You have to actually register to read the whole article, but here is a link:
http://www.military.com/News/Home/0,13324,4-XX-0-AYX20050224,00.html

and here are a couple of key paragraphs:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 - The military has spent more than $200 million to recruit and train personnel to replace troops discharged in the last decade for being openly gay, a new Congressional study has found.

But the accounting office estimated that it cost the Pentagon nearly $100 million, $10,500 a person, to recruit replacements for enlisted service members who were discharged from 1994 to 2003 for being gay.

A lawmaker who sought the study, Representative Martin T. Meehan of Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Conventional Threats and Capabilities, has drafted legislation that would repeal the policy on gays in an effort to enhance military readiness.

The measure, which Mr. Meehan said he would introduce next week, calls for the armed forces to enact "a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," the first time Congress will consider such a proposal since "don't ask, don't tell" was approved on Nov. 30, 1993.

Mr. Meehan called the policy "senseless and counterproductive," saying it undermined the strength of the military by "discharging competent service members at a time when our troops are already stretched thin."

This article made me think of the all-gay military... well, you'll understand the joke soon, Jinj. Gotta send those books to you.

Somehow I seriously doubt that Rep. Meehan's idea is going to gain any altitude in the current political climate.

I think its quite a leap to say that when servicemen are fired for breaking policy, the policy is therefore at fault.

The servicemen who broke the policy arent at all at fault? Just the policy?

I think the author is guilty of circular reasoning - "the policy is wrong, and it caused losses, therefore its wrong".

But the policy is wrong... morally, ethically and practically (see article.) The only way you can argue in support of such discrimination is in bad faith because there is no logical way to do so. Hi, our military is having trouble getting and keeping enough people to actually do the things we want to do, like go searching for weapons of ma... i mean... bring down tyrannies and install democracies... so lets make sure 10% of the populace can never serve because... well, because!

Arent they thinking Abe Lincoln was gay-ish these days? 8P

uh...Aldarion...

the reasoning seems pretty linear to me:

- Our military is stretched thin and we are having trouble finding more people willing to join the military.
- There is an untapped source of capable and willing people who want to join the military.
- We don't let them for archaic theological reasons.
- The military misses out on these people and is left in its original state of numerical weakness.

Of course, that is aside from the simple logical fact that denying opportunities to anyone based on anything other than their ability and performance is logically unjustifiable.

What's their reason for banning gays in the military?

What's their reason for banning gays in the military?
Because they might make straight men uncomfortable.

Arent they thinking Abe Lincoln was gay-ish these days? 8P
Yeah! What a hoot! Next thing we'll find out Washington did more than just chop down that cherry tree....

"I cannot tell a lie! So dont ask and I wont tell!"

I think there some combat difficulties in having two people who are lovers (whether gay or straight) in a military unit as emotional priorities can interfere with military command. The same problems are found in civilian workplaces but the army needs direct command all the time. Gay people will eventually be allowed full military service though so it might as well happen sooner rather than later.

I just don't see the difference between male/female who serve and two gay people who serve.

We don't let them for archaic theological reasons
Number one, youre wrong, religion has nothing to do with it.

Number two, this is *exactly* the sort of circular reasoning I was accusing the author of, and now youve fallen to it as well. You both decided beforehand that the policy was unjust, and are then turning around and basing your conclusion on this idea. (policy is unjust, policy causes losses, therefore policy is bad).

You are not opposing the military's discharging soldiers who break other rules (rules you agree with) - you (and the author) are only opposing the discharge of soldiers who broke a rule you dont agree with. You are then both turning around and using this to support your conclusion: that DADT is bad. Circular.

Im not even saying either of you is wrong (although I do disagree) - Im saying your logic is faulty, both of you.
I just don't see the difference between male/female who serve and two gay people who serve.
I agree. I suspect we diverge after this, but I agree with you.

--------------------------

My actual position is that the military should be free to exclude any behavior they feel is detremental to the morale of their troops. they do it every single day - there are regulations regarding clothing, music, food, alcohol, sex, and an endless list of others, all of which are based on maintaining morale. This rule is no different - the military feels morale is best when the troops are composed of straight men.

I wont argue with them, and I see no reason why someone who would otherwise be openly gay should get to flaunt their disregard for regulations whereas someone who otehrwise would wear long hair has to toe the line... someone who otherwise would drink every night has to toe the line... someone who otherwise would wear hawaiin shirts every day has to toe the line...

DADT is perfectly fair, and you cannot oppose it based on consistent attitudes about regulations - you can only oppose it on an emotional "omg so unfair" basis.

A final word: no one is excluding gays from the military, EVEN UNDER DADT! They are simply saying keep it to yourself, just like the long hair, the drinker, and the hawaiin shirt guy do.

So is Bush fires up the draft to go invade East St. Louis, or some equally retarded place that I don't agree with, can I use this as an excuse not to go?

It's probably catch-22. If you tell them you're gay it must prove you're not gay and you're on the next plane to Fallajah.

the military should be free to exclude any behavior they feel is detremental to the morale of their troops.

I think if the military had a few gay parades to go with the military parades it would be great for morale. They could have a few floats, glitzy costumes, and really go to town.

I see no reason why someone who would otherwise be openly gay should get to flaunt their disregard for regulations whereas someone who otherwise would wear long hair has to toe the line...

Bring gay isn't really a lifestyle choice that you can change as often as you cut your hair.

I just don't see the difference between male/female who serve and two gay people who serve.There isn't any. It's plain old discrimination rearing its ugly head. Just as blacks and women were eventually accepted into the military, so will gays be -- that is, once the sexually insecure males and religious zealots get over themselves.

The Spartans promoted sexual relations between members of their military. And the Spartans were ALL about the military...

It seems(ed) logical, that one would fight harder and more aggressively if one's lover was in harm's way.

If you are a heterosexual male adult, and you have not yet figured out how to respond to another adult males's advances, you need to be removed from the gene pool in any regard.

The descrimination has Everything to do with Christian and socially retard male mAcho freak intolerance.

Hell, over half(80%) of the women in the military are gay or engage in homosexual love already(according to my lesbian military friends/sources /wink).

Don't get me wrong, I would not want "Queer Eye for the Khaki Guy" every Friday night or anything, but most of my gay males friends don't like flamers either.

Save the money, and don't ask, don't tell, and don't expell. It should not be the military's business.

What's their reason for banning gays in the military?

Isn't revisionist history great?

The article is misleading. The cost to train a new soldier is the same no matter if it is to replace a discharged gay or to replace someone forced to retire in an arbitrary reduction of force.

I predict this will devolve into "I'm right, you are wrong. If you don't agree with me you are morally reprehensible."

Actually, I believe that the "no gay" rule in the military is more to protect the gays than to make the "straights" feel comfortable. Despite the fact that the general populace is becoming more tolerant of diversities, many members of the military are still the young volunteers who come from lower income areas and would be more tolerant to gangs than gays. Personally, I think the military doesn't want to contend with the conflict or possible "retribution" of volitile youth.

Actually, I believe that the "no gay" rule in the military is more to protect the gays than to make the "straights" feel comfortable.

Wow. Sorry, but that just sounds like some twisted way to justify bigotry.

Some men are so homophobic that they don't want to be anywhere near gays, period. And yes, the religious zealots just add fuel to the fire.

And, please, don't tell me the military is not anti-gay. DADT is just their way of banning gays without actually saying they are banning gays.

The only good that can come of it is it's a nice little get-out-of-jail free card. Just tell them you are gay, and you don't have to serve anymore.

Bring gay isn't really a lifestyle choice that you can change as often as you cut your hair.
Again - DADT doesnt ban gays from participating in the military, and neither does it tell them they ahve to turn straight in order to do so.

DADT can be expressed more simply as 'keep yer friggin mouth shut'. Good advice for all people of any sexual orientation in a working environment, and more so for alternative lifestyle types (no, we dont want to hear about your kinky fetishes.)

You guys are as usual reading WAY too much into DADT - its not discriminatory, its just saying keep your private life private. In fct, its expressly GUARANTEEING your right to keep it private by saying the military cnnot even ask if you are gay. The price of this freedom is you dont get to flaunt it, either.

Wow. Sorry, but that just sounds like some twisted way to justify bigotry.

Some men are so homophobic that they don't want to be anywhere near gays, period. And yes, the religious zealots just add fuel to the fire.In reading your post, it appears to me that you completely misinterpreted my PERSONAL feelings about the issue. I NEVER said I agreed with the reasons. I only expressed what I felt the TRUE reasons were for the lack of PC in the military. Racial and/or sexual orientation issues have never affected me personally (unless you count the time I laughed at some of the outfits I saw in New Orleans when a gay Mardi Gras happened to take place the same week I was there on business.) I admit to having prejudices, but I *hope* they are only the ones I hold for unnecessary ignorance. The kind of ignorance that rears it's ugly head when a particular individual or individuals have had the education and the upbringing to know better but refuse to use it. And where I live I see it all the time.

The price of this freedom is you dont get to flaunt it, either.

I'm failing to see how "freedom" is achieved by telling people they can't actually use this freedom. By this logic, we could have government censorship of the press and media. I mean, they're FREE to think whatever they want, as long as they don't make it public by printing or airing their thoughts.

You guys are as usual reading WAY too much into DADT - its not discriminatory, its just saying keep your private life private.ROFL. So a straight soldier can talk about the details of his sex life 24/7 with no penalty, whereas a gay soldier can't, and you're saying that's not discriminatory?

Get real, it's regular discrimination, and has nothing to do with keeping one's life private. The "DADT" policy is just a bone that the liberals have thrown to the gays, to give them the option of joining the military if they keep their sexual orientation a secret.

I'm failing to see how "freedom" is achieved by telling people they can't actually use this freedom. By this logic, we could have government censorship of the press and media. I mean, they're FREE to think whatever they want, as long as they don't make it public by printing or airing their thoughts.

They are in the military, there is no freedom there. I don't understand your point.

You are talking about a job where you sign away most of your civil liberties and rights. What does freedom have to do with that?

There is no freedom of the press or speech in the military. They do have censorship of the press and media in the military.

There is no freedom whatsoever, that I know of. If an officer tells you to get shot and and die, you have to do it.

(policy is unjust, policy causes losses, therefore policy is bad).How can you say my logic is flawed when your logic consist of: policy is bad, policy causes losses, therefore policy is bad...

Your logic begins and ends with the same exact concept...and although you used the word unjust in the first phrase, things that are unjust are "bad" to me and I think most everyone else.

Again, here is the linear logic:

-Military needs more people (agreed?)
-There are people available (agreed?)
-They aren't allowed to join the military with the same rights as people currently in the military (agreed?)
-The military still needs more people (agreed?)

When you say DADT doesn't impinge upon the rights of gay members of the military, someone else put it perfectly already...a straight serviceman or woman can be open about their sexuality and not have to hide a substantial part of their life, while a gay serviceman or woman can not. That is discrimination. If you don't understand that, I would guess that you have never had to pretend to be something you're not under threat of losing your job...

The military might not have the same freedoms that we enjoy as civilians, but it is still an occupation and no employer other than the military is allowed to make hiring decisions based on the prospective employee's sexuality. This is clearly a double standard.

I don't mean any of this as a personal attack on you as I don't know anything about you or what you believe, but your posts on this topic indicate a lack of understanding about how difficult and unfair it is to have to hide and lie about a part of your life and personality that you can't change.

Although this will probably seem like an exaggerated analogy, DADT is equivalent to saying that African Americans can only join the military as long as they bleach their skin, have cosmetic surgery to look Caucasian, and deny that they are indeed African American. The only difference is that being gay is an internal trait rather than an external one and as such is more feasible to hide, although definitely not any easier on the person who must hide it.

-Noir

P.S.
If an officer tells you to get shot and and die, you have to do it.
I believe that this is not necessarily the case. If an officer tells you to get shot and die, rather than to just perform a military task that might endanger your life, you can probably get him court martialed. I understand you were exaggerating, but there have always been methods for disobeying and challenging completely inappropriate orders.

How can you say my logic is flawed when your logic consist of: policy is bad, policy causes losses, therefore policy is bad...

Your logic begins and ends with the same exact concept...
Perhaps I was unclear - I was PARAPHRASING YOUR LOGIC. My goal was to illustrate the circularity of it. I did.

Again - unless you are arguing that due to the current 'shortage of recruits' (highly debatable in itself) we should not discharge anyone for breaking ANY policy, then you are guilty of circular logic. You are only highlighting this policy because you disagree with it, and are then using the fact that its application has resulted in a loss of servicemen to reinforce your original assumption that it is bad.

There are arguments to be made for and against DADT - but the one presented by the author and defended by you is circular and invalid.

have to hide and lie about a part of your life and personality that you can't change.
I personally prefer unshaven muffs. Seriously - I dont like clean shaven nether regions, I think they look gross and very un-hot.

Youre telling me that because I dont spend all day every day talking about this I am 'denying who I am?'

get real. This whole 'prefrence = who I am' thing has been waaay overplayed - if you like banging men, great. You keep that quiet, I'll keep my preference for hairy muffs quiet, and we'll all be a lot happier.

being true to yourself does not mean telling everyone about the details of your sex life.

Although this will probably seem like an exaggerated analogy, DADT is equivalent to saying that African Americans can only join the military as long as they bleach their skin, have cosmetic surgery to look Caucasian, and deny that they are indeed African American. The only difference is that being gay is an internal trait rather than an external one and as such is more feasible to hide, although definitely not any easier on the person who must hide it.
I would say completely inaccurate on every level - not exaggerated.

DADT can be made to work, for the military, but it still creates serious problems for the individuals concerned. There have been plenty of all-male organisations that have had many closet homsexuals, tolerated as long as they kept themselves private. In the 21st century though homosexuals are likely to get rights for civil unions, child adoption, pension rights across couples, joint mortgages, death benefits, etc, etc. Maintaining DADT will effectively exclude military personel from those very public gay rights and they're not trivial matters to the people involved. Pursuing a 40 year career in the military will simply not be an option if you're going to be excluded from those rights.

Just looking at some of the arguing that's going on here, I think there is some confusion. I agree that those who broke DADT rules should have been removed from duty. They broke a standing rule, and if I'm not mistaken, that has always been an acceptable reason to fire someone from any sort of job. But is that rule legal? I don't know.

There have been some court cases in state and federal courts that have said gays deserve equal rights, the same as racial, religious or gender groups do. How those apply to military cases, I don't know (do federal courts have any impact/influence on military regulations?), but eventually congress will see this as "wrong", and then the policy will change. But until then, the military has every right to exclude and eliminate people who violate its policies.

I myself agree that the policy is wrong. But until it changes, its the way it is. Make a stink. Call your congressman. It probably won't do any good (everytime I've sent something to mine, all i get is a form letter or something from a secretary) though. Hold a rally. Again, probably no good, as people in office usually don't change policies based on the masses, only on their beliefs. But remember to think about the other side. Not everyone can be happy about it. We're not perfect, we're all gonna disagree at one point. =)

/rant off
Alright, sorry bout that. Back to the point: Aldarion_Shard is correct that it is ok to remove people who break DADT or any policy; and noirblood is correct if I'm correct when I assume he's talking about the underlying fallicies in the policy. Can't we all just hug now and be friends? =)

Can't we all just hug now and be friends?
Not if we're the same gender and in the military! 8P

Saw this and had to post my 0.02 :D

We depend on the military for national defense, security in this country, security abroad, and indirectly, many nations around the world depend on America's military being there if and when they need it to help defend them against the few nutty people that actually still have an army (and nukes!).

As a strong military force being necessary for the undergirding of all peacekeeping, anything that interferes with the smooth operation of said military force should not be allowed, discussed, or in any way moved forward as an agenda.

Our military forces are no place to conduct social experiments. If the military says it will affect morale of the troops, it's out. No arguments, appeals, or trial lawyers allowed. The military chain of command is NOT a democracy. Where everyone got the idea of fairness in the MILITARY is beyond me. The military isn't fair, it's efficent.

In addition, everything about military training is about conformity. Same haircut, same uniform, same bunks, same socks, etc. If you are a non-conforming bump in the smooth road to efficency, you will be flattened until you are part of the road. Usually your squad will happily do the flattening with a little applied psychology.

Example:
"What's that, Private Jones? You can't do another pushup, you say? Oh, no, I misunderstood.. you want everyone in your squad to do your share of the pushups? Fine with me!
Listen up you #()$#! Jones here wants all you )(#$*% to do 150 more pushups, because he wants to take it eeeeasy! Get #()$%# started! Jones, come over here and sit in the shade."

I believe that this is not necessarily the case.


Funny.

But I think you get the point. You have no civil rights in the military. If I work at Walmart, I can tell my boss to go **** him(her)self. And the worst that can happen, is that I get fired.

If I say that to my boss in the military, I will end up in jail, at best.

Can you imagine OSHA at a Basic Training Camp? Not even considering wartime.

Or the EPA on an active Base?

EPA? Would they give tickets for the excessive engine exhaust? =)

As a vet of the military, and a female one at that, the bottom line isn't about homophobia or insecurities. Its about image. The military represents the nation as a whole. It was the same in the civil war with allowing "colored" people into the ranks; it was the same in the 70's with allowing "skirts" into the ranks; it will be the same with adding gays. Until society is accepting of homosexuality, it will never be allowed into the largest representation of the US as a whole...our military.

I don't think a gun can tell the difference in who is shooting it, either by color, sex or sexual preference, but until the day that society says its okay, the military won't admit it.

In addition, everything about military training is about conformity. Same haircut, same uniform, same bunks, same socks, etc. If you are a non-conforming bump in the smooth road to efficency, you will be flattened until you are part of the road.Gays can have the same haircut, the same uniform, the same bunks, and the same socks. They have the same potential to perform the drills and exercises, engage in combat, and die in combat. For all the established purposes of the military, they are the same.

They only way they are "non-conforming" is that they are an often hated/feared minority. But the same can be said for blacks, jews, muslims, hispanics, and many other "different" minorities who still have a place in the military today.

Or do you suggest that we dismiss everyone except straight, white, protestant-Christian males from the military? Our military would conform nicely to itself, but that won't make much difference when we're defeated by the enemy because we value our bigotry above our safety.

I predict this will devolve into "I'm right, you are wrong. If you don't agree with me you are morally reprehensible."

I think there are lots of people around with morally reprehensible ideas. Like I would find racial bigotry reprehensible I find discrimination against other groups as well. If there hadn't been any pressure on people with morally reprehensible ideas to either change their views or at least keep them very, very quiet, then we'd still be asking blacks to go sit in the back of the bus, or give up their seats for white folks.

So yeah, homosexuality is the new black (sic) and I suspect that more and more people who voice their views that they should be discriminated against are going to be told that they're bigots. The issue isn't going to go away.

I guess I'm lost. How is Homosexuality the "new black"?

It's a play on words. "The new black" is a phrase you hear to describe a new trend, it refers to black being a color you can wear anywhere. But the other meaning is that homosexuals have the same sort of social issues that blacks faced in the middle of the last century.

Our military forces are no place to conduct social experiments.

I couldn't let that go without comment. Maybe you're all too young to remember when women and blacks (I don't remember that one) were being integrated into the military. There was exactly the same sort of rhetoric. You know what? They pressed ahead with it and it and did it anyway. Somehow this stodgy old military, that you all are personifying in many amusing ways, adapted and manages to function.

And the military has done all sorts of interesting experiments... like intentionally irradiating their troops.

After reading all this mess, it's 3 pages of the same liberal & conservative crap. There's several things you need to take a look at when considering allowing openly gay people into the military. And please no one take this as hate talk as possible. There is also an international face as well as the american voter feels. So far in the majority of states that have voted, gay marriage is banned. Do I feel its right, no but it's what the people there want. You'll also find that the ACLU and other civil rights orginizations are fighting this through the court systems, and constitunally neglecting voters by going before appointed judges to force states to except same sex marriage as unconstituonal. Now back on the subject. The same line has been repeated "The military is not a democracy". This is very true. Most people complain about the military being fair but like someone said, it's not supposed to be, hell if it WAS fair id be fighting with my cousins in Iraq right now but I cant due to hearing problems, and I know since I've been rejected 4x's. One fact is that for the most part is our government is trying to spread democracy in the middle east aka afghanistan and Iraq (maybe soon to see Syria & Iran too). These two countries are FAR more conservative by Islamic beliefs then any right wing orginazation by using the Qaran to subvert women and outlaw homosexuality. Now if American soldiers where openly gay and forcing these people to except their beliefs that they don't agree with ( sorry the Iraqi election tells me they do want democracy though) then we shouldn't allow our soldiers to say "Hey I'm gay hahaha". Now why people tend to make such a big deal out of it is beyond me aside from your typical homophobic and religious zealots. If your gay, good for you. I have a girlfriend, I love her end of story is my 2cp on it. But if you go preaching about how the world treats you unfairly and that your being discriminated against cause your gay, you are only adding fuel for the religious zealots that are going to go out and say studies do this and that. On my last note here. The majority of the military comes from the south and midwest. Home towners and protestants. Some of the biggest homophobics in the land. And if you cant recall a cross burning or someone being hung in some southern or midwest state for being an unwanted color or because your gay you really need to read the news more. In an odd way, the military gives you protection from this by following the policy. Now I do think that not allowing people to say they're openly gay is unfair, but until society, and the american people as a whole are less hateful on this subject, then allowing it is a bad idea.

Kalest Moonglade
66th Stormwarden of Sol Ro
~LF Server~

If you don't I will.




Put some paragraphs in that post, that is.

/tsk

...These two countries are FAR more conservative by Islamic beliefs then any right wing orginazation by using the Qaran to subvert women and outlaw homosexuality. If we banned women in the armed forces from participating in the mid-east conflict I might give your argument more consideration. :p

I agree with you Panamah. If every person who was told "You can't do that" didn't try anyways, we would be living in a very different (and I think, much worse) world. The only way to overcome barriers like this is to continually prove your doubters wrong.

When I was in the military, I was in a career field that had only allowed women to join by maybe ten/fiftenn years previous to my enlistment. I had to overcome a lot of stereotypes, from the "Oh, she's gonna break a nail and cry" comments to the blatant "You can't do that because you're a girl." I could have changed my career, I could have agreed with all the people who said those things. But I didn't. Instead, I kept going and over time proved that I could do all the things that a man could (sometimes even better.) And I had fun doing it.

I still ran into the older ranking men who remembered the good ol' days when their military was "skirtless", but their point of view was slowly being considered "outdated."

I think over time, the same will happen with homosexuals being allowed into the military. Personally, I didn't care what the sexual preference of my gunner was, as long as he/she could watch my back in a firefight. That should be the only factor.

I really kinda wonder what millitary you all are talking about. When I joined the Navy it was just after the DADT policy was put through (by Bill Clinton btw). During my time in the millitary I met and served with many homosexual sailors. Some of them where older wich leads me to believe that they millitary had been allowing homosexuals to serve for quite some time even if it didn't allow them to serve out right open. I know that many of the other people on this board are or were millitary. I don't know if your experience was simular to mine. Perhaps it was just a Navy thing. However I think that some of the civies here are might have a distorted view of the millitary wich doesn't fit with my personal experience.

In The Navy-Village People

Where can you find pleasure
Search the world for treasure
Learn science technology
Where can you begin to make your dreams all come true
On the land or on the sea
Where can you learn to fly
Play in sports and skin dive
Study oceanography
Sign of for the big band
Or sit in the grandstand
When your team and others meet

In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, fall in 'n' make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)

They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit

If you like adventure
Don't you wait to enter
The recruiting office fast
Don't you hesitate
There is no need to wait
They're signing up new seamen fast
Maybe you are too young
To join up today
Bout don't you worry 'bout a thing
For I'm sure there will be
Always a good navy
Protecting the land and sea

In the navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the navy
Come on now, fall in 'n' make a stand
In the navy, in the navy
Can't you see we need a hand
In the navy
Come on, protect the motherland
In the navy
Come on and join your fellow man
In the navy
Come on people, and make a stand
In the navy, in the navy, in the navy (in the navy)

They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit

Who me?

They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit

But, but but I'm afraid of water.
Hey, hey look
Man, I get seasick even watchin' it on TV!

They want you, they want you in the navy

Oh my goodness.
What am I gonna do in a submarine?

They want you, they want you in the navy

I would say completely inaccurate on every level - not exaggerated.
And why is it completely inaccurate? You failed to give me a single reason why.

Forcing someone to hide their sexuality is no more fair than forcing someone to hide their race. The only difference is that it's impossible to hide ur race, while it is possible to hide ur sexuality. My point is it is not any easier for the person who has to do it.

Being able to be yourself as a homosexual isn't just about being able to talk about who you scored with last night.

Think about it, one slip when you're talking about that person back home that you love and you're fired.

That's just not right on any level.

If we banned women in the armed forces from participating in the mid-east conflict I might give your argument more consideration. :p

The difference here is that in the middle east there are female politicians in the moderate states, but yet no homosexuals. The female gender is still limited but not comletly ignored. Also womens rights groups are becoming more active every in the middle east. So removing our female troops from the military wouldnt make a bit of difference.

Kalest Moonglade
66th Stormwarden of Sol Ro
~LF Server~

Our military forces are no place to conduct social experiments. If the military says it will affect morale of the troops, it's out. No arguments, appeals, or trial lawyers allowed. The military chain of command is NOT a democracy. Where everyone got the idea of fairness in the MILITARY is beyond me. The military isn't fair, it's efficent.

In addition, everything about military training is about conformity. Same haircut, same uniform, same bunks, same socks, etc. If you are a non-conforming bump in the smooth road to efficency, you will be flattened until you are part of the road. Usually your squad will happily do the flattening with a little applied psychology.

Nicely said Gunny.

I personally was against gays in the military when I was in but it wasn't about bigotry. I just felt that if there were going to be gay men hanging out in the barracks checking me out while I was trying to shower I should have the same "shower privileges" over at the female barracks. :D

Funny solution.

Have the gay men barracks with the women?

Forcing someone to hide their sexuality is no more fair than forcing someone to hide their race. The only difference is that it's impossible to hide ur race, while it is possible to hide ur sexuality. My point is it is not any easier for the person who has to do it.

Ok, let's come back to reality here. There is a BIG difference between ones sexual orientation and a person's race and sex. First of all, you don't HAVE to have SEX! I know that might come as a big surprise to you. You won't die from lack of sex. Secondly, you can't change your race or gender (under natural circumstances). Yes, I know a person can change their gender and pigmentation using artificial means, but to my knowledge it can't be done naturally. You won't go to sleep one night a black man and wake up the next morning a blonde white woman! Just ain't gonna happen.

There is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed in the miliary. However, there is equally no reason for them to flaunt their sexuality either. It would be absolutely stupid to have a Gay Pride Parade in the Military! You go into the military to serve our country and to defend it. And yes, as is our current military situation to engage in combat. I don't recall ever seeing an army recruitment commercial saying 'Come Join the Army and Sodomize the World!" Sexual orientation should be completely irrelevant to being in the military, period. End of story.

Have the gay men barracks with the women?

My guess is that the thousands of men who would suddenly turn gay would cause even more problems.

There is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed in the miliary. However, there is equally no reason for them to flaunt their sexuality either.

The original discussion started as a senator said that gays were leaving the military. If gay person is to have a long career in the military, 20 years say, it's not just about sex acts which can be hidden or flaunted. It's also about death in service benefits for partners, setting up homes together with joint mortgages, adoption rights perhaps, schooling for children, shared pension rights, and everything else that heterosexual soldiers take for granted. A gay person in the military should not have to sacrifice all these rights and benefits just because people are uneasy showering with them.

There has traditionally been a concept that homsexual relationships are about quick sex, while heterosexual relationships are about marraige. That will need to change in 21st century America.

There is a BIG difference between ones sexual orientation and a person's race and sex.

There is also a big difference between sex and sexual orientation. Which is why male-male prison rape does not make the inmates gay, but aggressive (rape is an act of aggression and control). From the APA (Amer. Psychologists Assoc.)

What Is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

So DADT essentially says "hide your feelings and hide your own self-concept". That's a tough one to do, and certainly not on par with what our country claims is 'right' (freedom and democracy for ALL, right? even those countries who don't want it).

Nicely said Gunny.

I personally was against gays in the military when I was in but it wasn't about bigotry. I just felt that if there were going to be gay men hanging out in the barracks checking me out while I was trying to shower I should have the same "shower privileges" over at the female barracks. :DI had to laugh at the naivety of this statement. Someone not wanting a gay in his shower because he thinks he'll get leered at. People get so uptight about gays because they think, somehow, proximity will "contaminate" them OR a gay person is going to enjoy seeing "too much". I believe that if you put women in a shower with men, it's more likely on the whole that "red blooded" males would be the ones doing the leering to a much greater extent than the women. And after a time or two, any novelty would wear off for the mature ones. There's always SOME guy who still thinks tossing a toad down a girls dress is funny even at the age of 30 or 40.

Sorry, but not wanting gays in the service because you think they'll LOOK at you is really pretty silly to me. I have no idea why guys are so insecure. I doubt that you'd catch this kind of uproar from straight women who shared a shower with gay women.

I'm sure guys secretly check each other out anyway. Much like women and their mental critiques of one another... "those CAN'T be real!", "I wonder if my butt looks that big?".

Another thing, this isn't about someone not talking about who they scored with last night, if their partner was their own gender, its about not being able to invite friends you work with over because your main-squeeze is another guy. You would have to filter your conversations, "Bruce and I went to Xyz together" and filter out all the normal things people talk about doing with their partners, because you, as a gay person, aren't allowed to talk your life.

I'm sure guys secretly check each other out anyway
...not straight guys...

Which is why male-male prison rape does not make the inmates gay
LMFAO

Let me put it this way. If gay folks are offended by being lumped in with this group, fine, we wont call them gay.

But lets be 100% clear on this - if you are a man and you put your unit inside another man, youre not straight. Liberals cn spin the terms all they want, maybe you need to come up with a new term for these people, but straight, they are not.

Noirblood - comparing behavioral preferences and immutable genetic characteristics is so silly as to be not worth discussing, sorry. If you want to build your case, point by point, that for some reason race and preference are comarpable, then build it.

But you cnat walk in and state it as a fact and then demand that anyone who disagrees supply a long list of reasons.

Seual preference is in no way comparable to race. And if it is, then I am a minority in need of protection (see my earlier comments re: shaven muffs).

^

Pan, I think denial issues are much more common among men... which would explain why they are so uncomfortable with homosexuality in the first place!

Denial?

Care to expand on that?

^

Pan, I think denial issues are much more common among men... which would explain why they are so uncomfortable with homosexuality in the first place!

Yeah, I remember hearing about a study where they measured "tumesence" in men watching a gay ****ographic movie. Those guys who expressed the most hostility towards homosexuality had the biggest (sic) reaction to the movie.

First, sexual orientation isn't a choice or a behavioral preference. It is as ingrained as race or gender, it just is a mental characteristic rather than a physical one. This is why the comparison is valid. Homosexuality is caused by certainan immutable genetic (though not hereditary) characteristics and can be influenced by psychological and environmental factors during a person's formative years. Either way, it is not something people have much control over, if any.

Second, nobody is asking for protection, just equality. You Hairy Muff Lovers get the same rights as Non-Hairy Muff Lovers, but gay people do not. That's the part that is unfair. Gay people don't want special rights or protections, just the same ones you have.

Third, go watch Kinsey. Almost everyone is part gay and part straight, in differing proportions. Certainly everyone has a preference, but nobody is prefectly gay or straight. We are just forced to label ourselves as one or the other by social pressures. I'm sure this won't sit well with you, but it has been researched and documented and while I won't sit here and say it is a concrete proven fact, you have to at least consider it a possibility.

Straight guys are just as interested in who has the bigger penis as gay guys. Also, if you're ugly a gay guy won't check you out just because you have genitals. The same way you wouldn't check out an unattractive female. Similarly, do you fondle or approach every woman you find attractive? I hope not. Likewise even if a gay man does check you out, he will have enough respect not to approach you in any inappropriate manner. And if he tells you you are attractive? Why would that be anything other than flattering?

Anka made a great point. Heterosexual relationships have long been considered to be about love and marriage while homosexual ones have been considered to be about sex. This is not the case. Both types of relationships are about love, commitment, and sex.

Truid: Being gay isn't only about sex. It is about having feelings for someone of the same gender. You could never have had sex with a man and still be gay. And I don't think anyone is saying they should allow massive gay orgies in the military, just that you should be allowed to acknowledge who you are (not the same as flaunting it) and not get fired for it. Also, while you aren't going to go to sleep a black man and wake up a white woman, it is equally impossible to go to bed gay and wake up straight. We are what we are, and we shouldn't be forced to deny it.

About flaunting. The only reason gay people feel the need to have Gay Pride parades is because they are constantly told that they are lesser. Straight people don't need pride parades because nobody is telling them they shouldn't be proud in the first place. Besides, how many Puerto Rican Day parades or Civil Rights marches have there been? All groups have parades, gatherings, and marches to celebrate the things they love, and when they are being told they shouldn't love these things then it just adds to the passion with which the gatherings will be held. Also, nobody is saying there should be Gay Pride military parades. Just that a gay man or woman who acknowledges what he or she is should be allowed to serve the country.

Truid: While they've never had an army commercial saying Join the Army and Sodomize the World, I doubt they have had a Join the Army and Screw a Prostitute in Every Port commercial either, but that happens on a regular basis and is even accepted as appropriate.

Anka brought up another great point: Being able to acknowledge you are gay means "death in service benefits for partners, setting up homes together with joint mortgages, adoption rights perhaps, schooling for children, shared pension rights, and everything else that heterosexual soldiers take for granted." All of these things are rights afforded to heterosexual couples that homosexual couples don't get, in the military or in civilian life.

Nice to have some engaging debate on here. At the end of the day we're all in this thing together, whatever it is. Why make it more difficult for each other?

First, sexual orientation isn't a choice or a behavioral preference. It is as ingrained as race or gender, it just is a mental characteristic rather than a physical one. This is why the comparison is valid. Homosexuality is caused by certainan immutable genetic (though not hereditary) characteristics and can be influenced by psychological and environmental factors during a person's formative years. Either way, it is not something people have much control over, if any.
Thats a valid opinion. I disagree completely, I think that you're utterly wrong on every point, but its a valid opinion.

All I ask is that you acknowledge it for what it is - your opinion.
Third, go watch Kinsey. Almost everyone is part gay and part straight, in differing proportions.
Kinsey was wrong. He did some good things for societal discussions about sex, but his absurd conclusions re: homosexuality are just flat out wrong (in part as a result of his biased sampling schemes, and in part just as part of his own agenda).

Saying 'everyone is a little gay' is like saying 'everyone is a little bit mass murderer'. We all have some things in common with mass murderers, but are set apart by our actions. That one little distinction "Did you kill multiple people?" sets us apart. Likewise, Kinsey can say whatever he wants about the sexuality of people hes never met, but at the end of the day, its much simpler than he wanted to make it seem. If you are attracted only to women, you're not 'a little bit gay', you straight, regardless of any interests you might have in interior decoration or any strong male friendships you might have formed.

Its a common problem - people often want to make things more complex than they really are. This is one example.

"I'm sure guys secretly check each other out anyway. Much like women and their mental critiques of one another... "those CAN'T be real!", "I wonder if my butt looks that big?"."

Nope.

Buy me some cole slaw sometime, and I will tell you why.

I'm sure guys secretly check each other out anyway. Much like women and their mental critiques of one another... "those CAN'T be real!", "I wonder if my butt looks that big?".

I think when guys hear the words "check out" we assume, "Checking out the babes." Your examples are more compairing then "checking out the view." I'm sure your right that every guy has compaired himself to another guy, "He could kick my butt" "I wish I could play golf as good as him." As far as I am concerned "checking out" other guys is for gays.

if you are a man and you put your unit inside another man, youre not straight.

Rape has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual preference. It has everything to do with control and power. Unfortunately, there are still far too many who believe that rape is about sex. I suppose, if they were ever raped, they might see it differently, so I suppose I should be glad that those people have never had to deal with it on a personal basis.

I understand what youre saying, Jinjire, but its irrelevant. Man has sex with a man = not straight anymore.

I understand what youre saying, Jinjire, but its irrelevant. Man has sex with a man = not straight anymore.

So, if someone held a gun to your head and said "do it or you die" would you then be gay if you chose to do it rather than die?

Rape has absolutely NOTHING to do with sexual preference. It has everything to do with control and power. Unfortunately, there are still far too many who believe that rape is about sex.

Control and power have everything to do with sex.

One of the biggest mistakes of the Feminist movement was to originate your/that argument.

Let me put it this way.

Once youve eaten a cow, youre not a vegetarian anymore. It really doesnt matter whether you ate it because it smelled good, because you hated the cow and wanted it to suffer, or because someone forced you to eat it on threat of death.

now clearly all these motivations mean something - but none of them change the fact that youre not a vegetarian.

That's faulty reasoning, Aldarion. Being gay means you have a sexual preference of the same gender. If someone forces you to do something against your will that hasn't changed your preference at all.

Thanks for the chuckle Aldarion.

I understand what youre saying, Jinjire, but its irrelevant. Man has sex with a man = not straight anymore.So if you're raped by a man you're gay? I think you need to revisit your definition.

I think he was referring to the man doing the raping not the rapee.

I love the archaic 'damaged goods' motif.

I think he was referring to the man doing the raping not the rapee.Two people "have sex" (usually).

Wow! This thread is MORE than mind boggling.

Gay is not a choice one makes, and certainly is not the result of a single incident (or many COERCED instances) in one's life. In fact, if a man or woman "tests the waters" in a same sex relationship, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are gay. Some people have to "find" themselves to be able to settle their own mind. Some people enjoy diversity, even without a preference for their own sex. Sex is very confusing to many people and there is little that is cut and dried about it. Even procreation can be complicated these days.

And rape is NOT about the sex, it's about violent agressive behavior. It INVOLVES sex, but the "satisfaction" is derived from the violence, not the actual sexual encounter.

I think rape usually involves sexual motives. It might be about sexual confidence, sexual authority, sexual control, sexual retribution, sexual denial, sexual pleasure, sexual obsession, sexual inadequacy, sexual possession, or all sorts of things, but it's mostly sexual.

It's something pretty hard to debate though and I'm not really sure it explains anything about why gay people are leaving the military ;).

I've always felt that for many people an orgasmic event might have a lot of different motivations leading up into it. Probably for some it doesn't matter quite so much what precipitates the event so much as the event itself. So trying to ascribe some specific label which lead to a specific orgasm is like saying that famous actor who stuck a gerbil up his ass is a gerbilphile. Maybe it just sounded like a good idea at the time.

And rape is NOT about the sex, it's about violent agressive behavior.Psycho-babble. It's about both. If it were only about violence, the perpetrator would use a knife, club, or gun instead of his penis.

A knife, club or gun does not violate the victim as thoroughly as a penis does.

Twice a survivor of rape, I can assure you that I would much rather have been beaten to within an inch of my life than to have been raped. The psychological damage is much more severe and the sense of violation of one's person much more severe with rape.

Hey, I didnt say eating a cow once makes you a carnivore.

I said it makes you NOT a vegetarian, just like having sex with a man makes you not straight (assuming you're a man).

And yes, 'rape isnt about sex' is textbook psychobabble. Its a perverse combination of both. Poisoned kool aid is still kool aid.

just like having sex with a man makes you not straight (assuming you're a man).
O ho... so there's a different standard for women in your world?

Why is aggression removed from sex?

That notion is absurd. Sure it made sense in your Women In History textbook you read back in school. But in the real world....

In the natural world,,, aggression, violence, and rape are rewarded with increased genetic progeny.

Why would one think that humans are different?

Hey Tiane?

little boys and little girls are different. Yes theres a 'different standard' for women 'in my world' - with women, if they have sex with a woman, then theyre not straight.

Its odd that such a simple concept has to be explained so many times.

I have a lesbian friend.

She has had sex with a guy. By your logic, she is no longer gay and can't ever be gay.

Or does gay now include being both heterosexual AND homosexual?

I dont presume to tell gay or bi people what they should call themselves - Im not gay or bi. Im sure these 'communities' have special words they use for people like your friend.

However, as a straight person, what I'll say for certain about your friend is shes not straight. Which is all I've claimed in this thread: that youre not straight if you (being a guy) bang guys, regardless of whether its a prison rape or a committed relationship.

Again - its a really simple concept.

It's all just so amusing 8)

I almost wish I could put some blinders on and divide the world into little boxes and definitions, where everything is simple and black and white, bad things dont happen to good people, etc...

But if there's one thing I've learned, its that you cant force someone to open their eyes, or convince someone that life is more complicated than they think it is. So enjoy what you've got there, it wont last forever.

Its odd that such a simple concept has to be explained so many times.

What is odd is that you cling to a concept that is so simple it simply doesn't apply in a world where sexuality is anything but simple. Black and white are only two colors and there's a lot of hues and varities that don't fall into the category of black or white, so if you persist in defining colors in black and white only then people are going to think that you are simple.

I agree - it is pretty amusing.

Saying something is omg so complex doesnt make it so. But it must be nice to belittle those who disagree with you so you dont have to actually consider their viewpoints. Enjoy what youve got there, it wont last forever - a part of growing up is realizing that the people who disagree with you usually have valid reasons for doing so.

LMAO ok pan - so a man who has sex with another man, in your 'complex' view of sexuality, is still straight?

Enlighten me. Im simple.

I don't know if anyone remembers a singer called Tom Robinson who's now a disc jockey here in the UK (and a very good one too). Back in the eighties he released an anthemic song for the gay movement called "glad to be gay" which was pretty revolutionary for it's time. Now he's married and I assume he's faithful to his wife so lives a heterosexual lifestyle. I don't know what pigeonhole you'd want to put him into and I don't think he cares. He's reconciled being both a gay icon and a married heterosexual, and everyone else should be able to as well.

a part of growing up is realizing that the people who disagree with you usually have valid reasons for doing so.
Except that you have provided no proof that your view of sexuality is, in fact, the only valid one. As opposed to those with more open minds who dont cling to such ridiculously strict definitions of straight and gay, who can either point to themselves or millions of other people who feel and act otherwise.

Your view is closed, and allows no exceptions without being invalidated. I present as evidence many millions of individuals who have had homosexual encounters who do not consider themselves to be gay, and who do not find themselves attracted to the same gender more than the opposite. Therefore, your view is invalidated.

Part of growing up indeed is to know when you are clinging to something because it's easier to deal with.

Hey, I didnt say eating a cow once makes you a carnivore. I said it makes you NOT a vegetarian, just like having sex with a man makes you not straight (assuming you're a man).I understand your perspective now. You are either "pure" and straight, or "tainted", in which case it doesn't matter whether it was one incident or a thousand -- sort of like the Nazi view against blacks, jews, and so on.

Non-bigots see things a little differently, and don't use the pure/tainted distinction. If you experiment with something but don't stick to it, I wouldn't forever hold you to that past action.

Yes, sex is complicated. People have sex for all kinds of reasons, power, bragging rights, hostility, trade, making peace, loneliness, experimentation, fear, acceptance and love. And sometimes they have sex to avoid being killed or beaten up.

You'll never do it, because you need ignorance to maintain your black and white world view, but if you'd read up on the Bonobo apes you'd understand that sex is complicated, even in the animal world.

Aldarion your view would make sense if homo/hetero/bisexuality was a purely mathematic term. As far as the absolutes of numbers are concerned, yes, if intercourse occurs between the same/opposite/both sexes during the course of a person's lifetime, whether it be consensual or not, and you had to put a label on a person under the criteria of "Sex with same sex = 1," "Sex with opposite sex = 2," "Sex with both sexes = 3," then you would have your absolute.

That being said, sexuality is not an absolute. It is rooted in the psyche which is an ever evolving, ever changing thing. <i>Mentality is not absolute</i>. If someone who smokes 2 packs a day quit cold turkey and hasn't smoked for ten years, that person does not, nor would be considered by most people to be classified as a smoker. If a person drinks a 6-pack of beer every day after work they may not consider themselves an alcoholic, but other people may think just that. If a person likes to engage in sexual activities leading up to, but not including the act of penetration with the same or opposite sex, they may not consider that actually having intercourse. If a person raised in a strict environment denied their homosexual nature and lived as a heterosexual all their life, they may still proclaim on their deathbed that they found people of the same sex sexually attractive and declare themselves homosexual without having ever engaged in sexual intercourse with the same sex. People can label others homo/bisexual simply by that person simply implying that they think people of the same sex are attractive even knowing that the person in question has been and is still happily married to a person of the opposite gender.

Not even going to read all the responses here. My opinion as a mililtary member is this.


Gays should be allowed to serve in any military capability so long as privacy can be maintained for all members. What I mean by that is.

1. in military gyms in the mens shower rooms, there is still just a central pillar with shower nozzles coming out of it.

2. military dorms for army and marines often consist of huge dorm room style rooms with huge number of mulitple beds.


ask yourself if you would want your daughter showering with all of the men or sleeping in the same room with 40 men? The reason that men and womens showers and bathrooms is not separate physical requirements, it is a matter of sexual attractions and privacy.

If you would not want your daughter showering with 40 men because they might look at her naked body, then the same thing should apply to homosexuals showering with your son.

For example I work in the Air Force in a job where everyone goes home to thier own bed to sleep every night. If they build privacy showers at the gym, there would be no reason to disallow gays to openly do the same job I do.

The air force should have an easier time with this--except for deployments. the navy would have a harder time with submarines and such where there is no room for privacy in showers and such.

I guess my whole point is if privacy can be maintained, they should be able to serve. If not then privacy should be maintained until we are ready to do away with all privacy for everyone. IE if you force straight military people to shower in a community shower with homosexual people, then do away with separate bathrooms/showers for opposite sexes and jsut have the men and women shower together also.

NOTE: this means I think homosexuals should definitly be allowed in to do my job. building privacy showers is easy and should be done anyhow. most universitys have already done so. There are just some areas where it would be impossible ie submarines etc.

As opposed to those with more open minds
Non-bigots see things a little differently
you need ignorance to maintain your black and white world view
I'm very sorry for the people you folks have to interact with in real life if this is the kind of 'open minded dialogue' you have on a messageboard about a subject that doesnt even affect any of us.

With this level of hatred and closeminded unwillingness to consider the viewpoints of those who disagree with you, youa re going to find the world an exceptionally difficult place as you grow up and ahve to inetract with more and more adults and more people from different backgrounds.

the level of 'dialogue' you three are willing to engage in works well on the playground. Out here in the real world, it doesnt work so well.

Tiane - you need to learn the difference between "I disagree with your viewpoint" and "your viewpoint is therefore invalid".

Tudamorf - No, you dont understand my perspective at all, but thanks for calling me a bigot. I recommend in the future you stick with the analogies your opponents use, rather than making upstrawman analogies. I never compared gay sex to being a Nazi, a morally disgusting pattern of behavior, like you did - I compared it to eating meat, a morally neutral act.

People who eat meat arent vegetarians. Leave the Nazis out of this.

Panamah - Yes, sex is complicated. Even more are the motivations for having sex. However, youll notice that I ahve specifically said the motivations dont matter with regards to classification.

What we are talking about here is a classification scheme. As liberals so often do, many posters in this thred ahve attempted to re-define the term until it is meaningless, to remove all labels. Well, there is value in classification whether liberals are willing to acknowledge this value or not.

Notice how I disagreed with you without calling you ignorant? You might try this.

________________________________________

Folks, Stormhaven nailed it. "Your view would make sense if this was math". It is - classification is all about math. Yes or no, this category or that category, 0 or 1. This is the basis for not just this issue but in fact nearly all rational thought: the notion that different entities are properly classified as more or less like other entities leads inevitably to a classification scheme.

Granite is a rock, not a fruit. Oranges are a fruit, not a person. And Janet Reno is a person, not a rock. there is a reason for classification - it allows words to ahve meanings and enables rational thought.

Stop re-defining words. Straight people dont have sex with members of the same sex.

ask yourself if you would want your daughter showering with all of the men or sleeping in the same room with 40 men?Now ask yourself if you would want your son showering/sleeping in the same room with 40 women. Consider your answer.

With this level of hatred and closeminded unwillingness to consider the viewpoints of those who disagree with you, youa re going to find the world an exceptionally difficult place as you grow up and ahve to inetract with more and more adults and more people from different backgrounds.

I have seen a lot of what you have said Aldarion, and a lot of what everybody else has said. If you are so naive as to think the view you have of the gay and straight community is correct, then I believe it is you that has problems with the closed mind. Ad Nauseam, you compare sexual relationships with eating meat,which in itself is totally ludicrous. Organisms eat to eat, they don't eat because they are better than food, or they feel like they have more power over the food.

You also describe homosexual people as "those people" and "communities," which makes me think that your opinion of homosexual people is nothing short of racism, though I doubt you will ever admit it. Just because a person enjoys something different than the majority, that person is still just that, a person, just like you, just like me, just like everybody in the forum, and just like everybody you see walking down the street. Gather a group of random people and try to pick out if one of them is gay, unless you are gifted with telepathy, I doubt it's possible.

More than a few times, you have just flat out stated that people's opinions are wrong. You provide no reasoning, no background, no evidence as to why they are wrong, only that they disagree with your own opinion. Who is using circular reasoning (http://thedruidsgrove.org/forums/showpost.php?p=156549&postcount=11) now? I encourage you to actually see the true society, not the false superficial society that you have created for yourself.

Open your eyes, a world awaits you.

Now ask yourself if you would want your son showering/sleeping in the same room with 40 women. Consider your answer.
my answer is still no. problems would still occur. would it matter if he worked as the only male in a company with 40 women? I have no problem with that. but showering and sleeping in same room--no thanks. Course I appear to be one of the few who actually believe that the female teachers sleeping with thier 13 year old students are just as guilty of statutory rape as the men. instead society seems to think that is ok and give them small slaps on the wrist because the boys had to have consented while giving the male teachers ten times as long of prison terms. HMMM many of the male teachers who had sex with thier female students probably had consenting partners too. that is why it is statutory rape instead of just rape.<!-- / message -->

ask yourself if you would want your daughter showering with all of the men or sleeping in the same room with 40 men?
And if the answer is different, then that would be a double standard and not appropriate to enshrine in a government institution. I thought the modern military was supposed to reflect the best of us, does that not include morals and ethics as well? As a side note, dont you guys remember in a few SF movies how the military personnel there showered together? Starship Troopers and Aliens come to mind. Nobody made a big deal of it then, as I recall.

"Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?"

"No, have you?"

Love that movie!

---

Aldarion, read what Follun said, then read it again. You still have not provided any evidence or proof that what you say is true. You say it's true, and therefore everyone else is wrong, and because we are wrong, that makes you right. Circular reasoning.

Stop re-defining words. Straight people dont have sex with members of the same sex.
What if YOU were raped by a man, Aldarion? Would that make you gay? Would the mere act of having been raped suddenly change your sexual preference, make you suddenly attracted to the same gender? "Gay" is not "a person who has ever engaged in even one homosexual act". it is used in place of homosexual (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=homosexual) which is defined as:

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
Which quite clearly means that one can engage in an act of homosexual sex and not be a homosexual person. Thats what adjectives do. You are the one that is trying to define the words differently than how pretty much everyone else uses them. Take your own advice, quit the circular reasoning, use some logic. and provide some proof. Otherwise any discussion with you is utterly pointless.

my answer stayed the same Tiane


see the military does treat the sexes different.

ie men have to cut thier hair short(off the ears and above the collar line)--women dont

men cant wear earrings (even though in civialian life this is accepted)--women can

does that mean that the military is discriminating?

should all women in the military have to quit wearing earrings and let the pierced ears grow close and shave thier heads??

Is that the same double standard that is not appropriate in a military institution? It is perfectly fine in the civilian world for men to have long hair and wear earrings but it is ok for the military to insist they cut thier hair and quit wearing earrings for conformity--why dont women in the military have to conform?

why do men in the military have to run a faster mile and half run, do more push ups and more sit ups and pull ups then women? arent we all doing the same job?

there is a double standard--it just might surprise you who it is benefitting though.

No, it doesnt surprise me. I dont think there should be any double standards. I do realize that there are many in place, however, but that doesnt change the fact that I believe they should be removed, no matter who they "benefit." And I'm not convinced that lower or different standards for one gender benefit anyone.

read what Follun said, then read it again
It was hateful tripe the first, second, adn third readings through. Should I make it four? Is it going to change from hate-filled tripe into rational argument on that magical fourth reading?

Tiane - I've said it over and over again and you're still not getting it. I didnt say having gay sex makes you gay (just like eating meat doesnt make you a carnivore) - I said having gay sex makes you not straight (just like eating meat makes you not a vegetarian).

Finally, on matters of opinion like this, there is no 'proof'. You and the rest of the local fundamentalists ahve not provided any for this reason, and neither have I. What I *have* provided is clear logical reasoning, something your side has consistently failed to provide. Instead, you resort to name calling - 'bigot'... 'ignorant'... 'close minded'...

I work with liberals, so its soemthing Im used to. But dont pretend to ahve some kind of logical high ground here - neitehr side has provided proof. the entire argument has consisted of:
1. ME: People who have gay sex arent straight, for reasons X, Y, and Z.
2. Your Side: You are a hater who hates gay people hatefully.
3. Goto 1

Heh! I'd hardly call most of the posters who disagree with you as liberal, Aldarion. You can call me liberal, I am, unabashedly so, but I don't think you could lump Tiane in that category.

Kind of funny how everyone that doesn't agree with you, which is almost everyone, is a liberal.

Abolishing DADT is a characteristically liberal position, and maintaining it is a characteristically conservative position.

I dont think its a stretch at all to lump all DADT opponents into the liberal category, any more than it is to lump all the prayer-in-school supporters into the conservative category. theres very little cross over on some issues.

As for whether 'amost everyone disagrees with me', you dont need to look any farther than the childish insults Ive patiently endured in this single thread to see why people are hesitant to voice any opposition to any element of the gay agenda on a messageboard. I happen to have pretty thick skin. Some people dislike being called ignorant or bigotted for patiently explaining logical and reasonable viewpoints.

But like I said, I work with liberals, so its nothing new for me.

But I assure you - I am not alone. Its just that most conservatives dont have my patience for childish name calling.

Tiane - I've said it over and over again and you're still not getting it. I didnt say having gay sex makes you gay (just like eating meat doesnt make you a carnivore) - I said having gay sex makes you not straight (just like eating meat makes you not a vegetarian).Then by that reasoning, a gay man in the service who has sex with a female, is no longer GAY. He's just not straight. So... in the military he would have nothing to "don't tell".

One thing I DO agree with you on** throughout all this is that you can't label people as "conservative" or "liberal" based on a single issue. Just as changing innate and inbred characteristics can't be done with a single act. And personally I would hate to have you lumped into the "conservative" political category because that's where I am and I would be horribly offended if anyone lumped us together as though we shared similar ideologies. :biggrin:

**edit**
I misread. Guess I don't agree with ANYTHING he says :) *whew* That's a big relief!

I dont think its a stretch at all to lump all DADT opponents into the liberal category

In that case the republican party is going to be in trouble unless it turns liberal. The next generation of voters are likely to be strong supporters of gay rights. According to "USA Today", 72% of those ages 18-29 said homosexual relations should be legal, while 39% of those ages 65 and older approved.

Kind of funny how everyone that doesn't agree with you, which is almost everyone, is a liberal.

I am offended.


/wink


For the record, in case I was not clear in my writing...I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with Aldarion's notions.

As a side note, dont you guys remember in a few SF movies how the military personnel there showered together? Starship Troopers and Aliens come to mind. Nobody made a big deal of it then, as I recall.It's not just in movies. When I was in the dorms in college, both sexes shared a common bathroom for the floor (showers, toilets, and sinks, for about 20-30 people per floor). The showers and toilets had dividers like you'd find in a regular locker room and the sinks were out in the open. No one (male or female) had any trouble with it whatsoever.

And this was 15 years ago, when unisex toilets were extremely rare. Now I see unisex toilets everywhere -- they're clearly more efficient -- so I'd expect even more progress.

If a bunch of college kids can handle the situation maturely, so should a bunch of soldiers, who should theoretically be far more disciplined.

Instead, you resort to name calling - 'bigot'... 'ignorant'... 'close minded'...
Actually I called you none of those things. I referred to "other more open minds" but that isnt calling you "close minded". The closest was my saying that your view is closed. I go out of my way not to personally attack posters, but if I failed to restrain myself somewhere in this thread then I'm sorry.

As for your mincing of words, lets look up straight, aka heterosexual (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?book=Dictionary&va=heterosexual)
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex
You will note that there is nothing mentioned about never ever having a homosexual encounter invalidating or tainting one's "straightness." You can be heterosexual AND have engaged in homosexual sex. It's not either/or. It's defined as your proclivity, your primary attraction, in this case towards the opposite sex, but does not say anything about being ONLY attracted to the opposite. It's not exclusive. If you are defining "straight" as "have never had a homosexual encounter" then your definition is far narrower than the commonly accepted definition, which is "having a primary attraction to the opposite gender."

And I have mentioned evidence. Besides the definitions of the words you insist on redefining, and the rather obvious evidence of the millions or billions of people who are not exclusively straight or gay, what else do you need? Open your eyes. Your rigid definitions of human sexuality fly in the face of objective fact. Ask your friends, your family, look around... there's a whole spectrum of behaviour, and there always has been... it's not even confined to humans. Many animals engage in homosexual antics, like young dolphins, even though those same animals will go on to be perfectly normal parents in whatever family unit is standard for the species (if there is one.)

This isnt "both sides have not offered evidence." This is you have not offered any evidence to back up your claim that having engaged in a homosexual act makes you "not straight" when the very definition of the word means merely a tendency.

It's got nothing to do with political bias, and everything to do with looking at the facts. And you never did answer my question about what if you were raped by another man. Well? What if? Would that make you gay? Just answer the question.

As for my own politics, I think your current American definitions of Liberal and Conservative are just way too whacked these days. One triumph of the right wing in your country has been to turn liberal into a perjorative, and equated with things that have traditionally had nothing to do with being a liberal or a Liberal. (Canucks might get that...)

I am a socially liberal person, I'm also fiscally conservative, believe in a strong military, taxes as low as possible, socialized medicine, welfare, personal responsibility (that's not at odds with the government giving a helping hand, you know), and several other things which would seem to contradict themselves if one lets themselves be defined as *only* liberal or *only* conservative. And certainly one should not blind oneself to the facts just because they dont fit with the views of one's political affiliation.

You cant let yourself be defined by other people's words. Look at the evidence, open your eyes and your mind, and decide for yourself. And that goes for both sexuality and politics.

But like I said, I work with liberals, so its nothing new for me.

Of course you do, since everyone who disagrees with you is liberal, I'd bet a large part of the world's population is liberal in your estimation. Why the hell didn't all those freakin' liberals vote for Kerry? Geez... I'm gonna have to talk to the clan.

Then by that reasoning, a gay man in the service who has sex with a female, is no longer GAY. He's just not straight. So... in the military he would have nothing to "don't tell".


LOL! Actually, by this reasoning, if a gay man has sex with a woman he would be "Not Gay", since a straight man having sex with a man is "not straight".

This is progress! We can now represent white, not-white, black and not-black. OMG, the complexity!

Interesting read - a lot of good points made here!

I think people need to respect one another's opinions. As I understand that, it means not trying to convince people you are right, and accepting other's views, even if you don't agree with them.

Abolishing DADT is a characteristically liberal position, and maintaining it is a characteristically conservative position.

I dont think its a stretch at all to lump all DADT opponents into the liberal category, any more than it is to lump all the prayer-in-school supporters into the conservative category. theres very little cross over on some issues.
Aldarion, this is clear evidence of how closed-minded you are. At times I am an absolute flaming liberal but I find abortion morally reprehensible (although I am pro-choice in certain situations like rape/incest/danger to the mother's life). I also agree with some conservative fiscal policies, though not Bush's, and there are other issues on which I wouldn't side with liberals as if I was blind and brainwashed. Human beings are remarkably complicated, and we are not necessarily going to take the same side on every single issue. If I had a gun to my head and somebody told me to say if I was liberal or conservative, I would say liberal. But in the everyday reality of life, you can't label people with restrictive terms because they will break the mold every time.

why people are hesitant to voice any opposition to any element of the gay agenda
What exactly is the "Gay Agenda?" If anything there is a human agenda to ensure equal rights and equal treatment for all groups of people. You make it sound like gay people are plotting world domination.

having gay sex makes you not straight
The converse of this logic is that having straight sex makes you not gay. So if a gay man has sex with a woman once, he should be allowed to join the army because he is not necessarily straight but not gay either?

Tiane - you need to learn the difference between "I disagree with your viewpoint" and "your viewpoint is therefore invalid".
Hmm I wonder how you can say that when you said these exact words directed at me:

There are arguments to be made for and against DADT - but the one presented by the author and defended by you is circular and invalid.Number one, youre wrong
Yay hypocrisy!

Liberals cn spin the terms all they wantAs liberals so often do, many posters in this thred ahve attempted to re-define the term until it is meaningless, to remove all labels.Well, there is value in classification whether liberals are willing to acknowledge this value or not.I work with liberalsAbolishing DADT is a characteristically liberal positionthe liberal category

Is it easier for you to feel confident in your viewpoints by calling everyone who disagrees with you liberals and treating them as if they are inferior and on a different level than you? Do you realize that just because someone has a progressive viewpoint about something, it doesn't mean they can be categorized and lumped together with everyone else who has a progressive viewpoint about something? You speak of "liberals" as if they are a group of outsiders of whom you have a full understanding of their principles and reasons for why they think the way they do. I'm not going to call it bigoted, but it is certainly generalization, stereotyping, and just plain ignorance.

Your only defense seems to be that there are other unfair gender-based policies in the military. I'm sorry, but you can't defend something that is wrong by saying there are other things that are wrong. Yes, everyone should be able to have their hair long or wear earrings. It's called existing, and we aren't allowed to do it very freely these days. It is my opinion that the military would be better off if they had highly-trained individuals rather than highly-trained carbon copies.

But, of course, that is just my opinion.

:dh2:

As I understand that, it means not trying to convince people you are right, and accepting other's views, even if you don't agree with them.

That would hardly make for a spirited debate, now would it?

And I'm sorry, but there are some views out there I find so wrong that I'll probably be arguing about them on my death-bed.

Can you imagine if the world took that view with Hitler and Germany? "Well, they're entitled to their views about genocide."

Wow! This thread is MORE than mind boggling.

Gay is not a choice one makes, . .

I respectfully disagree with you Arienne. I've not seen one shred of evidence to support the assurtion that homosexuals are born "gay". Quite the contrary, sexual activity (consentual) is most definitely a choice.

Really...?

Not a single shred? (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=homosexuality+genetic+dna&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search)

Really...?

Not a single shred? (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=homosexuality+genetic+dna&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search)

Evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality in humans remains controversial (Pillard and Weinrich 1986; Bailey and Pillard 1991; Bailey and Benishay 1993; Bailey et al 1993; Hamer et al 1993; Risch et al 1993; Haynes 1995; Hu et al 1995; Rice et al 1999). It is clear that psychological, sociological and environmental influences also play a part (e.g. Werner 1979).

and

There is no clear indication of the location in the human genome, of any genes predisposing to homosexuality. The best candidate is the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome, but the evidence for this is still not absolutely convincing (Hamer et al 1993, Hu et al 1995; Rice et al 1999).

The websites listed in google (see Panamah's link) are full of theories and speculations. And the so-called "evidence" isn't exactly concrete. I contest that homosexuality has more to do with "psychological, sociological and environmental influences" than some mysterious "gay" gene some think they are born with.

IF a person could possibly be "born gay" then why stop there? Why shouldn't we say that Pedophiles are born with a "pedophile" gene? Once again, why stop there, how about Bestiality or Necrophilia?

Let's not stop at sex, let's get biggoted because surely there's enough evidence to support the claim that since there are more minorities (blacks, hispanics, etc) in prison that they must carry a criminal gene.
What happens when everyone stops taking personal responsibility for their own actions and starts blaming there genes/dna?? No reason for us to say "the devil made me do it!" No, just say "God made me this way." Heck, some of those crazy right-wing Christians you hate so much might even agree with you Pan, I think they call it SIN. Every person ever born, inherited the original sin gene.

I respectfully disagree with you Arienne. I've not seen one shred of evidence to support the assurtion that homosexuals are born "gay". Quite the contrary, sexual activity (consentual) is most definitely a choice.I would thank you NOT to put words in my mouth. I stated that gay is not a choice. I never stated that it was proven to be a genetic trait.

I would thank you NOT to put words in my mouth. I stated that gay is not a choice. I never stated that it was proven to be a genetic trait.

Actually I anticipated you might take it personally. That's why I didn't say "your assurtion" but rather "the assurtion . . ." Forgive me if I somehow insinuated or "put words in (your) mouth." That was not my intent. My intent was to show that on the one hand, I and others like me believe homosexuality is a choice while on the other hand there are others who believe a person is born in that state and therefore didn't choose it. Are you suggesting there is a 3rd viewpoint? If so, then please share it with us.

Just so we are clear. When you say "Gay is not a choice one makes . . ." (your words, not mine) I took that to mean that you believed homosexuality was character trait, kinda like the character traits one has at birth. Please correct me if you believe I am wrong in my interpretation of your words.

If being gay is a choice, then it stands to follow that sexuality as a whole (and therefore being 'straight') is a choice. So when did you "decide" to become heterosexual?

and



The websites listed in google (see Panamah's link) are full of theories and speculations. And the so-called "evidence" isn't exactly concrete. I contest that homosexuality has more to do with "psychological, sociological and environmental influences" than some mysterious "gay" gene some think they are born with.

There were 10 pages of references (scholar.google.com rocks) there and you chose two out of it that support your conclusion. You better stick to rocket science because I think genetics might not be your thing.

I would be highly surprised in there was a gey gene, or even if there was one that it accounted for more than 10% of the gay and bisexual population. I'm sure that a lot of people want there to be a gay gene, and a lot of people are looking for a gay gene, but a lot of people might be disappointed when the full evidence rolls in. It would in fact be a blessing to society if there wasn't one, so we wouldn't have to face the spectre of people parents aborting "gay" babies before they're even born.

I doubt there's a "gay gene" too. Its probably like anything genetic, if you have a particular genetic code you will have a tendency towards something, but that doesn't 100% guarantee that it will happen. For instance, my extended family has a strong genetic tendency towards thyroid diseases, but not everyone with that genetic code will get a thyroid disease. So there is either some element of chance or else something environmental that also influences whether or not we'll develop thyroid issues. But we're far more likely to do so than most people are.

There are a lot of genes that control things, so if one gene is active it might mean you have a 20% greater chance of developing breast cancer. However, they're finding other genetic sequences that also affect it. It isn't quite as simple as a light switch, which is how I think most people think of genetics and why terms like "gay gene" are so insufficient to describe what the genetic tendencies in anything.

How can an aspect of reproduction, ie sex, not have a genetic component?

Reproduction and genetics are bound together, definitionally. That is like a major doyism.

I think the fear of acceptance from the gay community(or liberal guilt community) that homosexuality has a gene is inherently tied to the possibility of...

1) If there is a gene, then it can be marked
2) If marked then it can be determined by genetic tests if even fetuses will grow up to be homosexual.
3) That the fear of selective/prophylactic abortions of homosexual fetuses would result.

Other than that, I see no reason why the homosexual community is diametrically opposed(or at least eschews) to the notion that homosexuality is a genetic trait.

If being gay is a choice, then it stands to follow that sexuality as a whole (and therefore being 'straight') is a choice. So when did you "decide" to become heterosexual?

I have always been heterosexual, my earliest memories/fantasies were from 5 years old. Yet, I did not even know what occured in the sexual act(how parts fit together). I just knew I wanted HER, and that SHE somehow would relieve the pressure and tension that I felt. This part was innate. I have always had an innate 'meter' of female attractiveness.

Taboo and social pressure prevented me from experiencing heterosexual sex at that age. This part is social. I had no innate attration to males, and had no innate 'meter' of male attractiveness.

Taboo and social pressure also caused me to decide not to experience homosexual activity, because that would jeopardize my future heterosexual activity. This part is social. Negative social outcomes are powerful enough to prevent experimentation, for many.

As a male, opportunity plays JUST as big a part, if not more so, in forming sexual orientation than inclination. Just because you WANT to, don't mean you get to-lesson learned early in life(at least for me).

So... my dog (spayed female) wants to hunch my leg from time to time. IF I were to allow it would she be:
1) gay?
or
2) human and gay?

I see female calves in the pasture trying to mount cows from time to time... I also see male calves trying the same.
1) Are the female calves gay?
2) And if the female calf eventually produces an offspring, would that mean that she was converted to "not gay" or was she never gay to begin with?

The other day I saw a yearling cow in the same pasture with a horse. I didn't look too closely so I have no idea whether the horse was male or female. Nevermind that, the yearling was trying to mount the horse. After reading this thread I am not sure whether the cow is gay, or is really a horse, or both.

Sexuality isn't as cut and dried as some here seem to wish it was. It isn't "a feeling" that is automatic. Learning about sexuality is a natural process and often one of "trial and error". The only "RIGHT" is a standard placed by members of society and the definition of "RIGHT" is a moving target. It's too bad that it's become a political issue, but it seems that the govenrment gets closer to your and my bedrooms every day.

The US government funded research into gay rams. They were male rams that would not mount female rams. It appears that homosexuality and just different sexuality is a part of just about every species.

If being gay is a choice, then it stands to follow that sexuality as a whole (and therefore being 'straight') is a choice. So when did you "decide" to become heterosexual?
I'm sure my answers have been a bit simplistic. Obviously, ones sexuality is more complex than just simply saying "I choose to be straight or I choose to be gay". If that were the case then you could be straight one day and gay the next, in which case you'd be bi-sexual in reality. My belief is that we are all born "straight" and that through "psychological, sociological and environmental influences" a person can be led (by choice) into a deviant lifestyle.

There were 10 pages of references (scholar.google.com rocks) there and you chose two out of it that support your conclusion. You better stick to rocket science because I think genetics might not be your thing.
LOL, despite our different viewpoints, I appreciate your humor. You don't honestly expect me to post quotes from all "10 pages of references" do you? I merely summarized what I read. And for the most part those 10 pages on scholar.google.com didn't all address our current topic. For example, on page 10 their is a pdf document that mentions the keywords "homosexuality", "genetic" and "dna" but the paper wasn't specifically about that subject (as a matter of fact it was about ID of all things! DNA By Design (http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock*DNADesign.pdf). So just because you do a google search on those terms doesn't necessarilly mean all 10 pages are going to be relevant.
I doubt there's a "gay gene" too. Its probably like anything genetic, if you have a particular genetic code you will have a tendency towards something, but that doesn't 100% guarantee that it will happen. For instance, my extended family has a strong genetic tendency towards thyroid diseases, but not everyone with that genetic code will get a thyroid disease. So there is either some element of chance or else something environmental that also influences whether or not we'll develop thyroid issues. But we're far more likely to do so than most people are.

There are a lot of genes that control things, so if one gene is active it might mean you have a 20% greater chance of developing breast cancer. However, they're finding other genetic sequences that also affect it. It isn't quite as simple as a light switch, which is how I think most people think of genetics and why terms like "gay gene" are so insufficient to describe what the genetic tendencies in anything.
I actually AGREE with you Panamah. My family (on my Dad's side) has a history of diabetes but as you said "that doesn't 100% guarantee that it will happen" to me (even though both my Dad and brother have diabetes).
I Can Use Google Too! (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=diabetes+genetic+dna) :smile:

1) If there is a gene, then it can be marked
2) If marked then it can be determined by genetic tests if even fetuses will grow up to be homosexual.
3) That the fear of selective/prophylactic abortions of homosexual fetuses would result.
And this is one of the reasons I lean more toward it being an individual choice rather than a genetic trait. If it turns out to be a genetic trait then what's to stop people from doing what Fyyr mentioned above?

deviant - n. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
adj : markedly different from an accepted norm; "aberrent behavior"; "deviant ideas" [syn: aberrant] n : a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior.

It is my opinion that if there is a "homosexual agenda" then that "agenda" is to distance themselves and their "alternate lifestyle" from the "deviant" category.

I was in fact thinking that it was the gay community pushing the research for a gay gene, but I may be wrong. It would give a lot of strength to the gay rights movement if it's shown that homosexuality is a natural genetic trait in the human race.

And this is one of the reasons I lean more toward it being an individual choice rather than a genetic trait. If it turns out to be a genetic trait then what's to stop people from doing what Fyyr mentioned above?

Well it is the sort of moral issue is part of the burden of unraveling genetics. So far we don't abort the fetuses that have a predisposition to diabetes, or thyroid problems, because, like I said before, just because you have the gene doesn't mean you'll develop it. It just means you're more likely to.

Of course, if homosexuality is viewed as being a natural variation of human sexuality then why would anyone wish to abort that child? Perhaps the real problem isn't unraveling the genetics of homosexuality but figuring out how to get people to understand that it is normal and natural if not typical. Sort of like red-hair and left-handedness is normal but not typical.

Saying it is a "choice" is also unfair because it makes the assumption that a homosexual can change their mind.

if homosexuality is viewed as being a natural variation of human sexuality then why would anyone wish to abort that child?

Grandchildren. Wanting grandchildren is as human a condition as wanting children.

...And this is one of the reasons I lean more toward it being an individual choice rather than a genetic trait. If it turns out to be a genetic trait then what's to stop people from doing what Fyyr mentioned above?

Well, that is just silly.

Just because you know that people in general can not handle the truth, does not mean that you do not seek it. It is not like you get to choose or lean one way or another in this case and still have science.

...Saying it is a "choice" is also unfair because it makes the assumption that a homosexual can change their mind.

That assumption only pains you or causes issue, because you know that there are those who wish to change homosexuals to heterosexuals.

That does not make it a wrong posit either.

Just because you do not like the outcome or reaction to that knowledge or science does not mean that it is not true.

Most heterosexuals(almost all that I have polled) choose to have only heterosexual sex. Negative social consequences make it painful and stressful to experiment with homosexuality. Bad things happen to homosexuals. Simply put, a male knows by the age of 6 or 7, that he reduces his prospective mating pool of heterosexual sex when he engages in homosexual behavior. Well, at least I did.

Then you have the issue with anal sex, how many of you women here who enjoy anal sex tell your girlfriends, or prospective boyfriends that you like it in the butt, "EWWW, grosss!". That negative social consequence is the same that males have regarding anal sex and homosexuality. That IS social. Do the "Sex in the City" girls gossip about how good the butt sex was the night before, and how many orgasms they got from it? That is social.

Hell, oral sex taboo itself was pretty oppressive up until just recently(20 years or so). "Oh my god, he made you do WHAT?". "You mean he really wanted you to do that?" "He wanted to do that in your mouth, eww gross".

Or worse still, how many of you enjoy it; and never tell anyone because you are afraid that your friends will think lower of you. Or that you will reduce your heterosexual mating pool, "Will that cute guy think I'm a slut?/ Will he marry me if he knows I like butt sex?"/

You can't tell me that oral and anal sex taboo, do not have a direct correlation with homosexual sex taboo itself.

Grandchildren. Wanting grandchildren is as human a condition as wanting children.
Good point. Take VP Cheney and his wife for example. For the longest time they denied their daughter was a lesbian. But now they say they "love" and "accept" her as their daughter. But I have to wonder if they were given the choice, would they choose abortion over having an openly gay daughter (and the knowledge they won't have grandkids by her). (sarcasm on) I mean, common all you "pro-choice" advocates, if you're telling us the truth, then it's just a "fetus" and not really a child so it's "ok" to abort it, since it's not really human. I mean really, what better way to eliminate the problem of homosexuality than to destroy it before it even has a chance to be born! (/sarcasm off)

Ref: "Dick Cheney's wife, Lynn, tried furiously to make the issue go away during a July 30 appearance on ABC's "This Week." When Cokie Roberts attempted to ask about the "daughter who has now declared she is openly gay," Cheney didn't even let her finish the question.


"Mary has never declared such a thing," Lynn Cheney snapped. "I have two wonderful daughters. I love them very much. They are bright. They are hard working. They are decent. And I simply am not going to talk about their personal lives. And I'm surprised, Cokie, that even you would want to bring it up."

I keep seeing the word "straight" being used to define heterosexual. To me, that is just silly. That implies that anything other than "normal" (some might call boring) missionary penis-into-vagina sex is "bent". I think that sexual preference, whether the acts themselves or whom we choose to perform them with/on, is each person's individual right, and shouldn’t be definable as right or wrong by anyone else’s standards. I also don't see how those preferences thereby determine what he/she is, by and large. Humans are way too diverse to label so simplistically.

Similar to what Fyyr was saying about women and their sexual taboos, the same can be applied to men. How many men enjoy "experimenting" with anal sex, or group sex situations? Does that make a man homosexual because he allows his mate (whatever their gender is) to perform anal sex on them? No. I think it is about finding pleasure in different situations. It does not make anyone gay, "straight", homosexual or heterosexual. It makes them aware of what they enjoy and not afraid to participate in it.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> <o =""></o>As for wanting children and grandchildren, just because someone has decided to be in a same-sex relationship doesn’t mean that there cannot be children. In today’s scientifically advanced world, anyone can be impregnated, without the act of male-female contact.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o =""></o>What started this whole discussion was whether people who define themselves as ‘homosexual’ should be allowed to remain in the military where it has been ‘outlawed’. In my opinion, there should be no relativity to how or with whom you have sex in regards to whether you are fit to defend your country. I have met too many “straight” heterosexuals who, to be flat honest, had we been in a foxhole together, I would have shot them myself and saved the enemy some effort.

Sexuality does not determine what makes a person worthy, that is something that can only be determined by their personal strengths, or lack thereof.

Grandchildren. Wanting grandchildren is as human a condition as wanting children.Gay couples often have children (obviously, only one of the couple is a genetic donor). Straight couples often do <i>not</i> have children (birth control).

From a scientific, I-want-to-see-my-genes-pass-through-the-ages perspective, your child only contributes half the genetic code in any event, so even if he/she is gay, he can pass on precisely the same amount of genetic material.

Next red herring, please!

And, to continue with my previous question of allowing a person’s sexual actions/choices to determine whether they are worthy of being a soldier…why stop at sexual preference? What about all those men/women who break other social-sexual taboos such as adultery? I remember being in the military during the Clinton scandal. Heck, if we can keep a president/commander in chief who breaks society’s sexual laws, why can’t we have soldiers who do the same? Good for the goose, good for the gander, I always say.

"Worthy of being a soldier" is not the reason gays are not allowed (openly) in the military, at least that is not the reason the military states.

"The official justification for the new policy (DADT) is the unit cohesion rationale, the notion that if known gays and lesbians were allowed to serve, unit cohesion, performance, readiness and morale would decline."

I got this from this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11453513&dopt=Citation) abstract.

I think that once the population of our country isn't as homophobic, then the above justification won't hold as much ground, and the military probably will let openly homosexual people in the military.

At that point, whether being homosexual is "natural" or not, won't really matter, will it?

I, personally, believe that people do make the choice to be homosexual. I also believe that anal sex is unnatural and unhealthy, but that's just my belief.

It is an interesting question - "when do people chose to be heterosexual?"

I think that being heterosexual is natural to people. I can't really give a good arguement of why I believe this. For me, it's simple, that's how God made us (please don't go and call me a conservative, dermit!).

Just a quick note - in response to Panamah (I think it was you :), I'm too lazy to look) - Respecting other people's views on this forum, under this discussion thread doesn't mean we can't have a good debate. Several direct attacks were made at people (people on both sides of the arguement) that could almost be equated to a flame fest.

I'm sure you didn't mean this literally, but people stating thier opinions on the Druids Grove message board is far from the atrocities committed by Hitler. I can see how this can apply, when you think of homosexuality as being something from nature - but the way I see it, it's not. Persecuting people because of how they were made them is wrong. Which is why I see a difference.

Because this is the United States of America though, I don't think our government has the right to disciminate against anyone, for any reason, as long as they are not hurting or oppressing someone else. Even though I believe it is unnatural to be homosexual, the government doesn't have the right to make that distinction... at least not in this country.

Gay couples often have children (obviously, only one of the couple is a genetic donor). Straight couples often do not have children (birth control).

The strange arrangements made by gay couples to have children are still an exception, not a rule. If the average number of children for gay couples is found, and compared to the average for heterosexual couples, I expect you might just notice the difference. I also expect very few states allow gay couples to adopt children. The issue is not a red herring at all.

Grandchildren. Wanting grandchildren is as human a condition as wanting children.

Being homosexual doesn't exclude having children any more than being sterile or unable to conceive does. I have some friends (heterosexual couple) who are doing the whole IVF, surrogacy thing. Unfortunately "her" genes won't be included in the resulting child because she had to have a hysterectomy. But they will have children! (Twins most likely!)

So would you imagine that people would abort a child because it would be unlikely to father or mother children? I had imagined that we'd gone a little beyond the days of putting aside a wife because she isn't producing offspring in a timely manner!

"Honey, you're 15 years old and you still have conceived! I'm afraid you're going to have to be replaced!"

I myself would have been aborted as a disappointing daughter because I didn't feel up to the task of being a mother. Sorry Mom.

I'm sure you didn't mean this literally, but people stating thier opinions on the Druids Grove message board is far from the atrocities committed by Hitler. I can see how this can apply, when you think of homosexuality as being something from nature - but the way I see it, it's not. Persecuting people because of how they were made them is wrong. Which is why I see a difference.


You sort of missed the point. My fault, I'm sure I could have used a better example. I was making the point that there are some concepts that are so reprehensible that I wouldn't just "agree to disagree". For instance, if we were discussing "white supremacy" or reinstituting slavery or segregation, I'd be very vehement and vigorous in my discussion about those matters. I would feel morally superior to my opponent in the debate and I would feel like I wasn't doing my part if I didn't make my position against those thoughts known and tackle any points made for those issues. Allowing ideas like that to go unopposed is almost as bad as approving of them.

You may choose to disagree, but I feel that we are persecuting homosexuals, not to the level as we did to blacks, for the most part, but it is happening. We are certainly segregating them; and by denying them marriage, disallowing adoption or reproduction, discussing aborting fetuses if there is ever identified gay genetic traits, we're venturing into talk of practicing eugenics against a specific human trait. Yikes! Yes, I do find that pretty shocking and I will debate it.

The strange arrangements made by gay couples to have children are still an exception, not a rule.First, get your facts straight, same-sex couples with children isn't "strange" at all:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=271269==============
PARENTING
=============
Percentage of same-sex couples with their own children in the household: 30%
Percentage of all households in US with own children: 48.2%
Second, with families, there is no "rule". Whether it's a same-sex or opposite-sex couple, if they want to have children, they can have them. (If they live in some backwards bible belt state, I sympathize -- I suggest moving to a state that has, at least, embraced the 20th century.)

The issue is certainly a red herring, once you remove ignorance as a factor.

That figure "with own children in the household" is saying something different from just whether the couple have offspring, maybe, it's strange wording? You've also got to consider that in a heterosexual couple both people will usually be genetic parents, but in a homosexual couple there would often just be one genetic parent. Anyway the figures probably do still show how much divorce, artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc have changed family units over the last 50 years. By the time any hypothetical gay gene is found they will have probably changed even more.

So would you imagine that people would abort a child because it would be unlikely to father or mother children? I had imagined that we'd gone a little beyond the days of putting aside a wife because she isn't producing offspring in a timely manner!

Anyone with living grandchildren would say that they're priceless. I wouldn't rule out people aborting children for that reason, although it might be the same sort of people who'd kill their own daughters if the refused an arranged marraige, say, which does happen in the real world.

First, get your facts straight, same-sex couples with children isn't "strange" at all:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=271269
Second, with families, there is no "rule". Whether it's a same-sex or opposite-sex couple, if they want to have children, they can have them. (If they live in some backwards bible belt state, I sympathize -- I suggest moving to a state that has, at least, embraced the 20th century.)

The issue is certainly a red herring, once you remove ignorance as a factor.

"backwards bible belt state? Psst, your bigotry is showing. Oh btw, I live in Tulsa, Oklahoma (the BUCKLE of the Bible Belt) and we're in the 21st century. Just an FYI. You might be interested in the following website.
ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm) and homosexuality (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm)

I wouldn't rule out people aborting children for that reason, although it might be the same sort of people who'd kill their own daughters if the refused an arranged marraige, say, which does happen in the real world.

Well, I had assumed we were confining our conversation to the US, UK, great Europe. If you want to include countries that do things like kill baby girls (wrong gender) or burn brides or rape women to punish their families, then they're probably not ready to deal with issues of gay rights. They're also not at the point of scientific or economic development where they could screen fetuses for genes. In fact, for the most part, we don't routinely screen fetuses either unless there is a damn good reason to, like a hieritable deadly disease or something.

You've also got to consider that in a heterosexual couple both people will usually be genetic parents, but in a homosexual couple there would often just be one genetic parent.
Which brings up another dilemma for SSM with children, divorce. You think divorce is bad between OSM with children (who get's custody, alimony, visitation rights, etc.) but in SSM I would imagine only the genetic parent would gain sole custody and their "partner" wouldn't have any rights (yes/no)? I'm not familiar with family law but this would be my first impression. Any legal experts out there?


ssm = same sex marriage
osm = opposite sex marriage

Not an expert, but both parents in the same sex marriage would be legal guardians, or however it would be phrased, no? If so, then I'd hope they'd have equal rights, and the fight over who gets the child would be the same?

It would depend upon adoption laws. In cases of divorce and remarriage or single parent's that have a new spouse it is somewhat common for the new spouse to adopt their spouses children. In such a case if a divorce would result in a custody battle both partners would have legal claim to the child no matter who is the biological parent. I'm not familar enough with adoption laws to know whether a child can have 2 legal parents of the same gender, but I don't think they can at least not in most states.

The reason why I don't think so is that a same sex couple that I know have gone through some processes to legalize their family connections. Both had children previously to their relationship and they have since had a daughter with one of the couples previous partners. They are currently working on having the third child adopted by that same previous spouse so that if something happens all children will have the same legal family and connections. I believe that this is their only option as they would have adopted each others children if possible.

In fact, for the most part, we don't routinely screen fetuses either unless there is a damn good reason to, like a hieritable deadly disease or something.

Pre-natal tests are done in just about every case.

Amniocentesis is recommended for all mothers over the age of 35. Fetuses are screened for many genetic defects with this procedure, for the expressed and implicit purpose of aborting them if they are defective. This IS routine, just not talked about much.

Here is a cool technology. You will see more of this in the future.
GE 4D Sonogram (http://www.gehealthcare.com/usen/ultrasound/4d/virtual.html)

...when you think of homosexuality as being something from nature - but the way I see it, it's not.

How can it not be from Nature?

All you have to do is open your eyes to see it, the world is FULL of homosexual and bisexual animals. Which are natural, just like we are.

I think that being heterosexual is natural to people. I can't really give a good arguement of why I believe this. For me, it's simple, that's how God made us (please don't go and call me a conservative, dermit!).
Actually, heterosexual = "right" and homosexual = "wrong" is a religious affectation that became a common social belief. Many religious beliefs have been a part of "acceptable" social behaviors for hundreds of years. And most if not all revolve around procreation which is reinforced by the "traditional" family. Women being relegated to "second class" in the workplace has always been due to the belief that our REAL function is supposed to be bearing and rearing the children. It's true that perpetuation of the human race depends on heterosexual procreation, but we don't take couples out and shoot them if they choose not to have children. We don't dispose of heterosexuals who CAN'T produce children. I know that I'm thankful I have had the ability AND tools to make a choice in my life as to whether I would have children or not.

I think our population has become strong enough (read large enough) to allow and support freedom of choice for sexual preferences, orientations, or whatever you want to call it. "Family" is evolving into loving relationships and is no longer based on coupling to perpetuate a lineage. I see no reason why I should be permitted to have a personal relationship that I can discuss openly if I choose and some of my friends should not.


The reason amnio is recommended for women over 35 is due to a higher risk factor for producing down's syndrome children. But if you notice, the testing has NOT eliminated down's syndrome in our world. Also, nowadays amnio can be used to make other determinations about the fetus as well, but amnio is always a choice and only recommended in specific instances. It's not considered SOP for pregnancy in general. But it does offer potential parents the ability to make a choice. As with any other choices in life, not everyone follows the same path.

I'm not gonna get into "The cost of banning gays in the military". I don't have time to read the majority of this thread.

This is a very exciting time for politics and freedom. The Gay Marriage issue is this generations' contraversial issue regarding the boundary of freedom. Our society is made up of lots of different ideologies and those beliefs tend to determine what our laws are. As history has shown, the majority groups pass the laws based upon their beliefs. Rich white men passed laws allowing slavery and preventing women from voting (1700's, 1800's). White americans voted for segregation(1800's, 1900's). Religious majority has voted for alcohol bans (1900's). Can you believe that there was actually a constitutional amendment that banned the consumption of alcohol?

But have these laws maintained themselves? They can't in our society because they violate a persons right of equality. We have this little piece of paper attached to our constitution that ensures us all of certain rights. It's called the Bill of Rights. It also acts as a check and balance to prevent majority groups from passing laws that would violate or take rights away from minority groups. We aren't allowed to oppress those that are different. We might as well elect Saddam as our president if we do so because we would be no better than him.

In the cases above, each of those laws were enacted because the majority group wanted it. They felt that their moral beliefs should be exercised by the entire nation and so passed a law that forced others to follow their path. In each of those case, though, those laws were eventually stuck down because they were in violation of certain peoples freedom. Currently in our society, the majority groups (religious-types and conservatives in this case) are passing laws banning gay marriage. It's only a matter of time before these laws are ruled unconstitutional by our courts, just like segregation was. It is already happening in places like Boston and San Francisco.

Liberals definition of freedom: The ability to live your life the way you best see fit.

Conservatives definition of freedom: The ability to live your life the way you see fit; just as long as the majority of the population approves of your choices.

If being gay is a choice, then it stands to follow that sexuality as a whole (and therefore being 'straight') is a choice. So when did you "decide" to become heterosexual?
No, that doesnt stand to reason at all.

People are born with the default propensities: to like sweet foods, dislike spicy-hot foods, and, at puberty, begin to be attracted sexually to the opposite sex.

Some people choose to try hot foods and end up liking them - a choice becomes a preference. Likewise, some people choose to try anal sex, and like it - a choice becomes a preference.

The problem with your assertion is the fact that people are in fact born with natural, hard-wired preferences, but others develop later in life.

I've heard a lot of parents of gays talk about how their child was "different" from very, very early in life. For lots of them, they find out their child is gay and the light bulb comes on and they realize that it makes sense in light of their child's early behavior and characteristics.

Besides, do animals make choices about their sexuality?

But using your analogy... there are some people that absolutely cannot stand certain vegetables, like broccoli. It turns out that they taste a chemical in those veggies that most of us can't. They are called "super-tasters". So, is it a choice? Well... I don't know that they could ever train themselves not to taste that particular chemical or to enjoy it. I wouldn't really call that a choice. They're born with their food preferences.

Let me be clear - I actually think, from all the conversations Ive had with gay friends, that people who grow up to be gay 'flipped the switch' VERY early in life. As you suggest, Panamah, I think something was different very early.

My point was to debunk faulty logic. The fact that some preferences are hard-wired does not mean all are: it is quite well established that some preferences (such as hot, spicy food) only develop later in life. These result from the decision to experiemnt with spicy foods and the discovery that now they like them. the point is that comapring this aquired preference to the natural, hard-wired prefrence for sweet foods would be inapproriate, just as comparing heterosexuality (hard-wired default prefrence) with homosexuality (aquired preference) would be invalid.

the point is that you cannot prove all tastes are hard-wired by illustrating one that is - this just proves SOME are.

I think that homosexuality actually arises from environmental influences during early development. But this is unimportant, in the end. What is important is that people retain the ability to make their own decisions about what they should do in life, rather than succumbing to the notion that the temptations youa re susceptible to define who you are. Children born to alcholics, who decide not to drink, are not 'being untrue to themselves' by not drinking. Likewise, if a person is curious about gay sex but decides they think engaging in such activities would be wrong, they are not 'being untrue to themselves'.

Hmmm... Well, I will agree with you that it is very difficult to tell how much of any given trait is environmental and how much is genetic. It might very well vary from person to person.

Most humans are sexual. There's a percentage that just have absolutely no interest whatsoever... they're the ones I always think are hot usually. :p

I think that homosexuality actually arises from environmental influences during early development. But this is unimportant, in the end.

And probably wrong. It is interesting that in twin studies, where twins are raised apart, if one twin is gay the other one has a higher probability of being gay as well. Also, why are some children gay and others not, of the same family? Sure there are differences in how children are raised, but the differences are probably not that large to influence someone's sexuality. What... Mom & Dad show gay **** to the 3rd child and not the other 3? Seems a little unlikely. What evidence is there at homosexuality is environmental?

What is important is that people retain the ability to make their own decisions about what they should do in life, rather than succumbing to the notion that the temptations youa re susceptible to define who you are.

Well now wait... Everyone knows that broccoli is very, very good for you. Yet I sinecerely doubt that everyone could decide to overcome their aversion to it and eat it anyway.

I think what you're suggesting is that "gay people" should refrain from being sexual because it offends you. If you're taking that position, then maybe you should also insist that old people should refrain from being sexual because the thought of them having sex offends you as well. (I wouldn't have been born though, because my parents were old-ish when I was conceived!)

Surely you're not suggesting that homosexuals should have sex with people they don't want to have sex with to pacify your sensibilities?

In the end, does it matter wether it's a choice or something you're born with though? Is deciding this even relevant to answering the question of what rights should or should not be granted?

Liberals definition of freedom: The ability to live your life the way you best see fit.

Conservatives definition of freedom: The ability to live your life the way you see fit; just as long as the majority of the population approves of your choices.
I would disagree

liberals are pushing for gun control. if they are all for the right to live life the way you best see fit, then why should they get to determine if I own a certain type of gun. trust me liberals are just as much about restricting rights as conservatives. they each push thier own agenda and try to ban what they dont like.

but that digresses.

the main point is this.

Homosexuals should be allowed to serve. they have been doing so since our country was founded and they are willing to die for our country. That is honorable in my eyes.

However, there does need to be a guarantee of a certain amount of privacy in the military also. trust me there is little enough as there is--with everyone of one sex sleeping in same tent, sharing showers with just one central pillar with nozzles etc.

the military needs to install the privacy showers and bathrooms everywhere it possibly can. In places it cant like submarines and such, you cant trample the rights of all other military members.

like I said imagine if you had a daughter (or son) and they started letting men (or women in the case of son) to start watching them shower and a guy sitting 1 foot away from her while she used the toilet watcher her (him)

you can say that homosexuals would not look--but then you could say a straight male would not look at females. You cant guarantee either one though.

until our country goes the way of total communal bathrooms where there is only one bathroom/shower for both sexes, then it is obvious our country still believes that people need to be separated based upon sexual preferences. they dont have separate bathrooms because the two sexes have separate needs. we both use the same standard toilet and the same shower and the same sinks--just in different rooms based upon sexual preference.

and that is in the civilian world where there are privacy stalls in bathrooms and privacy screens for showers. the military in general lacks such privacy screens.

my points

1. the military needs to make changes to bathrooms/sleeping areas to ensure privacy
2. homosexuals serve honorable and die for our country and should be allowed to remain


BUT

3. in cases where privacy cant be included IE submarines, tent showers etc, then individuals should be able to shower, use restroom with some peace of mind. Like I said if you would be uncomfortable about your daughter having to shower or use the restroom with 40 men standing right besider her (or vice versa your son with women), then you really have no right taking away that privacy from people in the military. (once again just in places where the military cant install privacy showers/stalls)

background info. I am a 36 year old married man. not a homophobe. could care less about what others do. In the air force-- where the job I work very easily accomodates homosexuals (ie we all go home to our own houses every night--there are some issues with gym shower but that is easily modified).

currently there are two homosexuals, that we know of, in our squadron and no one cares. It is not a big deal. Both of these individuals have been very respectful of others and neither of them even use the gym or showers. they do thier job well and serve thier country same as us.

In one of the missile ops squadrons however, there was a homosexual who hit upon members in the gym showers--three different individuals. He was removed under the dont ask--dont tell policy. that is what hopefully commanders are using the policy for--to remove individuals like that, who were affecting morale of the unit. If people knew he was in the gym--they would wear thier sweaty clothes home instead of showering--or in one case that was actually funny--post guards to let them know when he was coming.

so where do you stand on the individual heterosexuals right to privacy in cases where privacy stalls/showers are not available??<!-- / message -->

In the end, does it matter wether it's a choice or something you're born with though? Is deciding this even relevant to answering the question of what rights should or should not be granted?
In a word, yes.

Contrary to the hysterical screaming that we hear coming from the left, an uproar of "homophobe!" "hater!" and "bigot!", the fundamental reason there is a disagreement in society about how to treat homosexuality is that some people view preference as analogous to Race (immutable) and some view it as analagous to any other Behavior (mutable).

We (on the right) dont hate gays. Some of us think their behavior is morally wrong, and some dont - some of us think their behavior is bad for society, and some dont. But most of us (no, not 100%, but most) view their behavior as behavior, rather than some magical genetically-predetermined destiny. As behavior, we can legislate it. We punish drunk drivers, we punish people who have sex with animals, we punish people who go naked in public.

Whetehr you disagree with the existing laws on any of these issues doesnt matter - what matters is that as a society we feel it is ok to legislate against certain behaviors.

However, we dont feel its OK to legislate against certain immutable characteristics. You cant bar black people from a store for being black, because they cant change that. You cant bar people from your company for being Jewish for similar reasons.

So yes, its a crucial question for this debate. however, its also an untestable and unanswerable question, so we need to keep that in mind too :)

_____

that said, we do need to return to the actual subject at hand. No one is barring gay people from the military, so whether preference is mutable or immutable is irrelevant. What the military is doing with DADT is legislating behavior for the good of the troops' morale. Which is perfectly consistent with how we deal with other behaviors.

No one is barring gay people from the military, so whether preference is mutable or immutable is irrelevant. What the military is doing with DADT is legislating behavior for the good of the troops' morale. Which is perfectly consistent with how we deal with other behaviors.

How can you say it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is behavoir or genetics, then say DADT is all right as you're treating as a behavior?

The other problem is that homosexuality isn't just another behavior. It really goes to the heart of a person's lifestyle, home, family, finances, and almost everything important in life. I know I should stop repeating this but DADT prevents a gay soldier with a long time partner from receiving all the rights given to heterosexual couples, such as accomodation, death benefits, pensions, etc etc. For Tuda I'll also also mention maternity and paternity leave rights. Anyone looking for a long term career anywhere in any profession will look at benefits when choosing a job. Given a homosexual partner has approximately zero spousal benefits is it a surprise that gay soldiers leave the military profession very quickly?

You cant bar people from your company for being Jewish for similar reasons.So being gay is a "choice" (mutable), but following a religious path is NOT a "choice" (immutable)? I'm dying to hear the explanation for that one.

So being gay is a "choice" (mutable), but following a religious path is NOT a "choice" (immutable)? I'm dying to hear the explanation for that one.

I don't believe he was referring to the Jewish religion but rather the Jewish Race (Semitic).

We (on the right) dont hate gays. Some of us think their behavior is morally wrong, and some dont - some of us think their behavior is bad for society, and some dont. But most of us (no, not 100%, but most) view their behavior as behavior, rather than some magical genetically-predetermined destiny.

Do you also view your heterosexuality as behavior? Do you consciously choose to be heterosexual every day of your life? It is quite ironic that heterosexuals believe they are born that way, but believe homosexuals are actually heterosexuals who choose to go against their nature and engage in homosexual activities.

It is quite ironic that heterosexuals believe they are born that way, but believe homosexuals are actually heterosexuals who choose to go against their nature and engage in homosexual activities.

As a full (or fullish) supporter of homosexual rights I too believe that heterosexuality is our natural method of propogating the species and homosexuality is something different. There's nothing ironic there, just an understanding of sexual reproduction. How we use our bodies as human beings is up to us though and we're not slaves to nature. We don't have to eat grass just because we have an appendix.

Sorry, Anka, but that is mixing apples and oranges.

I never mentioned anything about propagating the species. Of course two people of the same gender are going to have a very tough time doing that. I am talking about innate attractions and drives.

Do you consider yourself a heterosexual bacause that is the way you have consciously chosen to act? Or is is because you are naturally attracted to the opposite sex?

Heterosexuals like to say they are the latter, while at the same time saying homosexuals are the former. That is where the inequality lies.

In a word, yes.

So.. (discrimination laws aside, laws can be changed, and as such effectivly defining is as non-discrimatory) if they decided to ban Catholics from openly reveiling their religion in the military (After all, you can choose religion just fine), that's not a problem in principle? Or in the society as such, for that matter, not just the military - let's ban Catholism. And while we're at it, let's ONLY approve of Protestant marriages! Oh, and you only get to work for the government if you -are- married, hey - it is your choice not to get married (in a Protestant way, of course), and if you make that choice, you don't get the rights that Protestantly (is that a word?) married people have. You don't see a basic injustice in that?

(Yes, of course I'm making extreme examples, and they're made extreme on purpose to illustrate my point: that the question of wether or not homosexuality is a choice or not is simply a smokescreen that is thrown out by those who want to use it as an argument not to treat them like "regular" people. We approve plenty of chosen lifestyles. Why not this one, if indeed it IS chosen?)

Mannwin, Ive already covered that. Heterosexuality is the default condition, analagous to liking sweet foods. You're born liking sweet foods. You only learn to like spicy foods as a result of environment. There is no contradiction in saying that homosexuality is the result of choices and environments while heterosexuality is the natural default condition.

Truid, you understood me correctly. Thanks for the clarification.

Tinsi - youre getting close, but while I dont have a problem with the extremity of your examples (extreme examples are good), I do ahve a problem with the lack of parallelism.

Barring homosexuals from TALKING ABOUT GAY ISSUES is not the same as barring Catholics from holding a job. It is analogous to barring Catholics from talking about the Mystery of Transubstantiation while at work. And there is an amendment in our Constitution that specifically prohibits such restrictions on religion. There is no Free Exercise of Sexual Preference Amendment, so no constitutional issues here.

Put simply, no one has a right to force others to hear about their sexual issues. Whether doing so is right or wrong is another issue, but nowhere in the US Constitution does it exalt Who or What You Like to Put Your Penis In to the level of religion. There is no 'right to sexual self-expression', at least so far as the Constitution goes.

Since you are still here, Aldarion, would you care to answer the question I directed at you twice?

If you, personally, were raped by a man, would that make you gay, or "not-straight"?

Actually I have re-thought my position regarding what I said earlier about involuntary sex.

The rapist is not straight any more if He rapes a Man. The victim's sexuality is unaffected.

There is no Free Exercise of Sexual Preference Amendment, so no constitutional issues here.

Wow...just..wow. Ever heard of the phrase "all men are created equal?" If I have the right to talk about my preferences, then everybody else in this country should too.

Actually I have re-thought my position regarding what I said earlier about involuntary sex.

The rapist is not straight any more if He rapes a Man. The victim's sexuality is unaffected.Let me be the first to shut my gaping mouth long enough to say I'm impressed. You have been openminded enough to rethink a position here.

There may be hope for humanity after all! :)

In lieu of this discussion, I just really <b>had</b> to post this article...
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1432991,00.html

You know, I think my journalism teacher would have been really proud of this guy had he been a student. You know, the punchy first sentence that grabs your attention and pulls you into the story...


The strange case of the homosexual necrophiliac duck pushed out the boundaries of knowledge in a rather improbable way when it was recorded by Dutch researcher Kees Moeliker.I never knew ducks were so macho as to be able to copulate that long or that often!

Aldarion, how do you reconcile your belief that homosexuality is a learned trait with the data that just about every species on the planet practices homosexuality?

Hmm...found this article and it has some interesting information resulting from the current banning of homosexuality in the military.

Military policy on Gays is costly and Dangerous (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/7/2005/1184)

How much more illogical can the military get?!?

To those who still worry about "being made uncomfortable" because you might have to shower with a homosexual...get a grip and grow up. For one thing, the current policy isn't not allowing homosexuality. it is just banning them from admitting it, even to their families.

So, as far as anyone knows, you (or your daughter/son/whomever) could be sharing a shower/toilet in the military with someone right now who is gay. How is it that as long as you/your daughter/your son can claim ignorance its okay, but if the person who is homosexual decides that they want to be able to express themselves suddenly its not allowed?

To me, that says that its the homophobic heterosexual that needs to change their views...not the other way around. To force anyone to hide an aspect of them purely because it might make others uncomfortable is just asinine. And selfish.

And now its costing huge sums of money to continue with a process that is more detrimental than constructive.

Aldarion, how do you reconcile your belief that homosexuality is a learned trait with the data that just about every species on the planet practices homosexuality?
First a minor quibble - its not just about every species, its a handful of species out of hundreds of thousands. (This *is* a minor quibble, but overstaements ahve to be corrected :) )

Secondly, and far more importantly, the actions of animas have no relevance to the morality of human behavior.

Chimpanzees practice rape and cannibalism.
Female praying mantises and some spiders eat their mates during/after copulation.
Nearly all mammals eat their own young, especially males.
No animal on the planet shows a dis-inclination from mating with its siblings.
Dogs eat their own droppings.

The actions of animas have no relevance to the morality of human behavior.

Actually I have re-thought my position regarding what I said earlier about involuntary sex.

The rapist is not straight any more if He rapes a Man. The victim's sexuality is unaffected.

Keep rethinking, I guess.

I have a male friend who is(was) bi. He was recently raped by a man.

He has turned completely away from males sexually because of it. I would say his sexuality(and his orientation) has been affected.

Tinsi - youre getting close, but while I dont have a problem with the extremity of your examples (extreme examples are good), I do ahve a problem with the lack of parallelism.

Barring homosexuals from TALKING ABOUT GAY ISSUES is not the same as barring Catholics from holding a job. It is analogous to barring Catholics from talking about the Mystery of Transubstantiation while at work.

I'm aware of that, and as you can see, that's the example I started with: Barred from talking about Catholic faith in the military. A 100% paralell example. Then my examples expanded, and yes, I'm totally aware that they don't paralell the issue 100%, they were made, as I pointed out, for emphasis of the fact that "if it's a choice, then we can ban it for NO other reason than 'they can choose differently'" is a smokescreen argument used to draw the attention away from what the REAL arguments are. :)

And there is an amendment in our Constitution that specifically prohibits such restrictions on religion. There is no Free Exercise of Sexual Preference Amendment, so no constitutional issues here.

And as I said, laws are man-made and can be changed. In fact, if enough people want it they WILL be changed, and voila - no more protection. Or oposite, 2 words ("or sexuality") entered into the right place, and voila - Constitutional protection. It gets weird when the question "Should this group of people get constitutional protection from discrimination?" gets answered with "No, cause they don't have constitutional protection." if you see what I mean (not that I'm saying that is what you did)

The actions of animas have no relevance to the morality of human behavior.

You weren't asked to explain that relevance, you were asked to explain how, if homosexuality is learned or a chosen preference, it can be explained that homosexuality is seen in several spieces of animals.

Fair enough, let me rephrase: whether a behavior is learned or instinctual in animals has no bearing on whether it is learned or instinctual in humans.

Sea turtles hatch already knowing how to swim. Humans dont.

Actually, newborn human babies are quite able to get around in water, they can do rudimentary floating and swimming movements, and know to hold their breath when underwater.

These abilities soon fade with disuse, and have to be relearned later in life.

Fair enough, let me rephrase: whether a behavior is learned or instinctual in animals has no bearing on whether it is learned or instinctual in humans.

Sea turtles hatch already knowing how to swim. Humans dont.

Human babies have grasping reflexes, which is vestigial from when human mommies were covered with hair, and the baby could cling to her. From birth(before actually).

Suckle reflex, duh.

Human babies's across all continents and cultures first recognizable word is "Da".

Human babies are drawn to images of attractive people, over ugly people.

Human babies do not need to be taught to roll over or crawl.

There are thousands(of thousands) of behaviors that human's have innately. Just because every member of the species does not exhibit them does not diminish their role or existence.

Hmm...found this article and it has some interesting information resulting from the current banning of homosexuality in the military.

Military policy on Gays is costly and Dangerous (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/7/2005/1184)

How much more illogical can the military get?!?

To those who still worry about "being made uncomfortable" because you might have to shower with a homosexual...get a grip and grow up. For one thing, the current policy isn't not allowing homosexuality. it is just banning them from admitting it, even to their families.

So, as far as anyone knows, you (or your daughter/son/whomever) could be sharing a shower/toilet in the military with someone right now who is gay. How is it that as long as you/your daughter/your son can claim ignorance its okay, but if the person who is homosexual decides that they want to be able to express themselves suddenly its not allowed?

To me, that says that its the homophobic heterosexual that needs to change their views...not the other way around. To force anyone to hide an aspect of them purely because it might make others uncomfortable is just asinine. And selfish.

And now its costing huge sums of money to continue with a process that is more detrimental than constructive.



I feel uncomfortable because if they are homosexual and keep it to themself and leave others alone, no one would care. I gave you a specific example where an individual was in the showers and bothering people. the pollicy was used to remove him. withoutthe policy, who know if he would have been allowed to continue to violate the rights of others.

guess your get a grip and grow up would have to apply to every single person in the U.S. since there are separate bathrooms for men and women in every single place. and imagine how much money that cost to double every single bathroom facility in every restaurant, park, post office, business office etc.

funny how you are so willing to take away some peoples rights (ie privacy and not getting harrassed in showers) to ensure others. I cant speak for others, but for myself, I could care less if someone were homosexual--as long as he respected my rights back and did not invade my privacy. and the majority I serve with do--but there are always those few out there who dont--and that is where the policy is handy.

Like I said, install privacy showers/stalls and there is no issue.

Heck since it is no big deal synjinn, can I come over and shower with your mom and sisters? If that "makes you unconfortable" get a grip and grow up.

Note some of us are not arguing against homosexuals in the military. We know they have served alongside us proudly and honorably all along. We just want privacy rights. and that can be accomplished most times. when it cant--and when certain individuals such as the one I told you about who was hitting on the three individuals in the shower get out of hand--DADT becomes a way to ensure rights of other people also. OH but the other peoples rights dont matter to you?

You do need to understand that others have rights also. you may be able to take the right to private showers for granted---military people do not. Not until they change the design of military gyms.
<!-- / message -->

There's a difference between openly acknowledging your sexuality and sexual harassment. Your shower scence reference is sexual harassment not openly acknowledging sexuality. Sexual harassment is barred in most work places not just the military.

If your problem is that straights would feel "weird" showering with gays, that's prejudice. If your complaint is that gays would leer at straights in the shower that's silly. If your complaint is that when you shower with gays and you bend over to pick up the soap someone carasses your hinny that's harrasment and should/would be banned no matter the setting, and has nothing to do with banning gays from the military.

Secondly, and far more importantly, the actions of animas have no relevance to the morality of human behavior.

Aldarion, it is quite evident that you think homosexuality is "immoral". Honestly, I think you are just searching for scientific arguments to back up your moral beliefs. Face it, that isn't going to happen.

Why can't people just admit they are prejudiced and move along. You don't like homosexuals because of their 'immoral' acts/beliefs, and you want to strip them of their LEGAL rights because of that. Plain and simple. Prejudcie is prejudice.

And I almost died laughing when you said heterosexuality was the "default" condition. Since when do human beings have "defaults"????

And I almost died laughing when you said heterosexuality was the "default" condition. Since when do human beings have "defaults"????

We have two eyes, two ears, one mouth, two legs, two arms, eight fingers, two thumbs, etc etc all as default. Babies suckle for milk as default behavior. Babies scream for attention as default behavior. Yes, of course we have defaults. I'm astonished you could think otherwise, it's a bit ... um ... laughable?

I think heterosexuality is part of the default condition. So what? Monogamy is not forced upon us through our natural condition, but we accept that as a practice anyway. We are more than mere animals and can modify our morality and actions to our benefit.

Another thing to consider is that masterbation is a perfectly natural sexual impulse. It is however criminal or disdained as a public activity, has a stigma as a private activity, and is given none of the public tolerance given to other sexual activity. The morals of our society are not entirely governed by "natural human behavior", even if we could agree what it was, and it's a false argument to say that a particular sexuality can be natural and therefore must be allowed.

Monogamy is not forced upon us through our natural condition, but we accept that as a practice anyway. We are more than mere animals and can modify our morality and actions to our benefit.

That was what I was trying to say with my "does it matter if it's learned or not"-question. We humans do a lot of things that are instinctual (in lack of a better word) - we breathe, we close our eyes when we sneeze. We also try to avoid things that are natural - burping and farting come to mind, yawning as well, tons of settings where we surpress the natural thing to do because social standard dictates otherwise. And opositely - we do a lot of things that aren't natural - we play videogames, drink alcohol, have sex for fun. And of course there's things that aren't natural that we also to the best of our abilities try to avoid.

That covers the 4 alternatives. So there's no automatic link between wether something is natural or learned, and wether we approve or not, and as such, the "it's learned, so therefor that's good enough reason to treat them differently"-argument is moot.

I hope it came out easier to understand this time :)

Are humans really monogamous in practice though? I think not. Something like over 50% have sex with someone other than their mate. Gosh, I think I heard it was 60% of men cheat on their wives at least once during a marriage. Even all those animals we've always heard are monogomous are actually cheaters too.

Besides engaging in non-consensual acts, I have seen absolutely nothing that says/shows/proves that morality is at all connected with sexuality.

Sexuality is neither moral, amoral, nor immoral.

Okay, first Brum...your example of the shower--that isn't based on issues of homosexuality. Any person, regardless of their sexual preference, would have been removed for that. So, to answer your rhetorical question...he would not have been allowed to continue such behavior even if there were no policy on homosexuality. He would have been guilty of sexual harassment and would have been discharged just the same judicially.

guess your get a grip and grow up would have to apply to every single person in the U.S. since there are separate bathrooms for men and women in every single place. and imagine how much money that cost to double every single bathroom facility in every restaurant, park, post office, business office etc.
Umm...no, my comment is purely directed towards the military, hence the topic. In civilian circumstances there is a valid reason for seperate bathrooms. However, I would expect a soldier to be able to be a bit more grown up about having to take a shower with a group of people. And, most of the time (I know this from experience) you don't take leisurely showers in the barracks in the military. It's wash up and get out.

funny how you are so willing to take away some peoples rights (ie privacy and not getting harrassed in showers) to ensure others.
I am not taking away your rights to not be harassed...that exists under the laws of sexual harassment. You need to seperate the two topics.

As for showering with me...that is just arguing childishly and I won't get into that with you.

On an end note, I am a veteran; eight years military police. I served in a field that was male-dominated and I had to pee, shower and do generally most of my personal hygiene issues in front of and/or around men. At no point in time was I ever gawked at or treated like USDA was on my forehead. Most of the men I worked with were mature enough to realize that while in uniform I'm a soldier, not a girl.

I would expect that most mature people in the military, homosexual or not, are not sitting around waiting for some unsuspecting victim to drop the soap so they can attack. The ban on homosexuality and the examples that you, Brum, are using to validate keeping such policies are based on unfounded phobia. If your concern is being harassed, that is already covered under the UCMJ. The only reason to keep such a policy is to promote discrimination, pure and simple.
<o ="">
</o>

If your complaint is that gays would leer at straights in the shower that's silly

that however is exactly what was happening.

Okay, first Brum...your example of the shower--that isn't based on issues of homosexuality. Any person, regardless of their sexual preference, would have been removed for that. So, to answer your rhetorical question...he would not have been allowed to continue such behavior even if there were no policy on homosexuality. He would have been guilty of sexual harassment and would have been discharged just the same judicially

so they would have been able to kick him out for saying things like

"you are pretty hot--how about you and I get together later"

"wow you look delicious"

aye those two quotes sound rediculous, but that is what he said. He even admitted to saying them. they would not have gotten him kicked out under sexual harrassment. those comments said in the office hallways are pretty easily ignored. standing naked beside someone in a shower--they become a lot more detimental to morale. so what policy would you use to address someone who was saying things like that beside you in the shower. note he was not an officer so conduct unbecoming is out.

Umm...no, my comment is purely directed towards the military, hence the topic. In civilian circumstances there is a valid reason for seperate bathrooms

ummm why the difference? are not our military drawn from the public? we have DUIs, drug busts etc too. or do you just feel like the military is a good place to try experiments? I dont think the military should be expected to so things that there is a "valid reason" not to outside of the military.

However, I would expect a soldier to be able to be a bit more grown up about having to take a shower with a group of people

you were in the military for 8 years and you say this?? we are talking kids 6 months out of high school. 18 year olds just done with senior prom. yet you expect every one of them to suddenly be 20 years more mature then thier counterparts in the civilian world? holy crap--they just got done having a toilet papering war on our base.

I would expect that most mature people in the military, homosexual or not, are not sitting around waiting for some unsuspecting victim to drop the soap so they can attack. The ban on homosexuality and the examples that you, Brum, are using to validate keeping such policies are based on unfounded phobia. If your concern is being harassed, that is already covered under the UCMJ


actually no it is not. just as I could have walked up to you once in the hallways and said "wow you are pretty hot. how about you and I get together later" UCMJ would not touch me for that. now consider if we were standing naked beside each other in the shower--how much different would that comment make you feel?? please answer honestly.

Note I am not aldarion. I wholly resent him attacking the homosexual people I serve with daily who risk thier lives for this country. I dont think he understands that these are real people who felt the calling to defend thier country and deserve to be respected not persecuted.

my point is not to persecute or kick out homosexuals. my point is to change military bases to allow more privacy. the only thing I pointed out is in certain places, ie submarines, space is at a premium and it may not be open to homosexuals.

so please answer my above questioin based upon my view point--not on aldarions. dont look at me as someone trying to get homosexuals kicked out of the military--I think that would be wrong. But tell me honestly what policy would have protected the individuals on our base from the one homosexual who was leering and critiquing in the showers.. there is not one currently in UCMJ policy--unless you are an officer in which case conduct unbecoming an officer is an all encompassing one. so fine make up taht same condition for enlisted and then tell me how much safer a homosexual would be from getting discharged when a couple of people made up stories saying what he did anyhow. You cant ignore thier claims anymore then you could ignore a woman (man) saying they were harrased by the opposite sex.

argue with aldarion all you want--I hope you verbally thrash him. these are my fellow brothers and sisters in arms he is insulting. dont however confuse that with my issue which is privacy in bathrooms and showers--something totally unrelated to what homosexuals contribute in the work place.




If your problem is that straights would feel "weird" showering with gays, that's prejudice



btw. I know I shower with homosexuals everyday at the gym. I could care less. they dont bother anyone and no one bothers them. my point was what protects the heterosexual soldier from the homosexual one who decides NOT to be respectful. you said MOST men treated you as an equal and not a piece of meat. but you were protected from the SOME who would have. there is currently no rule except DADT, that protects a heterosexual male from the unwanted occasional comments of a homosexual male. If they become way too frequent yes. but you as a female did not have to wait til they became way too frequent.

I have seen an IG complaint get an officer an LOC for calling a passing female a "hot babe with a hellacious body". The complaint was it created a hostile working environment. But that same IG office would never have touched a homosexual saying that exact same comment in the shower without DADT.

I can see you've had bad personal experiences Brum but bad experiences happen in the military from bullying and other situations too. If someone wanted to aggravate you they would find a way, gay or straight, to do it.

I wouldn't want to put you or any other soldier in awkward situations, but compared to a gay person who can't get his death in service benefits passed to a long time partner, can't have a civil union marraige, can't get residential privileges with their partner, etc, etc, it does seem a much less important issue.

Because they might make straight men uncomfortable.


Yeah! What a hoot! Next thing we'll find out Washington did more than just chop down that cherry tree....

Actually, the reasoning I've always heard is because gay men may begin having a romantic relationship with members in their unit. This creates a conflict of interest in a person where, sometime, they may have to choose between following orders and protecting a loved one.

Essentially the same as one of the reasons for keeping women out of combat units. A reason, I must say, I agree with.

I have no respect for a person who would not protect a loved one, even against orders...or at the risk of endangering his unit.

That and if they let gays in the military, the song "In the Navy" would loose all relevance.

Coments in the shower can be shrugged off as easily as they are in the hallway. If at any time someone makes a sexual advance to you and you indicate that the advace is unwanted and uncomfortable and they continue to make advances to you it is sexual harrasment, it does not matter if the comments are made in the hallway or in the shower.

More privacy in the military would probably be a good thing for many soldiers, however the military seems to feel that lack of privacy makes the soldier conform better. Privacy is an issue for every soldier no matter race, sex or sexual practice, it has nothing to do with wether or not homosexuals should be allowed in the military.

I have seen an IG complaint get an officer an LOC for calling a passing female a "hot babe with a hellacious body". The complaint was it created a hostile working environment. But that same IG office would never have touched a homosexual saying that exact same comment in the shower without DADT.

That's a failing in the IG then. Harrasment is harrasment, not to sound like an irrate feminist but it sounds as if that department doesn't understand that men can be sexually harrased just as much women can be. Very similar to folks that don't understand that men can be raped. The fallout however was proper usage of a very bad ruling. Under DADT a gay soldier that makes a comment to a fellow soldier in the form of harrasment will be discharged due to DADT, proper handling however without DADT would be that the soldier would be discharged or however it's handled for Sexual Harassment. Don't hold DADT responsible for the IG's failure to respond correctly to harrasment.

If your problem is that straights would feel "weird" showering with gays, that's prejudice. If your complaint is that gays would leer at straights in the shower that's silly. If your complaint is that when you shower with gays and you bend over to pick up the soap someone carasses your hinny that's harrasment and should/would be banned no matter the setting, and has nothing to do with banning gays from the military.

So what you are saying is that anything other than co-ed shower facilities is prejudiced?

So what you are saying is that anything other than co-ed shower facilities is prejudiced?

No we've covered that go back a few pages. What I am saying is that if you are using the excuse that gays should be banned from the military because straights are uncomfortable showering with them over showering with anyone else, that's predjudiced reasoning. You don't join the military expecting to have a chushy comfortable life.

I have no issues with or without co-ed showering in the military if I was in the military I would expect not only myself but my fellow soldiers to be mature enough to handle communal showering.

We have two eyes, two ears, one mouth, two legs, two arms, eight fingers, two thumbs, etc etc all as default. Babies suckle for milk as default behavior. Babies scream for attention as default behavior. Yes, of course we have defaults.

Again, you are mixing genetics with behavior. The fact that a person has eight fingers is determined by genetics. While it may be the "norm" for a person to have eight, it would not be unheard of for them to have nine. Either way, it is genetics. Just as brown eyes may be a "dominant" trait, it should not be considered a "default".

Maybe it is just a poor choice of words.

Switching ....

It strikes me as odd how any heterosexual can be so SURE about how homosexuals feel. What makes you so absolutely positive that homosexuality is NOT genetic, or at least, in-born? How can you say that YOUR sexual urges are in-born (not learned) but someone else's are not? If you did not actively CHOOSE to be heterosexual, what makes you so sure that someone else CHOSE to be homosexual?

How can you honestly believe that one is inborn, while another is learned/chosen? Either they are both inborn, or they are both learned. And whichever it is, they should both be treated equally.

That and if they let gays in the military, the song "In the Navy" would loose all relevance. I hate to burst your bubble, and ruin a good song for you, but there have always been gays in the military and there probably always will be.

Just ask Alexander the Great!

I hate to burst your bubble, and ruin a good song for you, but there have always been gays in the military and there probably always will be.

Just ask Alexander the Great!

Don't take away my gay sailor jokes dammit. Its my only recourse to squids making Jarhead jokes at me.

Don't take away my gay sailor jokes dammit. Its my only recourse to squids making Jarhead jokes at me.

I feel your pain. I was so sick of hearing "throw sand against the wall and yell hit the beach" when I was on ship with the navy.

That and if they let gays in the military, the song "In the Navy" would loose all relevance

Hmmm, maybe I misunderstand you.(or the song).

I thought that it was because everyone in the Navy was already gay, that the song had a hook.

No offense to naval peoples.

I feel your pain. I was so sick of hearing "throw sand against the wall and yell hit the beach" when I was on ship with the navy.

LOL...ahhh, the good ol' days of military insults. Anyone else remember the urban legend of the ether bunny? Or was that only Air Force?

I'm Air Force and have not heard that one. do tell.


my favorite is

An army and Air force captain both depart thier bases and start driving towards each other. In the middle of the night with no one else around they drive smack dab into each other.

the air force guy gets out of his totaled car without a scratch and goes over to check on the army guy. The army guy also gets out of his totaled car without a scratch.

the army guy says this must be fate. It is time to end our constant bickering. The air force guy says I agree.

the air force guy says let me go see if anything is salvageable from my vehicle. He opens his trunk and lo and behold--an unbroken bottle of scotch.

he tells the army guy. wow this is really fate. we are meant to get along. he hands the army guy the bottle and says lets drink to our new friendship.

the army guy chugs down half of the bottle and hands it back to the air force guy. The air force guy puts the cap back on and says "no thanks I will wait for the police"

Lol... took me a sec, but thats a good one, Brum.

In lieu of this discussion, I just really <b>had</b> to post this article...
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1432991,00.html

Interesting, if not somewhat disturbing, article. But one thing kept coming to mind, are we just merely evolved animals? I for one am no animal. Those of you who believe in the theory of evolution may believe yourselves to be just a step up from animals but I don't. Therefore, who the hell cares what an animal copulates with? Animals are lower than mankind and are ruled by there instincts. Should how an animal (exple: mallard duck per the article above) behaves justify how man behaves? If so, then it must be alright to copulate with a corpse!

I understand why some people might use animals as an exampe of homosexuality in nature (to counter those who would say homosexuality is unnatural). However, mankind is NOT ruled by nature or the "law of the jungle" crap. If we were, then only the strong should survive and we should immediately destroy the sick, mentally/physically retarded and elderly.

I for one am no animal.

Then... vegetable or mineral?

However, mankind is NOT ruled by nature or the "law of the jungle" crap. If we were, then only the strong should survive and we should immediately destroy the sick, mentally/physically retarded and elderly.

You should really learn more about animals and anthropology. There's a wide range of behaviors that all animals, including humans, are capable of. Including acts of kindness and cruelty.

I would agree though, using a necrophilliac duck as a rolemodel isn't a good idea.

I for one am no animal.
To me you are.

A pidgeon is a dove, but a dove is not a pidgeon. If you can't wrap your mind around that truth, then I have nothing to say that will convince you of it otherwise.

I understand why some people might use animals as an exampe of homosexuality in nature (to counter those who would say homosexuality is unnatural). However, mankind is NOT ruled by nature or the "law of the jungle" crap. If we were, then only the strong should survive and we should immediately destroy the sick, mentally/physically retarded and elderly.
That is just a simple retort to when retarded homophobes claim that homosexuality is not 'natural'(they are the ones who bring it up first, that is to say). Of course it IS natural.

Mankind is VERY much ruled by Nature. The laws are just more complex for humans than for most other animals.

Mankind is VERY much ruled by Nature. The laws are just more complex for humans than for most other animals.

No, I think we've long since come to the point where we can override our nature. At the most basic level, it's our nature to grow hair to keep us warm but instead we shave it off and wear clothes. At the most complex level, within our lifetimes we will be able to genetically engineer our children and alter our nature.

Most of our desires and needs come from our nature, but we sometimes have capability to deny them or satisfy them in unusual ways.

Then... vegetable or mineral?.

Perhaps I should clarify.

Is man just an animal? Man lives, breathes, eats, reproduces, and sleeps. He is biological, just like animals.

But the real question is: Is man only an animal? Or are we far more than just an animal? I believe that the way a person answers these questions is going to effect their outlook on life, on their fellow human beings and upon their own self worth (as evidenced here on this forum).

Our nation's Declaration of Independence makes no sense if man is just an extra clever ape because its statement about being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights would be a false statement. The motivation for the pilgrims coming to our shores would merely be a tragic blunder. The last verse of our national anthem would be a joke. Our pledge of allegiance would be a lie. The Gettysburg Address would be foolishness. The motives of our founding fathers would be misplaced. All this if man is only an animal and not something more.

"God created human beings; he created them godlike, reflecting God's nature. He created them male and female (The Message)." Gen. 1:27

However, mankind is NOT ruled by nature or the "law of the jungle" crap.

Good, so we won't hear the "heterosexuality is natural, and therefore the right thing"-argument anymore. I'm happy with that :)

To me you are.

A pidgeon is a dove, but a dove is not a pidgeon. If you can't wrap your mind around that truth, then I have nothing to say that will convince you of it otherwise.

"Science does not distinguish greatly between doves and pigeons; they are one family—columbidae. In all their diversity, the various members of the pigeon and dove family may be identified as columbiformes." - pigeons.com

Since you are wrong, it is obvious that you won't be convincing anyone (least of all me) any time soon.

Mankind is VERY much ruled by Nature. The laws are just more complex for humans than for most other animals.

So the "laws of nature" are "more complex" eh? Yeah, hmmm, I guess our current tax laws must of been inspired by the "laws of nature" since very few humans can understand them as well. LOL.

Originally posted by Truid. "However, mankind is NOT ruled by nature or the "law of the jungle" crap. If we were, then only the strong should survive and we should immediately destroy the sick, mentally/physically retarded and elderly."

Up until recently, that is exactly what we, as mankind, did (and still do). We are a creature obsessed with perfection and as such, our nature is to destroy or ostracize those that we feel are "imperfect". Look at the scientific advances we make...cloning, eternal youth through plastic surgeons, the list is endless.

We abort fetuses that have been identified medically as carrying or possibly carrying less than perfect genes. We put our elderly into little white houses filled with other elderly and make sure that they don't mess up our perfect world by getting in our way. We discriminate against those we label as handicapped or challenged and isolate them in little padded rooms or even worse, make sure they realize that even if they are able to do what us perfect people do, it doesn't mean that they are perfect.

This world is made up of, unfortunately, people who every day beat down and try to make those imperfections disappear. Just because we hide it in the shadows of some superficial morality issue, it is what it is...those who view their beliefs as the "perfect" way and therefore must destroy anything that might imbalance that blind view. That is what discrimination is, by its very nature.

There have been some very well written, valid arguments that oppose the idea/concept/belief in homosexuality. But, the one thing that is missing is the admittance that by opposing that view, those who do are being discriminative, by definition. And, further, are attempting to disbelieve the existence of homosexuality as a right because it imbalances society's current view of what is perfect. Lets call it what it is. Its simple fear of something that is "different". But, different doesn't have to mean worse, or bad or less than. Nothing can grow in a stagnant pond; by holding onto rigid, old, maybe even outdated views of right and wrong, we as a society cannot grow.

Perhaps I should clarify.

Is man just an animal? Man lives, breathes, eats, reproduces, and sleeps. He is biological, just like animals.

But the real question is: Is man only an animal? Or are we far more than just an animal? I believe that the way a person answers these questions is going to effect their outlook on life, on their fellow human beings and upon their own self worth (as evidenced here on this forum).

Our nation's Declaration of Independence makes no sense if man is just an extra clever ape because its statement about being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights would be a false statement. The motivation for the pilgrims coming to our shores would merely be a tragic blunder. The last verse of our national anthem would be a joke. Our pledge of allegiance would be a lie. The Gettysburg Address would be foolishness. The motives of our founding fathers would be misplaced. All this if man is only an animal and not something more.

"God created human beings; he created them godlike, reflecting God's nature. He created them male and female (The Message)." Gen. 1:27

The pledge is a lie. A lie fomented in the 50's. Hell, technically it is against my religion to say the Pledge, for to ensure we never break the commandment to not take God's name in vain, Jews traditionally do not make vows or pledges "under God".

Further, do you believe that God make us godlike, reflecting His nature? It may be so if you believe in the Old Testament God...but Christians will have a hard time reconciling humanity with their happy go lucky all is forgiven God ;)

No, I think we've long since come to the point where we can override our nature..

Materialism-Modern manifestation
****ography-Modern manifestation
Selfishness/Self Preservation-Natural
Rape-Natural
Eating-Natural
Murder-Natural
Stress-Natural
Theft-Natural
Homophobia-Natural
Xenophobia-Natural
Nurture-Natural
Genocide-Natural
Disease-Natural
Heterosexuality-Natural
Homosexuality-Natural
Breeding-Natural
War-Natural
Rescue Reflex-Natural
Attraction-Natural
Drugs-Artificial/Natural stimulation of Natural processes
Dying-Natural
Sleep-Natural(that is one third your life there)

I could go on, but I think that is the general point.

Our evolution, especially since the point we first became humans affects more of your life than you would like to believe.

We have been human for about 100,000 years. And we continued to evolve during that time. I do not accept the notion that evolution is ONLY responsible for one species mutation into another species. All those changes from when we were pre-humans until today is natural.

I will accept that we spend less time ruled by Nature than our ancestors, but percentagewise it is still not as much as you might think it is. Both species-wide as well as for an individual.

The Social Contract relieves conflicts with varying natural stresses when we live in close proximity to one another. But I, you/us, only adhere to the Social Contract, ultimately, because of selfishness and self preservation.

Most of our desires and needs come from our nature, but we sometimes have capability to deny them or satisfy them in unusual ways.
I agree 100% with you. We certainly have the power to deny most of them. That some of the time, we deny some them. But we usually do not.

"Science does not distinguish greatly between doves and pigeons; they are one family—columbidae. In all their diversity, the various members of the pigeon and dove family may be identified as columbiformes." - pigeons.com

I used to believe that the brain was the most interesting, beautiful, and complex organ of my body...


Then I realized who was telling me that.
-emo phillips

"Science does not distinguish greatly between animals and homo sapiens; they are from one kingdom—Kingdom Animalia. In all their diversity, the various members of the homo sapien species may be identified as animals." - eatme.com



I really don't give a **** if you think that humans are not animals.
Believe that we are all created by fairies and angels, for all I care.

Our nation's Declaration of Independence makes no sense if man is just an extra clever ape because its statement about being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights would be a false statement.


No wonder you don't get it.



The Declaration of Independance was not some religious decree. It was a **** you letter to a guy who thought he was god on Earth. That's all that was, but in words that a "divine" king would understand.

It was Thomas Jefferson saying that "you are just the same as us, dip****. you are not special, and you certainly are NOT god".

I think the spirit of the Declaration of Independence is the important part, not the exact wording. A reference to God shows the culture and mindset of the people of the times, not a statement of ultimate fact that God created us. This is why an elastic clause was built into the Constitution, because the forefathers realized that they didn't know the exact best way of doing everything until the end of time. They allowed for changes in belief and for new knowledge and even opinion to alter the interpretation of the backbone of our government.

Humans are animals. We are very very smart animals, the smartest that we know of. We are at the top of the food chain. In a hand to hand fight a bear or lion or cheetah, etc. would kill us and have dinner for their cubs. Our natural advantage is our ability to work together and communicate and to create useful things from the materials naturally occurring around us.

Do you really think that a building made of concrete and steel is any less natural than an ant-hill made of sand and dirt? They are both naturally occurring productions of natural lifeforms. Ours is just familiar as something made by humans, and because of our self-awareness we think of ourselves as higher than the things around us. It can be argued that the complexities and consumerism of human society are simply ways to distract ourselves from the fact that we are animals with no greater purpose in this world than simple existence.

5 billion years from now our species will almost definitely not exist (the sun will explode, although we will have most likely have died out far sooner). Our planet is overpopulated and we have developed weapons (just significantly more complicated versions of the first ape who picked up a bone and used it to club his enemy) that are capable of wiping out the entire planet.

If you know anything about astronomy, or about the various probabilities of the various steps of the evolution of life from protoplasm to human occurring (which have been studied thoroughly and quantified by scientists for years), life exists elsewhere and probably exists in a form more advanced than ourselves. It is unlikely that this life exists anywhere near enough to reach us due to the theory of relativity and the limitations of travelling up to the speed of light, let alone the problems in accelerating to the speed of light (ever get on a rollercoaster that speeds up from 0 to 80 mph in 2 seconds? imagine 0 to 670616629 mph (the speed of light).

My point is that when you understand that humans are not permanent nor the highest possible form of life, it begins to make more sense that we are part of nature. We have evolved impressive brains, but that's all we are, animals with very large and complex brains, or as Vonnegut put it, "3 pounds of bloody sausage."

It is a very scary and intense thought for some people to realize they are animals and not any greater than the things they put on leashes or shoot with rifles. But it is true, and if you believe in reality and science there isn't much of a logical contrary argument to this concept.

And if you think humans have evolved to the point where we can control nature or are above it, look at the tsunami which just killed 300,000 people or the mudslides in california, earthquakes in Iran and Japan that killed thousands, and diseases (natural) that kill millions of people every year. We are able to influence nature in larger ways than many of our animal counterparts, but finding a cure for a disease is just a more advanced form of the rhino stamping out a fire. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. We are natural, made up of the same stuff that constitutes stars and "sub-human" animals. Our brain just runs a more advanced electric current and is capable of more advanced functions.

Homosexuality occurs naturally, just like everything else does. If it the result of an RNA or DNA sequence or the result of a chemical reaction in the brain that occurs after birth, does it really matter? It happened via a natural process and doesn't endanger or harm anyone. It is enjoyable for the people who experience it and doesn't hurt anyone, regardless of if it is a choice or a biological function.

Side note, our planet is overpopulated. 50 years ago there were 3 billion people. Now there are 6 billion. The growth rate is expected to slow but we should top 9 billion in the not too distant future. Our species is not in dire need of propogation, and if anything homosexuality prevents further overpopulation in a more morally-acceptable way than abortion (no fetus, no abortion!). Homosexual couples also often provide a good home for many adopted children.

Also, you can't compare homosexuality to bestiality or necrophilia, since there is no consent in bestiality or necrophilia. Homosexuality involves two consenting people and has no victims.

I think that's it for now.

Time to go enjoy some nature. :O)

-Noir