowed in the barracks. If anyone out there says anything about people not knowing that when they enlist, this is for you: They shoulda asked. "hey when i get to my unit, can i bang chicks in my room?"

Wow. i was going to keep going, but i just realized how long this was getting. rembar, you got lucky hahah

WOW...dude... that is a ridiculously long post.

That said, I am not absolutely certain that biologists have narrowed down the exact gene that regulates sexuality (I live with biologist). But, the prevalent theory of geneticists is that sexuality is genetic. Moreover, homosexuality is common in almost all, if not all, primate species, so we can reject the claim that homosexuality is not 'natural' out of hand.

Of course, I am assuming a belief in the scientific method, and that we are a primate species.

@arsenault
"Yeah i choose to love sex with woman. lesbians do the same."

Oh yeah? I love eating pizza with pineapple as a toping... not sure if I choose to love it...

Come to think of it, I don't recall choosing to desire and to fantasize about women.

I can pretend like there was a point when I was eight or nine that I thought to myself, "well, I have to make a decision here,... guess I'll choose to be physically aroused by women". But it didn't happen, and seems pretty ridiculous when you think about it.

Thats really the point about loving things. You just love the things you love, and it doesn't need to conform to someone else's logic or tradition.

by the way, I hope you guys are happy about scaring our only nuclear physicist away... (comment#7)

Don't want to get "stop gapped"? Don't want to get drafted? Your freedom is just two words away: "I'm gay." We should all thank these ignorant bigots for providing such an easy way out.

But of course, that’s not the point. You think politicians really care about a few squeamish soldiers? The actual point is to establish official policies that stigmatize gay people as something so awful and deviant that they should not be tolerated in American society and should therefore be banned from traditional institutions such as the military (and marriage).

Gays are pretty much the last prominent minority group that politicians can openly bash in the media. Republicans use this, as they once did blacks and the segregation issue, to convince people to vote against their own best interests. Wealthy people and big businesses do not need convincing because their interests are already fully kowtowed by the Republican platform. The problem is that since the US is still a democracy, Republicans need to pad out the numbers on voting day. So it's the masses of lesser-wage workers (otherwise most hurt by the Republican’s actual policies) who need convincing and by implying that voting against Republicans might mean that you are gay helps a lot there. Lots of low-wage workers are too smart for that, of course, but enough of them are not that it makes all the difference.

We can post all day here about whether being gay is natural or to what degree it is sinful or whether soldiers worry about it, but the fact is that it's all just a big distraction.

Not that I think the Democrats are any better; they just choose other distractions (such as the vague “big business” hobgoblin I unfortunately dragged out above...).

Well, the point is that as a man you don't have to choose to desire women. You're built that way. To desire other men there has to be a change at some point to cause that. Whether it's in the womb, a decision (concious or otherwise) brought on by external influences, or a combination of factors hasn't been proven yet. My opinion that it's a choice is just that, a personal opinion. If there's ever concrete scientific evidence where it can positively be stated that it's completely out of someone's control and they just are born wired that way, that's fine. Although that still leaves the people I've known that have claimed it was a concious decision at a point in their life, and that it's like a fetish, meaning that at least some homosexuals are not born with this crossed wiring. If it is true that genetics causes homosexual children to be born, and this has been happening througout all of recorded history, I would think there would be some kindof evolutionary response to begin to weed this weakness out. Doc_m, or someone else with a good genetics backround, please correct me if this is wrong. Also, since I neglected to clarify this in my previous post, my opinion that homosexuality is a decision has no Biblical basis, nor is it a core issue. Only it's immorality, not it's origins, are mentioned.

**EDIT**
For wazant, that scenerio doesn't work. You would walk up to your commanding officer, tell him your gay, wait for laughter, then go back to work. No one is going to discharge you because you claim you're gay. If they discharge someone, it's for other reasons. Usually related to the gay soldiers platoon seriously voicing official complaints, or in extreme cases, catching someone in a homosexual act. You can't just say you're gay and expect them to start your paperwork.

I don't think anyone can argue that homosexuality is 'unnatural' simply because boy parts don't go with boy parts as per initial design, suggesting therefore that we can and should only use our bodies for the actions prescribed by their current arrangement... this, is of course quite silly, because after all, the human body is only in its current form today due to the behavioral changes our ancestors made millions of years ago and the actions they put their bodies to... hands function as they do and our shoulders are aligned as they are due to tool usage and the selective breeding resultant from the success of those hominids better practiced at flaking bits of stone into even pointier bits of stone...

In short, its our behaviors and the uses to which we put our bodies that have shaped our bodies into the very forms we recognize today... obviously, gay men aren't going to start growing vaginas any time soon, but arguing that a behavior isn't natural, or right simply because the parts don't fit is comparable to pointing out that walking on ones hands isn't right or natural simply because hands aren't designed for that. Those behaviors might not be the primary function, but given the right circumstances, like being a double amputee or having whatever genes or chemical composition it is that makes one gay, alternative functions can, for the individual, become quite natural in and of themselves.

I also think that the perception that people are either gay or not gay is strictly cultural, as many societies throughout history have defined the phenomenon in quite different ways... most ancient pre-Judeo Christian peoples seemed to think of sexuality as on kind of a sliding scale, such as Mink has suggested, that one could at times migrate between the masculine and the feminine, and this has been my experience as well. I, for instance, like Mink, find visual appeal in the physiology of members of my sex, (like, I would much rather look at neked chicks lathering themselves up than a bunch of dudes, because frankly, to me anyway, you boys all look like monkeys) but I would not be in any way interested in pursuing it beyond that as, also quite frankly, I like cock and I am much more suited to having a relationship with a member of the other gender as opposed to one of my own... so I could hardly be labeled a lesbian, but I don't think saying that I'm 100% heterosexual is correct either... would I be, as the dating forums are so fond of labeling people, deemed bi-curious? Who knows, my point is, the labels that are applied to people are just that, labels, and I think it is entirely unfair to legislate or apply regulation to organizational entities such as the military based solely on labels alone.

Physicist are conserved...I joined.

I'm just gonna ignore sometimes' comment. ::eye roll::

@berticus.
It's not bad science. Your argument would only be true if it was a single-gene, autosomal dominant condition which it is not. If it were, then you would need a gay parent to get a gay child. But of course the genetics are far more complicated than that in this case. If it is in fact a genetic condition, then it is likely multi-factored. It is (as many traits are) likely a combination of the actions and combinations of many genes. Probably some hormones or certain proteins are overexpressed or underexpressed or expressed at a different time or place than normal. Genetic evolution is not simple. It takes more than one generation to occur... Some traits are selected against in a society... otherwise the global races would not have turned out as different as they currently are. If a certain group cannot procreate, then it opts out of future evolution. If you don't breed, you die out. It takes a long time, but that is what natural selection is. Anyway, that was all a digression in the first place. I don't see don't-ask-don't-tell lasting much longer. It's getting out-dated culturally in this country.

@MarineGunrock: It doesn't negate it, but that's beside the point. You said that the sole purpose of mating was procreation. I was trying to show you that it isn't. Also, what will your opinion be if it becomes possible to circumvent mating?

@Lurch: I already suggested that you check out various hypotheses as to how homosexuality can be adaptive, and thus "makes sense biologically". But let's say it doesn't - to go a step further and say that it's "disgusting" (outside of biblical reasons, as you purport to be doing) makes no sense. You would have to be disgusted by everything that doesn't "make sense biologically." You're getting really close to eugenics.

@Arsenault185: Firstly, for your analogy to even begin to work, almost everyone would beat you up or kill you or tell you you were disgusting or immoral for listening to Michael Jackson. Not even remotely comparable. Secondly, if you make a choice to be attracted to women, that implies you could choose to be attracted to men, and are thus bisexual.

@Doc_M: You argue that homosexuality will become extinct if homosexuals no longer produce offspring with heterosexuals, and then point out that you don't need a gay parent to get a gay child. That looks like a contradiction to me. In any case, we don't know enough about what shapes sexuality for you to make claims about extinction.

First, I'm arguing based on the assumption that it is a genetic condition. I am ignoring all homosexuals that are the result of environment. I don't contradict myself in my statements above for this reason. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a complex, multi-gene condition. You're miss-understanding what that means in terms of genetic inheritance. You can have two hetero parents with little bits and pieces of what can sometimes add up to a homosexual child when the genes mix right. The same occurs for height, hair color, skin pigmentation and skin conditions, cancer susceptibility, mental illness susceptibility, bone density, muscular development, cholesterol maintenance, glucose maintenance, ... I could go on all day here. In MANY of those cases, you get two parents that have offspring with very different characteristics... Still, those characteristics are based on what polymorphisms are present in what genes (or gene duplications/mutations/etc.), so in evolutionary time, if tendencies toward homosexuality lead to fewer homosexuals producing progeny, then those polymorphisms will slowly be lost from the gene-pool.

Since at least as I see it, sexuality isn't purely genetic (as I was assuming in my arguments for the sake of discussion), extinction is the wrong word, but at some point far in the future, the genetic component will be lost unless we intervene, which we almost certainly will by then anyway.

@MarineGunrock
you say: The laws of ancient civilization are not what your average modern Christian people follow. Don't compare me to the WBC or any other nutjobs.


then what, might I ask, is the Christian basis for morals and behavioral standards?
is it, or is it not the bible?
is the bible the inerrant word of god?
do Christians get their morality from *some* verses in the bible? if so, how do they determine which verses apply today, and which verses don't?


Or are you following the teachings of Jesus?
Jesus himself never says anything about homosexuality. The Old Testament does, but it also says eating shellfish is an abomination. Paul of Tarsus talks about it, but he also tells people to not get married, and to stay away from women if possible.


I'm sure this will piss off a lot of divorced Christians:
Jesus actually forbids divorce, and says that marrying a divorced woman is adultery.
Luke 16:18 "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

@MarineGunrock
you say:

@sometimes: Yeah, I know the bible is full of bad shit. But that was written over 2,000 years ago. Are you saying that beliefs can't change?


That depends on how literally you read the bible. The bible says that no, beliefs can't change. Er, well, except for those parts where Jesus says "hey, so Pops was wrong about X,Y, and Z... that stuff doesn't matter any more." Jesus himself is a big hippie. Ok, well in the book of John, he's often a raving loony street-preacher. But in general, Jesus was anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian, anti-organized religion, anti-wealth, pro-peace-and-love, pro-helping-the-poor-and-underpriveleged, and to a limited extent, pro-taxes.


but back to my point: Sure beliefs can change. Why can't beliefs about homosexuality change?

I just want to comment on how I hate that the republican party is so intimately tied with judeo-christian beliefs. There is absolutely no reason for it. The republican party has gone too far from its roots. They suck now.

to those who talk about homosexuality being unnatural, I hasten to point out some other things that are unnatural:

computers
plastic
air conditioning
clothes
books
reading
speech
marriage
toilets


Additionally, homosexuality occurs in many animal species: Big horn sheep, bonobos, lesbian rhesus macaques, penguins, American Bison, giraffes,
oh, and look: lions too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm

Now the traditional counter argument to this is "we shouldn't use animal behavior as a justification for human behavior". that's fine, just as long as you pick one or the other. either use the "it's unnatural" argument, and allow the "but it's natural for these critters" argument, or drop the "natural" argument altogether, you can';t pick some "natural" behaviors and ignore others.





for those who talk about homosexuality being wrong because it can't make babies, and making babies is what sex is for:
fine, please give up oral sex, wanking, and recreational sex.

what percentage of hetrosexual behaviors lead to making babies?
if the average adult lives to 75, that's 55+ years having sex.
over the course of a lifetime, americans average out to 60 times per year.
that's 3465 times.
the average american has 2.5 kids.
that means one out of 1386 times having sex leads to making babies.
that's 0.07215% of all sex acts leading to babies.
boy, that feels statistically significant.

Sometimes, open up a sift talk post (unless there's some particular rule against that) if you want to debate Christianity and the the Bible. I'd like to discuss it with you, but doing so here is just going to fly even further off topic.

Almost all of the other things your are listing as unnatural are physical objects and technological advances, not biological entities. These are objects that were created with a specific purpose in mind and it's normal to use them that way. It would only be unnatural if you tried to use one of these objects in a way contrary to its design. For instance, it would be unnatural to drink out of a toilet. It was not intended to operate as a drinking bowl, it was intended for disposal of waste. It would be unnatural to attempt to speak out of your ear since it is not intended to create sound. With that in mind, just because an ape, sheep, lion, or other animal exibits homosexual qualities still does not make it natural. It serves to back up research into exactly what kind of imbalances can cause this behavior, but it does not make it natural. Natural being defined as happening in the ordinary or usual course of things. It is not ordinary or usual for two males to have sexual intercourse. The body is not designed for it. The body's reproductive system is meant for just that, reproduction. Pleasure is a side effect. "Giving up oral sex" or having babies everytime is not the point. The point is that the reason why males desire sex with females, and vice versa, is to facilitate reproduction. It is normal behavior for the opposite sex to be attracted. You are supposed to seek sex with the opposite gender and it being pleasurable should make you want to do it. If you weren't basically programmed this way from the start, there is no guarantee the species would effectively reproduce. Seeking pleasure by having sex within the same gender is not natural. Something is incorrectly wired in your brain for that to be appealing to you. No different than someone who needs to have pain inflicted for sexual excitement. That is not natural, something happened to make that person that way. This can go on endlessly. I am perfectly fine with accepting research that can prove homosexuality can be caused in part by genetic factors, but there is no way you can convince me, in any stretch of the imagination, that sex within the same gender is in any way normal or natural behavior. If you are born without the desire to reproduce, seeking only to couple fruitlessly with members of your own gender, something is wrong.

I have a question for the people who "do not believe in homosexuality". Do you "believe in masturbation"? Is that also not a sin according to the Bible? Is that also "not natural" if the we define sex as only between a man and a woman? If the excuse for treating gays in the military the way that we do is because it goes against the principles of the Christian majority that serves then should we not be kicking people out who are having orgasms without a partner of the opposite sex present?

This is mainly for Lurch, but maybe for Doc_M too:

"He hypothesized a possible genetic predisposition for homosexuality in certain humans by using a theory he calls 'inclusive fitness,' defined as the sum of the individual's reproductive successes plus the reproductive success of others who carry that person's genes. He explained that there are homosexual genes that exist not only in the individual who is homosexual but in his relatives. Homosexual persons contributed to the survival of the family by not having children so they were available to support and help other family members, by serving in roles such as aunt, uncle, shaman, or medicine man. Thus, genes for homosexual orientation increased in frequency, not because they aided the homosexual person in his or her own survival but because they aided the relatives who shared his gene pool. This broader spread of the genes helps explain how persons with the homosexual genes could be reproduced, since they themselves often did not produce offspring."

@Lurch:
It is very interesting that you say that (that coming out to your superior officer will almost never result in dismissal). I was half-joking in suggesting using that to avoid unwanted service and suspected that it would not be so easy; but thanks for pointing out how it really is. That suggests that already now the armed forces allow homosexuals on a de-facto basis, thus supporting my larger point that the whole debate is a circus designed to make Republicans appeal to bigots in the hopes of getting ignorant people to vote against their best interests. It has nothing to do with the delicate sensibilities of showering soldiers.

@Lurch

It is normal behavior for the opposite sex to be attracted. You are supposed to seek sex with the opposite gender and it being pleasurable should make you want to do it. If you weren't basically programmed this way from the start, there is no guarantee the species would effectively reproduce. Seeking pleasure by having sex within the same gender is not natural. Something is incorrectly wired in your brain for that to be appealing to you. No different than someone who needs to have pain inflicted for sexual excitement. That is not natural, something happened to make that person that way.


what about people who eat hot peppers? the hot oil is a defense mechanism for the pepper. eating hot peppers is not normal or natural. Planting rows of peppers is effective in keeping elephants away from an area.

Doing something because it is "normal" or expected is probably the worst reason to do something. are you really that big a fan of conformity?

Also, the body is not "designed" for sitting at a computer, and that has all kinds of side effects, like RSI, Carpal Tunnel, bad-back, fat-belly... is that also a moral issue? or is this more about justifying prejudice.


additionally, up until recently, inter-racial or inter-caste marriages were not normal, and were considered immoral. shall we go back to those times?

Sometimes, we can throw easily defeatable analogies around for weeks, but it still won't change either of our opinions of morality. So, unless you want to move somewhere else and talk about Biblical morality, you'll just have to accept that our opinions are different. This is just getting repetitive.

ps. to everyone on here who reminded me that christianity views sex as solely for reproduction and and in no way related to creating psychologically beneficial or intimate bonds between people, ie that thing sometimes referred to as 'love'... thanks, because I'd totally forgotten there for a minute why I found the doctrines of that religion so repellant in the first place.

No one ever said it was solely for sex procreation.

As Charles Darwin pointed out, if one sees something apparently maladaptive in biology, then look more deeply, because there is often a hidden agenda.

Someone will take that to mean the hilariously fictional "homosexual agenda". (I have a copy in front of me, it's so filled with hot homo secrets that pink steam is coming out of it!)

Lurch, two things. One oddity is your unflinching attitude ("there is no way you can convince me"), which is about as unscientific as you can get.

The other, more sinister problem is that you don't seem to know how hurtful your statements are. Your remarks about homosexuality being "disgusting" might be the last straw for some confused and depressed kid who stumbles upon this page. I'm guessing you'll deny or play down any responsibility, that's a "natural" reaction. But I truly hope that you will stop to consider just how damaging the things you say are.

MGR? What? 'solely for sex'? you mean 'solely for procreation', which is what you of the "I'm a christian and can't agree with gays because of this" persuasion have been arguing, that gay sex is unnatural because sex is solely for procreation and if gays cannot procreate then what they are doing is unnatural and somehow sinful.... did you somehow miss that entire part of the thread?

Well anyway, my point is, that I've long found that Christian attitudes towards sex are rather simplistic and repressive... not to mention that whole mandate to "go and increase in numbers", really, something that needs to be revised given the current overpopulation of our planet, but that's a whole other complaint.

In any case, I suppose I shouldn't have said anything, as that breaks my self imposed rule to not argue about religion on the Sift if I can help it... I've always been told that two things you don't want to discuss in polite conversation are religion and politics... well, for the Sift anyway, I've chosen to only indulge in political arguing... but apparently I can still be dragged into it now and again.

Actually, now that I've thought about it some more, berticus' assertion that by having homosexual individuals occasionally crop up in the mix this could be beneficial to the extended family by producing adults that do not reproduce and therefore work to support the group without making more mouths to feed, sounds like a good plan when thought of on a species wide scale.

Because, if looked at from that angle, one could say that encouraging gays to live as they choose, we would effectively be helping to cap our own population growth, something that seriously is needed, (as it might not be so apparent now, but by they time I am old and grey I believe it will be... worldwide, there are too many mouths to feed, too many cars to fill with oil). I think it would behoove us as a species to encourage a segment of the population to sit out from the reproduction game... too bad though, that will never happen, it might in this country, if only out of dogged determination to uphold the individual's rights, but otherwise, a worldwide application of this would take a massive species wide shift in perception... and, sigh... that will never happen, or at least it won't in time to make a difference.

Berticus, point taken even if it's an extreme scenerio. I've said all I need to say on the subject and further commenting would just be repetitive. Especially since it's such an unimportant issue getting blown out of proportion. I'm not arguing against gay rights, just that I disagree with the lifestyle. I still stand by my previous assertions of morality. The "you can't convince me" comment is not for scientific proof on the root cause of homosexuality, but the morality of it. Seriously, are your base set of beliefs going to change because of a little banter on an internet discussion board? Most likely not.

Raven, mostly repressed Christian sexual attitudes come from traditions with no real Biblical basis. There's not too much about sex in the Bible other than basics like don't sleep with animals, the same gender, and staying faithful to your spouse... things like that. A whole lot of times I find Christians with ideas that have no Biblical basis, like dancing. I actually know people that think it's inappropriate to dance. I have no idea where they got that from and they don't either. You're right though. Religion is a bad topic of conversation so I'll leave it alone. I just wanted to put that out there. Not all Christians are Westboro material.

On another note, where are you getting overpopulation from? Food production today is so efficient that we can produce enough food right now to feed the entire world's population till they're content and still have tons left over. The problem is with inefficient infrastructure and tryannical governments. Hypothetically, if you took every single person on the earth today and gave them all 1 acre of land to live on, we would all fit inside the US, Brazil, and Australia leaving the rest of the world completely empty. Hell, 95% of our own country is still undeveloped. It just so happens that people flock to live in already densely populated areas. Population growth would be less of a problem if there were fewer governments maintaining power by oppressing their people, not by stopping reproduction.

I'm not alleging that most Christians are Westboro types , nor that they hold crazy views that are nearly as damaging as the crazy crap those people are up to (you jumped to that all by yourself)... I'm just saying, that the typically 'Christian' attitude regarding sex and everything surrounding it, is often at odds with the current attitudes and practices of modern society and has only served to fuel arguments such as this one, or in other cases, hinder proper responses to situations, am thinking of abstinence based sex education as an example.

In any case, in regards to overpopulation, I was not speaking of the here and the now, but the future. If we continue to reproduce at the rate we have in the last 100 years (highly inflated due to innovations in medicine and agriculture) we will undoubtedly begin to run out of resources, and I'm not talking about food, but other, less renewable ones, like oil, water, rainforests, and yes, even personal space. I also never said anything about stopping to reproduce altogether (quit inferring so damn much from my statements!) just help curb its seemingly run away growth and find some sort of balance as a species within our environment.

My argument though, that gays would be a boon to meeting this end, however, is based on the assumption that homosexuals do not breed or somehow lack the impetus to, and last night, when I was doing something completely non-Sift related, I realized that this assumption was false and in the end my dream of a population equilibrium was yet again dashed. You see, we are forgetting here that many gays and lesbians do in fact still have that desire to bear offspring and nurture children (lesbians perhaps more than gay men), and seek out alternative methods to attain this goal of procreation... granted, many do adopt (when they are allowed to), but a good many others use artificial insemination, surrogates, etc.

I still don't think, however, that one can effectively argue that homosexuality just should not be solely because the parts don't fit, or because they cannot reproduce in the 'natural' sense, or that it is immoral based on something written two millennia ago, which its followers only cherry pick passages to follow in the first place. We could go around and around about this forever, but I'm afraid none of us would budge on our viewpoints.

"We could go around and around about this forever, but I'm afraid none of us would budge on our viewpoints."

At least we agree on something.

If someone is gay Im sure that it is very natural and normal for them to like the same sex.

*promote the absurdity of bigotry and inequality.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, November 29th, 2007 10:01pm PST - promote requested by berticus.

fuck you mccain

*equality

Adding video to channels (Equality) - requested by burdturgler.