Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repealed

[Snowman]

Obama signs 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_gays_in_military)

President Barack Obama signed a landmark law Wednesday repealing the ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military, fulfilling one of his major campaign pledges and casting the issue as a matter of civil rights long denied.

"No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie, or look over their shoulder in order to serve the country that they love," Obama said

[TinkerinWstuff]

the problem with don't ask don't tell is that the military didn't "don't ask"

The military didn't turn a blind eye the way "don't ask" implies. Most every person I've seen who was booted under "don't ask" were people as normal as anyone else and no-one would have known their sexual preference if people weren't snooping through private emails etc..

The repeal of "don't ask" will now force the federal government to address same sex unions and spousal benefits.

[Snowman]

Agreed, “don’t ask, don’t tell” allowed witch hunts to go on when people didn’t like other people for whatever reason. Good to see one more step taken to get peoples prejudices out of government agencies.

I personally believe government has no place when it comes to what a marriage is. That completely up to the people and their religious institutions to decide.

[vort3xr6]

This rates a 12 on my Dontgiveafuck-O-Meter.

If Gay people want to serve then go for it. It would just be weird as a straight soldier having to shower and change next to a gay soldier. Is that not weird?

[TinkerinWstuff]

It would just be weird as a straight soldier having to shower and change next to a gay soldier. Is that not weird?

That was the point of "don't ask, don't tell". If I don't know the guy next to me likes dudes, then it's not weird. Ignorance is bliss. Going through basic training, you are showering almost hand in hand with 50 guys. If you knew someone was gay, it'd be a problem.

Once basic training was over, we didn't shower with guys any more. But you did share a room with another person. The barrack I was in, they were pretty good about moving people around to room with folks they could get along with.

[Matty]

Ignorance is bliss but common..... It's sad that people in today's generation, in general, are still so homophobic. I grew up with plenty of gay friends and even had a gay roomate in college my Feshman year. Trust me, most gay dudes know if you're gay or straight and don't get excited just because there's a straight guy in the shower.

Anyways, glad Obama finally made good on another campaign promise.

[Snowman]

This rates a 12 on my Dontgiveafuck-O-Meter.

If Gay people want to serve then go for it. It would just be weird as a straight soldier having to shower and change next to a gay soldier. Is that not weird?Then I would suggest those soldiers with issues with homosexuals, grow up or get out. (Which is what the “Policy” should have been in the first place.)

Being in government service and working on stations in Antarctica I have to work with, eat, share rooms and tents and showers with people I’m assigned to. Whatever their sexual preference has nothing to do with the job that has to be done and never has down here.

[veteran_80]

i served for almost 5 years, a couple tours in iraq in the infantry. I got out in 07 and kept touch with most of my platoon through facebook. I soon figured out that one of the guys I served with was gay. I look at him no differently knowing this now. Would I have if I knew back then? I don't really know. What I do know is any man or woman who is willing to fight and put their life on the line to protect our rights and freedoms should be allowed those same freedoms they are fighting for period! The burdon lies with us straight folks to adjust... Awkward yes. Life altering no... Just get over it.

[FZRguy]

So long as they can do the job, sexual pref makes zero diff to me.

[Sarge]

I'm in the Army, and in Iraq right now. As much as I'm not into the whole gay thing, I'm not offended by it, but I can see a real issue come up with billetting and what we like to call "cohabitating." Right now I can get in a lot of trouble and even lose rank if I'm found in a room with a female, my room or otherwise. I don't see how this could NOT apply to gay people. So, either we make seperate billetting for straight males, straight females, gay males, gay females, or we go fully transparent and co-ed across the board, which will have the females, etc up in arms. But I don't see how their sentiments would be any different than the sentiments of the straight people fearing sexual attention and/or aggression from the gay people of either sex.

[laspariahs]

I'm in the Army, and in Iraq right now. As much as I'm not into the whole gay thing, I'm not offended by it, but I can see a real issue come up with billetting and what we like to call "cohabitating." Right now I can get in a lot of trouble and even lose rank if I'm found in a room with a female, my room or otherwise. I don't see how this could NOT apply to gay people. So, either we make seperate billetting for straight males, straight females, gay males, gay females, or we go fully transparent and co-ed across the board, which will have the females, etc up in arms. But I don't see how their sentiments would be any different than the sentiments of the straight people fearing sexual attention and/or aggression from the gay people of either sex.

First I would like to say I'm encouraged at the responses, I've been arguing about this on another forum, and the responses weren't so positive, to say the least.

Anyways, I see what you are saying about billeting, and frankly I think they should just go completely transparent, other countries militaries are, and I think it's better for everyone. Until then there should be billeting for gays as well, it's not fair or equal for it to be one way for gays and one way for straights. I'm all for 100% equality, which is why, again, I would like to see 100% transparency in our military, I've thought that way for years and years now.

Having two militaries, one for females and one for males, costs us millions and millions and millions of dollars every year, and beyond that I would strongly argue that it hugely disrupts unit cohesion. A simple example I was given by a guy I know that commanded sailors in the navy, before and after women were allowed in the military as "equals", was the fact that they no longer slept and ate together, they didn't arrive to work at the same time anymore. And not to mention they had to refit the navy to allow for women on board with their own bathrooms and showers. I also firmly believe it would be good for womens rights as a whole.

Anyways, I'll get off my horse. But again guys it I was talking on a car forum, and it's good to know the motorcycle forum isn't a bunch of homophobes. I'm down with the Grow Up Or Get Out program.

[Ol'Skool]

As long as the code of conduct is being followed and the MOS is being completed honorably, who cares. I cant believe this topic got this much attention.
Bin ladin's still running around, a north korean midget is having dilusions of grandeur and the FBI is uncovering homeland terrorist plots on a weekly basis. We have more important issues to deal with.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Trust me, most gay dudes know if you're gay or straight and don't get excited just because there's a straight guy in the shower.

I've been saying the same thing to the lesbians. I mean, if they aren't attracted to me, we shouldn't have any problem showering together. We should just have coed showers and be done with it.

[mathman1000]

I cant believe this topic got this much attention.


Sadly; we can thank the Christian Right (aka Christian WRONG) for all the publicity. The republicans need to pander to their base. Sorry to make this political, but that's the sad truth as I see it.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Sadly; we can thank the Christian Right (aka Christian WRONG) for all the publicity. The republicans need to pander to their base. Sorry to make this political, but that's the sad truth as I see it.
http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Bush_Fault.gif
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yJE834OtsY8/SRELR0ng6yI/AAAAAAAAAYU/j8j4shFksF0/s400/lefty_kool-aid_award.gif

[mathman1000]

Uhhh, don't ask don't tell was implemented under Clinton. Did you not know that?

[TinkerinWstuff]

yep

[Sarge]

That's why it's funny. :lol:

[t_jolt]

Also most of here dont care. But what about those that do. There are people who will look different at someone, or not trust them when they know they are gay. Right? probably not. But if at this point in someones life, its probably not to change.

Some people will not be willing to work with a gay combat brother. Sad, but true.

Tyrel

[Ricky]

Uhhh, don't ask don't tell was implemented under Clinton. Did you not know that?

Piss poor attempt by the left, to try to give gays the rights they deserve. But that was 15 years when so many were still so homophobic.

It amazes me that even 230+ years after the declaration of independence, that we can't follow the most well known part of it:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We're slowly getting there, but it shouldn't take 250+ years.

[TinkerinWstuff]

people are going to do everything they can to try and turn this into an internet debate

[The Black Knight]

Agreed, “don’t ask, don’t tell” allowed witch hunts to go on when people didn’t like other people for whatever reason. Good to see one more step taken to get peoples prejudices out of government agencies.

I personally believe government has no place when it comes to what a marriage is. That completely up to the people and their religious institutions to decide.
I agree with that statement Mr. Snowman, the only issue I have is when the Gay and Lesbian contingent try and get legislation passed that forces Religious institutions to perform said marriage(s). (I know California was having a problem with this a few years back, haven't heard much since though, I just know it will be a matter of time before it rears its head again)

If a specific church doesn't have a problem with marrying Gays and Lesbians, that's fine, it's their choice and their decision.

However, when another church who doesn't believe in the lifestyle and wants no part of it, is then forced to marry these people because that's the church(regardless of the church's stance) they want to use, then I have issues with it.

That being said, I don't think it will be a huge problem for the military. It's just like any other profession when people from all walks of life will be there working side by side. You have a job to do, and do your job regardless of who's standing next to you.

I've worked along side several homosexual people in my career. And in my line of work, sexuality isn't really a concern. I'll be honest, it's a lifestyle that I'll never support nor ever cast a yes vote for when it comes to the marriage issue, and the few that I've worked with in the past have asked me and my thoughts on the issue. And I'm honest and upfront about how I feel. However, I've always told them, doesn't mean I respect them any less or look down on them as a productive worker. And I've never been one of those guys that once I find out, I run up and express my discontent with them, I view that as rude and disrespectful and just plain wrong.

I've always believed that in a business/professional atmosphere sexuality, along with religion and political views are best kept private(it's your business and yours alone). Most of my co-workers never know of my deep religious background, unless they ask.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Piss poor attempt by the left, to try to give gays the rights they deserve. But that was 15 years when so many were still so homophobic.

It amazes me that even 230+ years after the declaration of independence, that we can't follow the most well known part of it: We're slowly getting there, but it shouldn't take 250+ years.

sure, that kinda makes sense. I mean the "founding fathers", who didn't put in any provisions about freeing slaves, and owned slaves themselves, must have wrote this statement to protect the rights of gays.

or maybe your point is a bit of a non-sequitur

[csmith]

sure, that kinda makes sense. I mean the "founding fathers", who didn't put in any provisions about freeing slaves, and owned slaves themselves, must have wrote this statement to protect the rights of gays.

or maybe your point is a bit of a non-sequitur

The line started as "Life, liberty and property" but it was changed to "pursuit of happiness" because they were afraid southern states would run with the "blacks are property" bit and say it was a federal right. So while they didn't say "stop doing it" they set the ground work. Also, slaves (in any culture) weren't exactly seen as human beings by their contemporaries.

Comparing slaves to homosexuals is apples and oranges anyway you put it. Unless those homosexuals live in Tehran and get stoned to death. Then you can compare them.

I don't personally agree with homosexuality, but those that choose the lifestyle are still human beings, citizens and a part of "We the People". No more and no less.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I don't personally agree with homosexuality, but those that choose the lifestyle are still human beings, citizens and a part of "We the People". No more and no less.

That may be true now. But to try and paint a picture of George Washington etc sitting around a table going "we the people, and that means homosexuals too" is kinda funny.

[TinkerinWstuff]

If you really want to put your critical thinking caps on, you could argue that the repeal of "don't ask" was unconstitutional. Or more specifically, the process by which it was repealed and therefore the repeal itself.

You can argue that the will of the people has not been followed. In the November election, the people spoke and fired a whole shitload of representatives because the people didn't agree with how they were being represented. Now I don't know about you folks, but anyone I know of who's been fired or laid off has the checkbook taken away and is escorted straight to the door.

Instead, you have a host of people who were fired, people who have no further accountability to the people, taking on votes and writing checks that were all to "politically dangerous" to touch before the election. Now these people have nothing to loose so they are ramrodding stuff through as fast as possible.

Some of you might say, "so what, the ends justified the means." What happens next time when you don't agree with the ends? What happens when the dreaded Christian Right is in control, voted out, and in the last days votes to deport all Mexicans, gays, and hairlips?

Merry Christmas, enjoy your days off, Christmas bonus, etc. I guess you can thank Jesus.

Oh, read up on the 20th Amendment

[Snowman]

I agree with that statement Mr. Snowman, the only issue I have is when the Gay and Lesbian contingent try and get legislation passed that forces Religious institutions to perform said marriage(s). (I know California was having a problem with this a few years back, haven't heard much since though, I just know it will be a matter of time before it rears its head again)

If a specific church doesn't have a problem with marrying Gays and Lesbians, that's fine, it's their choice and their decision.
However, when another church who doesn't believe in the lifestyle and wants no part of it, is then forced to marry these people because that's the church(regardless of the church's stance) they want to use, then I have issues with it.

I can’t think of any legislation being proposed (even California Proposition 8.) that required churches to hold marriage ceremonies for whoever may ask for one. I believe the separation of church and state clause would prevent any this from happening, as it should. Just try and get one held in a Mormon Tabernacle if you are not Mormon.

If your belief that this sexual preference is wrong, then you should have every right to be with people who think the same way and worship as such.



If you really want to put your critical thinking caps on, you could argue that the repeal of "don't ask" was unconstitutional. Or more specifically, the process by which it was repealed and therefore the repeal itself

Merry Christmas, enjoy your days off, Christmas bonus, etc. I guess you can thank Jesus.
Oh, read up on the 20th Amendment


As it has been pointed out numerous times on this forum, we live in a Republic which does not require its representatives to follow the will of their constituents. The 20th amendment says nothing about how a representative should or should not vote. So last minute votes from representatives that have been votes out but whose terms have not expired yet, is perfectly constitutional.

Is it right to go against the will of the people, seems to be your argument. I believe the more people you have making a choice the better chance you have at making the right one. So logically you should conclude we the people make the choice and our representative relay this choice. But there is noting in our constitution or it amendments to dictate this.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Implied:



The 20th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is also called the Lame Duck Amendment, because it put a stop to "lame duck" sessions of Congress by advancing the dates for the President's inauguration to January 20 from March 4th, and the date for Congress to convene to January 3rd from march 4th. This avoided the time in office with diminished power.

http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/20th_amendment.shtml

[Snowman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion


Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission

[TinkerinWstuff]

That's not critical thinking, that's quoting wikipedia

post 28 - more history on the amendment and reason for it

additionally:

http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/lame-duck-president1.htm



The Lame-Duck Amendment

Prior to the institution of the 20th Amendment in 1933, members of Congress sat for a full 13 months in office after losing an election. This was ample time for some to raid the office supply closet, as it were. "The old members, in lame duck sessions, often did things that the new members might not" is one way of putting it [source: The New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE2D9173EF936A35752C0A96F9582 60)].

[csmith]

That may be true now. But to try and paint a picture of George Washington etc sitting around a table going "we the people, and that means homosexuals too" is kinda funny.

They had that talk right after this. :up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P85BXvLMOk

[The Black Knight]

I can’t think of any legislation being proposed (even California Proposition 8.) that required churches to hold marriage ceremonies for whoever may ask for one. I believe the separation of church and state clause would prevent any this from happening, as it should. Just try and get one held in a Mormon Tabernacle if you are not Mormon.

If your belief that this sexual preference is wrong, then you should have every right to be with people who think the same way and worship as such.

It wasn't recently Snowman, I believe it was several years back in Cali, and if I'm not mistaken it had gotten repealed or removed. It wasn't widespread and I think it got stopped before it really took off(I just did a quick google search and couldn't turn up anything recent on it, so it may have been longer ago this happen). My point is, I'd hate to see this kind of law or legislation come back. I, too believe in Separation of Church and State and I believe the door swings both ways in that arena(meaning keep the church out of government, vice versa keep the government out of the churches).

As always, I firmly believe it should be a State issue and not Federal.

[TFOGGuys]

I actually agree with the repeal, but this is too good to pass up.....:lol:

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt337/baileyguns/Obama%20BS/758f7531.jpg

[DFab]

FAIL on the 69th. Completely unrelated to sodomy.

[Airreed]

I'm in the military and done a couple deployments (3 as of now...) and don't really care if you are gay or not (I do perfer two hot women, but you won't find that in the Army...maybe in the AF). I'm more concerned if you can shoot, move, and communicate on the battlefield.

Yes, there are uneducated homo-fobs in our formations that will have to adjust or they will get the educated the hard way (ART 15 / Court Martial).

[Sarge]

FAIL on the 69th. Completely unrelated to sodomy.

Sodomy is basically anything that's not basic sex, so it still applies. The military actually prohibits all forms of sodomy, to include felatio. Just an interesting fact. :eyebrows:

[Sarge]

Wikipedia:



Sodomy (pronounced /ˈsɒdəmi/ (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)) is a term used in the law (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/wiki/Law) to describe the act of "unnatural"[1] (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/#cite_note-0) sex, which depending on jurisdiction can consist of oral sex (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/wiki/Oral_sex) or anal sex (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/wiki/Anal_sex) or any non-genital to genital congress, whether heterosexual, or homosexual, or with human or animal (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/wiki/Zoophilia).[2] (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/#cite_note-1)

To summarise the above account:
The men of the city of Sodom desired that Lot give them the two men so that they may "know" them. (In the Bible, the word "know" is occasionally used to refer to sexual activity.) Lot refuses to hand them over, and (going outside) offers his two virgin (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/wiki/Virginity) daughters instead. This offer is refused, and after the men press upon Lot and come near to break down the door, the two angels draw Lot back into the house and shut the door. They cause blindness to come upon the men of the city, thus bringing safety to those within the house. Even in their blinded state, the men outside still try to gain entry to the house and continue until they become wearied. We see here the extent of either their depravity or lack of hospitality, depending upon how one interprets the verses.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Nice Sarge

Further:


Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) http://z.about.com/ ART. 125. SODOMY http://z.about.com/

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.




http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-125.htm

[Sarge]

So, do they go back and amend the UCMJ to allow for anal penetration and felatio? I'd love to see how THAT one goes down. :lol:

Another useless fact: There's an article that prohibits and punishes adultery as well, we kicked somebody out for it back in 2008. (Among other things, but it was on the list of charges.)

[TinkerinWstuff]

I forgot about that one

[chanke4252]

I don't personally agree with homosexuality, but those that choose the lifestyle are still human beings, citizens and a part of "We the People". No more and no less.

I like the post that I snipped this out of overall, and think it's pretty reasonable. But how do you "agree" or disagree with homosexuality? I'm legitimately asking. What does "agree" or "disagree" mean when directed towards the topic of homosexuality?

The only reason this jumped out at me is because, to me, based on my experience and the way I think, it's almost like saying "I don't agree with broccoli". I just don't see how it's something that can be agreed or disagreed with, so I'm genuinely and respectfully wanting to understand what you mean.

[The Black Knight]

I like the post that I snipped this out of overall, and think it's pretty reasonable. But but how do you "agree" or disagree with homosexuality? I'm legitimately asking. What does "agree" or "disagree" mean when directed towards the topic of homosexuality?

The only reason this jumped out at me is because, to me, based on my experience and the way I think, it's almost like saying "I don't agree with broccoli". I just don't see how it's something that can be agreed or disagreed with, so I'm genuinely and respectfully wanting to understand what you mean.

taken from dictionary.reference.com, hope this helps :)
a·gree

  http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/A02/A0224300) /əˈgri/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spel[uh-gree] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA verb, a·greed, a·gree·ing.
–verb (used without object)

1. to have the same views, emotions, etc.; harmonize in opinion or feeling (often fol. by with ): I don't agree with you.

2. to give consent; assent (often fol. by to ): He agreed to accompany the ambassador. Do you agree to the conditions?

3. to live in concord or without contention; get along together.

4. to come to one opinion or mind; come to an arrangement or understanding; arrive at a settlement: They have agreed on the terms of surrender.

5. to be consistent; harmonize (usually fol. by with ): This story agrees with hers.

6. to correspond; conform; resemble (usually fol. by with ): The play does not agree with the book.

7. to be suitable; comply with a preference or an ability to digest (usually fol. by with ): The food did not agree with me.



dis·a·gree

  http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/D03/D0341900) /ˌdɪshttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˈgri/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled[dis-uh-gree] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
–verb (used without object), -greed, -gree·ing.

1. to fail to agree; differ: The conclusions disagree with the facts. The theories disagree in their basic premises.

2. to differ in opinion; dissent: Three of the judges disagreed with the verdict.

3. to quarrel: They disagreed violently and parted company.

4. to cause physical discomfort or ill effect (usually fol. by with ): The oysters disagreed with her. Cold weather disagrees with me.

[TinkerinWstuff]

^^^^lol!!!!

http://bp2.blogger.com/_1QTOfq40XDI/SFwDCnIiUII/AAAAAAAABtU/aMb-cgYR9PY/s400/motivation-day1.jpg

[chanke4252]

I do, in fact, know what agree and disagree mean. however, in the way "agree" was specifically used I do not. So, I was seeking specific clarification without being a douche about it. Your attempted mocking is not appreciated.

[The Black Knight]

I do, in fact, know what agree and disagree mean. however, in the way "agree" was specifically used I do not. So, I was seeking specific clarification without being a douche about it. Your attempted mocking is not appreciated.
HAHA!! you think I was mocking you?? Dude, I only posted that so you could clearly see the difference.

Look if you don't get it when someone says "they either DISAGREE or AGREE with homosexuality" then that's your problem and you'll have to figure it out. But don't for a minute think I was trying to mock you. :down:


OFF TOPIC

I just wanted to point out that I've done it again for the 3rd time.

<--------------- yeah!! 2G's!! :)

[TinkerinWstuff]

I do, in fact, know what agree and disagree mean. however, in the way "agree" was specifically used I do not. So, I was seeking specific clarification without being a douche about it. Your attempted mocking is not appreciated.


HAHA!! you think I was mocking you?? Dude, I only posted that so you could clearly see the difference.

Look if you don't get it when someone says "they either DISAGREE or AGREE with homosexuality" then that's your problem and you'll have to figure it out. But don't for a minute think I was trying to mock you. :down:

I'll spell it out...


taken from dictionary.reference.com, hope this helps :)
a·gree

  http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/A02/A0224300) /əˈgri/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spel[uh-gree] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA verb, a·greed, a·gree·ing.
–verb (used without object)

1. to have the same views, emotions, etc.; harmonize in opinion or feeling (often fol. by with ): I don't agree with you.

2. to give consent; assent (often fol. by to ): He agreed to accompany the ambassador. Do you agree to the conditions?

3. to live in concord or without contention; get along together.

4. to come to one opinion or mind; come to an arrangement or understanding; arrive at a settlement: They have agreed on the terms of surrender.

5. to be consistent; harmonize (usually fol. by with ): This story agrees with hers.

6. to correspond; conform; resemble (usually fol. by with ): The play does not agree with the book.

7. to be suitable; comply with a preference or an ability to digest (usually fol. by with ): The food did not agree with me.



dis·a·gree

  http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/D03/D0341900) /ˌdɪshttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˈgri/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled[dis-uh-gree] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
–verb (used without object), -greed, -gree·ing.

1. to fail to agree; differ: The conclusions disagree with the facts. The theories disagree in their basic premises.

2. to differ in opinion; dissent: Three of the judges disagreed with the verdict.

3. to quarrel: They disagreed violently and parted company.

4. to cause physical discomfort or ill effect (usually fol. by with ): The oysters disagreed with her. Cold weather disagrees with me.

It all pretty much seems to be there. Just about every definetion under "agree" could probably be substituted in the original quoted statement, "I don't agree with"

or, you could use definition #4 under Disagree and assume that if someone doesn't "agree" with homosexuality, they probably mean that the thought of two dudes _____________ probably makes them ill.

[chanke4252]

ok, not mocking if that's not your preference. how about rude smart ass comments, or unoriginal lapdog stuff in tinkerinwstuff's case (reminds me of that guy who repeats comments/jokes that were JUST told by someone else, and still expects a laugh)? either way it's not necessary. did i ask for someone to copy/paste a simplistic definition from dictionary.com or something? no, i didn't. what i did ask for was clarification from someone (neither of you two) regarding a specific statement they made. did you make an honest attempt to provide that, or even genuinely respond in any way? not at all.

if you want to be a dick, at least do it over pm rather than shit all over the place. but if your life is really such that you feel that you need to go online and act the douche for some reason, then please direct it towards someone else because I'm not at all interested.

[Sarge]

While I have to say that the dictionary definition definitely clears it up, one could also argue that homosexuality in itself is a choice. That being the case, "not agreeing" with homosexuality means that one wouldn't agree with the choice to be and/or engage in homosexual activities.

Hope that clears things up. :)

[TinkerinWstuff]

wow dude, it's the internet - and a hot button issue - grow some thick skin

If you didn't want the peanut gallery to have any opportunity to chime in with a response, maybe YOU should have asked your question in a PM?



http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/ac47/tinkerinWstuff/Misc/butthurt_report_form.jpg

[dirkterrell]

While I have to say that the dictionary definition definitely clears it up, one could also argue that homosexuality in itself is a choice.

And that would be a very flawed argument. Decades of psychiatric research have shown pretty conclusively that homsexuality is nonpathological and immutable (i.e. you can't "cure" someone of homosexuality). A wide variety of genetic research has shown clear genetic factors associated with homosexuality. In this light "agreeing" with homosexuality is akin to "agreeing" with someone's having blue eyes, which is the point chanke was trying to make. The development of sexuality is a very complex process that we have only recently started to understand, and to classify it as merely a "choice" betrays the kind of ignorance that caused some people to classify others who didn't look like them as inferior (and some unfortunately still do).

I grew up in the South and saw racism at its rawest. As I grew up I began to realize that the claims made by racists didn't seem to match my observations of people. It became very clear to me that some people feared those who were different from them, for very illogical reasons. We seem to have made progress on the racial side of things as a society but we are still in the very infancy of an understanding that homosexual people are not "sick" or "evil" or whatever other denigrating terms that might be slung at them. They are human beings who show the same spectrum of personalities as heterosexuals. They are just as capable of loving and caring for others as heterosexuals. And when we begin to truly try to understand our deep-seated negative feelings towards others, we will make another step towards the primary ideal that this country was founded on: freedom and the right to live unencumbered by the beliefs of others, and, what many seem to forget, to not encumber others by your beliefs.

Dirk

[TinkerinWstuff]

Well there ya are Dirk. Was wondering when you would chime in. I was also really looking forward to your take on the 20th Amendment discussion from page two of this thread.

[TFOGGuys]

This thread needs boobies.....






http://theoldgringa.com/wp-content/gallery/birds/boobies-5.jpg

[MetaLord 9]

I haven't read through the thread at all, but I'm pretty sure that, judging by the title, you can ALL now join the military....except Jim. In addition to being gay, he's OLD. :D

[dirkterrell]

Well there ya are Dirk. Was wondering when you would chime in. I was also really looking forward to your take on the 20th Amendment discussion from page two of this thread.

I certainly don't like the idea of stuff get ramrodded through after elections but that's the way the system is set up, so it isn't unconstitutional. My take on DADT is that the whole idea of banning homosexuals from the military in the first place was wrong, just as it was wrong to segregate blacks and diminish their role in serving this country over many decades.

Dirk

[Kim-n-Dean]

While I have to say that the dictionary definition definitely clears it up, one could also argue that homosexuality in itself is a choice. That being the case, "not agreeing" with homosexuality means that one wouldn't agree with the choice to be and/or engage in homosexual activities.

Hope that clears things up. :)If being gay is a "choice" then straight people have to choose to be straight. In other words, if you're straight, you chose to be and therefore you are totally capable of being gay as well, you just didn't choose it. With that said, I'm gonna run out and suck a big dick today and make sure I made the right choice... :roll:

[64BonnieLass]

:lol: Go get em' tiger! Ha, too funny Dean.

[Sarge]

I was very careful about saying "it could be argued." I never said that was my opinion, I was just proffering material for the debate.

I honestly haven't taken sides in this debate just yet, I'm kind of just waiting for it all to play itself out. I honestly believe, as I mentioned in a previous post, that we (the Military) need to just go completely transparent about the whole thing. No more segregating or "seperate but equal" facilities for men vs women, and all that hubbub about visiting hours and this and this. We're supposed to be professionals, but they treat us like 4 year olds, and then upset at us when we act like 4 year olds...

I could go on all day, but I won't. Like I said, I'm sitting this one out and just seeing how the cards fall. :popcorn:

[MetaLord 9]

With that said, I'm gonna run out and suck a big dick today and make sure I made the right choice...
...aaaand there's a new sig line!

[Sarge]

On a side note, I might be straight, but there's nothing to stop me from making the choice to persue homosexual relations, just sayin'.

[MetaLord 9]

On a side note, I might be straight, but there's nothing to stop me from making the choice to pursue homosexual relations, just sayin'.
note to self: don't get sarge drunk when he gets back unless you're ok with a lot of 'splain'n.

[Sarge]

Good thing I'm a happy drunk. ;)

Just for the record, my name's Joe by the way.

[salsashark]

:lol: Go get em' tiger! Ha, too funny Dean.

It took a comment like that to drag you out of hiding?! :lol:



:hibye:

[MetaLord 9]

Good thing I'm a happy drunk. ;)

Just for the record, my name's Joe by the way.
GI Joe? dude, got your own action figure yet?

[puckstr]

AMERICA
FUCK YEAH!!!!
http://www.thereheis.com/nucleus3.22/media/gallery/20080704-i-pledge-allegiance-flag-boobs-touch.jpg

If your Gay be proud
If your Straight be Proud
If you got a problem with that then FUCK YOU

[TinkerinWstuff]

I was very careful about saying "it could be argued." I never said that was my opinion, I was just proffering material for the debate.


As have I. It's been a slow time to find any internet fodder that prompts any real thought.

Dean - that's some funny shit!!

Dirk - agreed, the repeal, or any of the rest of the crap rammed through in closing weeks wasn't technically "unconstitutional". But if segregating blacks, and expelling gays went against the "intent" of the constitution, then so does the passage of recent bills go against the intent of the 20th.

[TFOGGuys]

to those that got offended/butthurt/whiny earlier....

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:HayCXhvTZSDgAM:http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h170/adhorow/Sand_In_Your_Vagina.jpg&t=1

[Sarge]

GI Joe? dude, got your own action figure yet?

Hah, no. Only people who aren't in the Army think that's funny. I set that as my Myspace name for a while back in Basic and still haven't heard the end of it.


AMERICA
FUCK YEAH!!!!
http://www.thereheis.com/nucleus3.22/media/gallery/20080704-i-pledge-allegiance-flag-boobs-touch.jpg

If your Gay be proud
If your Straight be Proud
If you got a problem with that then FUCK YOU

Finally, Yay! for boobies!!!


to those that got offended/butthurt/whiny earlier....

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:HayCXhvTZSDgAM:http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h170/adhorow/Sand_In_Your_Vagina.jpg&t=1

The proper term is "SVS" for "Sandy Vagina Syndrome." It's actually quite common over here in the desert. :lol:

[dirkterrell]

Dirk - agreed, the repeal, or any of the rest of the crap rammed through in closing weeks wasn't technically "unconstitutional". But if segregating blacks, and expelling gays went against the "intent" of the constitution, then so does the passage of recent bills go against the intent of the 20th.

Then perhaps the 20th should have made the terms end after the elections. I wouldn't find it hard to agree with that.

Dirk

[TinkerinWstuff]

Then perhaps the 20th should have made the terms end after the elections. I wouldn't find it hard to agree with that.

Dirk

The 20th was ratified in 1933 and is probably due for another update to get with modern times.

Quoted from Wiki:

The amendment reduced the amount of time between Election Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_%28United_States%29#History) and the beginning of Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion#cite_note-0) Originally, the terms of the President, the Vice President and the in-coming elected Congress began on March 4, four months after the elections were held. While this lapse was a practical necessity at the end of the 18th century, when any newly-elected official might require several months to put his affairs in order and then undertake an arduous journey from his home to the national capital, it eventually had the effect of impeding the functioning of government in the modern age.

The bill to repeal "don't ask" should have been taken up prior to the midterm. If it was such a hot button issue that they were afraid to touch it then it should have been taken up by the new congress.

[dirkterrell]

If it was such a hot button issue that they were afraid to touch it then it should have been taken up by the new congress.

There's nothing stopping the new Congress from doing so.

Dirk

[The Black Knight]

And that would be a very flawed argument. Decades of psychiatric research have shown pretty conclusively that homsexuality is nonpathological and immutable (i.e. you can't "cure" someone of homosexuality). A wide variety of genetic research has shown clear genetic factors associated with homosexuality. In this light "agreeing" with homosexuality is akin to "agreeing" with someone's having blue eyes, which is the point chanke was trying to make. The development of sexuality is a very complex process that we have only recently started to understand, and to classify it as merely a "choice" betrays the kind of ignorance that caused some people to classify others who didn't look like them as inferior (and some unfortunately still do).

I grew up in the South and saw racism at its rawest. As I grew up I began to realize that the claims made by racists didn't seem to match my observations of people. It became very clear to me that some people feared those who were different from them, for very illogical reasons. We seem to have made progress on the racial side of things as a society but we are still in the very infancy of an understanding that homosexual people are not "sick" or "evil" or whatever other denigrating terms that might be slung at them. They are human beings who show the same spectrum of personalities as heterosexuals. They are just as capable of loving and caring for others as heterosexuals. And when we begin to truly try to understand our deep-seated negative feelings towards others, we will make another step towards the primary ideal that this country was founded on: freedom and the right to live unencumbered by the beliefs of others, and, what many seem to forget, to not encumber others by your beliefs.

Dirk
I'd have to respectfully disagree with you there Dirk. Reason being, is this. People aren't born Killers or Murderers. It has to be cultivated in some way, shape and/or form. A person doesn't come out of the womb, reaches an age of accountability and just decides one day to start killing because it was bred(born with it) into them. Something is the catalyst for that behavior and it needs to be triggered.

Serial killers, kill once, like the experience, the rush and the adrenaline boost and become infatuated with the feeling. The only way for them to reach a climax is to kill again and again.

The same way we aren't born motorcyclist. It's something that we either grow up liking(or being exposed to), end up experiencing and therefore take up the hobby of becoming a motorcycle enthusiasts. Some might argue that they are born to ride but we aren't. I didn't like motorcycles until my dad put me on his when I was young. After that I was hooked with the experience. However, it wasn't until my early 20's that I actually could afford a bike and have been a motorcyclist ever since.

The only things we are born with are our hair color, our eye color, skin color, genetic code that will determine our deepness of voice, height, etc. etc. We are also born with a desire to "Pro-Create". It's a desire for us men to mate with a woman. Why? because of our plumbing. A penis, inserted into a vagina enough times will produce offspring. It's how we promote the growth of the human race.

I don't for a moment believe that we were created to desire the same sex. For me it's based on religious beliefs that I won't get into. Yet I don't believe we as Men are born with the desire for another man's hairy ass. And I don't believe Women are born with the desire to munch down on each other. And I'm sorry if those last two sentences seem crass but that's basically what it boils down to for me.

The reason I believe homosexuality is a choice is because like motorcycling, it has to be experienced(or experimented with) and ultimately enjoyed. Obviously comparing the two is apples and oranges but you get my point.

Again, I don't look down on homosexuals. It's the sexual lifestyle that I find repulsive. Are they caring and decent people?? Yes. Can they be productive workers in the work place?? Most definitely, I can attest to that, I've seen them achieve. Does it make them any less of a human being or less of an American?? No, not at all. They have rights just as we do. However, like I've said before, I'll never support(vote for) it and I'll never AGREE(<---chanke) with it as I think it's wrong and detrimental towards the growth of the human race.

And you'll never see me out there, as one of these bigots that wants to go out and hurt these people(because that's wrong and plain f**ked up in my opinion), nor will you ever see me try and get legislation passed to ban this sort of behavior/lifestyle.

But to condone(agree) it or support(vote) it, will just never happen with me. And I hope I didn't offend anyone.



P.S.
Chanke, grow the hell up man. This is the last time I'll say it, I wasn't mocking you, nor was I trying to be rude and/or smart assed. If that's what you think I did, then whatever man. If it fires your rockets more power to you. I merely posted those definitions as a clear line of distinction.

[chanke4252]

While I have to say that the dictionary definition definitely clears it up, one could also argue that homosexuality in itself is a choice. That being the case, "not agreeing" with homosexuality means that one wouldn't agree with the choice to be and/or engage in homosexual activities.

Hope that clears things up. :)

i think it's a matter of interpretation. because of the nature of the issue, i just didn't want to put words in anyone's mouth, or make any assumptions, especially to someone who had demonstrated that they are probably pretty respectful to those that they may disagree with (whatever that specifically means).

The kinsey Institute has done a lot of cool research in this area. If you are interested, there is a lot of information out there about all of this kind of stuff. It's sometimes disturbing, but very illuminating and interesting. quick blurb on the kinsey scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

obviously some people think being gay or straight is a choice, but having known more than a couple of people who struggled with it over the years, the idea of homosexuality being determined by choice seems pretty absurd to me. Many people often put themselves through HUGE amounts of personal grief when dealing with this stuff. It's more than just deciding you like weiners or tacos.

Besides, regardless of whether or not it is a choice (which I in no way think that it is), i don't see how it's a wrong choice to participate in homosexual behavior if that's what you're interested in. Obviously there are people who choose to be gay for one reason or another, but that is completely different from people who are naturally more polar in one direction or another (heterosexual/homosexual), nor is it necessarily a bad choice if that's what they want to do and it isn't hurting anyone.

Like anything else, i think a lot of peoples' feelings on the issue are going to be related to gut reaction. however, in the end i don't think there's a lot of ways to suggest that it is "wrong" without resorting to either religion based arguments, or those fueled by a lack of exposure. i'm not saying that negative feelings fueled by the unfamiliar is wrong either, I think it's pretty natural actually. i think this topic has a lot of similarities with the race issue in that regard.

I think it's going to be hard to deal with the issue in the military until we determine how we really feel about it overall. Right now we are a little ambivalent, and i think it causes problems. I don't think things like this (where there is question whether the population is for it, or against it overall) should really be aggressively legislated. the assumption that any one of us knows better than another about what that person should or shouldn't be allowed to do in their personal life behind closed doors is pretty ridiculous. imo it's is a large part of the reason why we have some of the bullshit laws that we do. if someone wants to do something, and it doesn't hurt anyone else, then I think it's our duty to unquestionably support their right to do so. it's not like some guy is coming to your house and making your kids watch gay porn, or grabbing your junk at the grocery store.


@black knight
it's possible that i misunderstood your intention. understanding your opinion on the matter, i can see how someone in your position would think my request for clarification was a little strange or unnecessary. i hope you can understand it from my side as well, as someone who doesn't think that homosexuality is a choice by a long shot. i'd also like to clarify that i'm not saying being gay is something people should or shouldn't be, but rather just something that people are (neither positive nor negative).

addressing your most recent post, I think your argument is a little flawed (my personal assessment). You seem to be trying to say that almost everything we do or want is by choice, but you seem to be saying that pretty selectively. there are a lot of animals that are observed to participate in homosexual behavior, animals dictated MUCH more by instinct than we are. how are we any different? genetic or evolutionary factors, physiological responses, psychological/emotional responses, active decision making...how do you determine where one stops and another begins? do you know what it's like to be ultra-aggressive, or ultra-creative, or to prefer the color blue to the color red, or to prefer chicken to steak? did you necessarily choose those things, or any other inherited genetic factor that might determine your behavior?

it's WAY too complicated a topic to simplify to say something like "it's a choice" with any authority. I think that uncertainty should be paid special attention to when it comes to potentially infringing someone's rights.


@tinkerinwstuff
if you're going to be a mean-spirited twat, at least be a grown up and do it yourself, rather than repeatedly quoting someone else and essentially saying "yah!!". Did I do something to you? No. So, respectfully, piss off.

[TinkerinWstuff]

didn't think I could handle your harsh words?

[dirkterrell]

We are also born with a desire to "Pro-Create".


And would you argue that the source of that desire is genetic in nature?



I don't for a moment believe that we were created to desire the same sex. For me it's based on religious beliefs that I won't get into.

Yep, like many others, which is why this topic is so heated.

Dirk

[The Black Knight]

And would you argue that the source of that desire is genetic in nature?

Dirk
When it comes to the Animal Kingdom, I tend to have a slightly different view Dirk. Again, this correlates with my religious beliefs, but I believe animals are created/born with "instinct" rather than a desire.

Whereas we do it for love and companionship, animals do it for survival and a continuation of their species. That being said, I know they have studied some species of animals that do enjoy it(Dolphins I believe are one of them).

However, I think the male and female relationship is very prevalent in the animal kingdom. Look at Wolves for instance, most of your alpha pairs(Alpha Male, Alpha Female) will mate for life. Foxes will also, Coyotes will too. It is a trait heavily found in the canines. Yet, certain birds of prey will also mate for life.

So again without this getting to religious(as that's what I'm wanting to avoid), I believe God gave the animal kingdom instinct over desire and survival over pleasure.

That being said, I think many of us can take some serious cues from the animal kingdom in regards to choosing a mate for life. You don't see animals getting a divorce over an argument or differences of opinion. I think celebrities really should pay close attention to this HAHA :)

[dirkterrell]

When it comes to the Animal Kingdom, I tend to have a slightly different view Dirk. Again, this correlates with my religious beliefs, but I believe animals are created/born with "instinct" rather than a desire.

Whereas we do it for love and companionship, animals do it for survival and a continuation of their species.

So, homosexuality in animals shouldn't exist?

Dirk

[The Black Knight]

So, homosexuality in animals shouldn't exist?

Dirk
Well in my eyes it shouldn't, but then again Dirk we are getting into philosophical/religious reasons and I'm not going to bring them up or into this discussion.

And yes I'm aware that homosexuality can occur in the animal kingdom but I have my own beliefs as to why.


PM Sent Dirk

[chanke4252]

well, you're talking about what something is in terms of evolution and genetics, and then allowing exclusions based on a philosophy that you have decided to accept. so i think it's already a philosophical/religious discussion. If philosophy and religion should not enter into it, then people need to make more of an effort to check it at the door.

[brennahm]

I think that the most important idea here is the separation of our feelings, emotions, and beliefs from how we believe legislation should be written.

I have gay friends and yet something inside me just doesn't "get" it. It grosses me out a little bit. Therefore, I just don't think about their sexuality and maintain a great relationship with these guys.

Finally, and I believe most importantly, if I were in a position to create legislation (senator, rep, etc) there is NO WAY I would attempt to limit the rights and privileges of a group of people based on their sexual preferences.

It would seem most of you are on this same page and I'm quite happy to see that.

[dirkterrell]

And yes I'm aware that homosexuality can occur in the animal kingdom but I have my own beliefs as to why.


So, it boils down to a religious belief for you and we're stuck in terms of logical debate.

Dirk

[The Black Knight]

So, it boils down to a religious belief for you and we're stuck in terms of logical debate.

Dirk
Basically :)

[Snowman]

And yet it took until now for our government to change this policy even though some believe it was done in an unethical way. The American society seems to be falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to these issues.

The Conservatives want less government interfering in their lives, yet where the one pushing to keep this policy because it violates their morals standards.

Liberals want the government to do what’s best for its people, yet are the ones who claim to know better than everyone else what that is by compromising to create this policy.

To be honest, it really doesn’t matter if homosexuality is genetic or a choice. An in a free society we are allow to choose. It’s simply no bodies business except for the parties evolved. So in this case I must take the Conservatives view and keep all government out of it as all good Liberals should know that it would be the best for everyone.

I can understand Black Knights dilemma. He has a choice between what his Liberal religion is telling him and be intolerant or his Conservative nature to have less government interfering in our lives. It’s oblivious from his statements his god is winning out over his government on this issue.

Glad to see your Liberal nature...

[The Black Knight]

I can understand Black Knights dilemma. He has a choice between what his Liberal religion is telling him and be intolerant or his Conservative nature to have less government interfering in our lives. It’s oblivious from his statements his god is winning out over his government on this issue.

Glad to see your Liberal nature...
Uhh close Mr. Snowman, except my Religion is Conservative. Check out(or Google) SDA or Seventh-day Adventist and check out how conservative SDA's really are.

There's nothing wrong with tolerance and conservatism. In fact, I think they walk hand and hand. It is in fact my conservatism that makes me tolerant. The fact that I believe as you, that it is no ones business other than the adults involved. I don't for a minute believe to impose my will on others, nor tell them to do as I say or believe as I say.

And I think you meant "obvious" instead of "oblivious" or did you?? HAHA

Yes Snowman, when man(government) goes against God, God always wins with me. And no, you're not seeing a Liberal nature in me, just an American one. :up:

[chanke4252]

Ah yes, the great Man God war of 2010. Our only real weapons are gay marriage and abortion, of course. :gay:

[Sarge]

A few quick points:

1. Homosexuality in the Animal world: Dolphins were mentioned, but I ask you this; can you tell the difference between a male and female dolphin? Do you think dolphins use smell like most other mammals do to detect the sex of their mates? Do male and female dolphins have different sounding "voices"? If so, how many male dolphins might "sound" female on occasion? I know I'm really stretching it with this example, but my point is that the "homosexual" behavior involved in animals like this is most likely accidental as opposed to a choice or programmed thing. I'm sure you never actually see mating pairs of homosexual dolphins that consistently "mate" with each other, and even if you did, how many of those pairs are female? Does this "animal homosexuality" ever involve female on female sexual behavior? And if it does, is it ever consistent, i.e. more than just a random sexual act? I mean, have you never seen a dog start getting humpy and latch onto a male persons leg? How is that any different than a male dog getting humpy and latching on to another male dog, simply because of the lack of a female presence? The instictual impulse to screw something is particularly strong in male mammals, oftentimes overwhelming the "logical" thought process involved in determining whether or not what you might be screwing is in fact "screwable." In an evolutionary sense, a male dog in a pack that screws every other dog in the pack is going to hit a female and actually procreate at least sometimes. As a matter of fact, wolves and other pack animals regularly engage in "homosexual" activitiy as a means of displaying dominance and position in the pack.

2. One could argue the "religious" and "moral" side of the argument forever. What may or may not be "right" or "appropriate" is open to much debate. Honestly, I'm all for letting inviduals do whatever they want with as little interference from the government as possible, but the real issue here comes up when you start talking about status. Who cares who's gay and not gay, but when do you start actually giving these groups status as recognized by the government, and the definition of marriage. One could almost argue that it's just as appropriate to marry ones brother or sister, or even an animal for that matter. Where do you draw the line? Decades from now are we going to have a debate over whether or not beastiality and interspecies sexual relations and marriage are appropriate? Is it really that different? Isn't it the point of marriage to create a functioning family unit that can both procreate and produce future generations? Allowing gay marriage dissolves that idea, and labeling homosexual sex inappropriate or unnatural is hardly any different than labelling sex between man and dog or man and sheep inappropriate or unnatural. Where do you draw the line?

3. Furthermore, and this goes deeper into the recognition topic of my previous point, and has added weight due to the fact that I am both in the military and currently deployed to a combat zone, how exactly DO you recognize them? Giving homosexuals status creates a litany of new logistical issues across the board. Right now my unit currently performs a nightly "courtesy patrol" more informally known as a "rape guard" around our living areas because in the period of two weeks we had four sexual assaults against members of the unit. In at least one case this involved a man getting anally raped by another man. To prevent sexual assault and "inappropriate" conduct, sexual or otherwise, how do you further define the genders in the case of a possibly 4 gender sexual cornicopia? Do you have Gay Male, Straight Male, Gay Female, Straight Female accomodations? The same for just bathrooms and such in the general populace. Should I be "forced" to use a restroom at McDonald's for Males, if it means that I might be in close proximity to a person who might sexually desire me? If this is acceptable, what is the original reason that we decided to segregate restrooms based on sex in the first place? Honestly, I feel the best solution for this is to go completely transparent. Sexual preference and gender will need to be ignored entirely for everything except for things such as clothing and medical issues. (The military does issue Female cut uniforms and such.) It's the only way for it to completely work.

4. Those last two points bring up another one: Are gays allowed to serve in the TSA? How do I know Joe Snuffy, the male they pick for my same-gender genital pat-down, isn't a homosexual who might otherwise find me sexually attractive? Isn't this the point of using same-gender TSA officers for these pat downs in the first place? Why is it appropriate to segregate between the sexes if we can't segregate between sexual preference? That's what this whole thing really comes down to it, isn't it? If homosexuals are allowed recognition as a group, why is it not appropriate that we segregate gays and straights as we do between males and females? Isn't the whole point of the current segregation between males and females because of sexual preference in the first place? How is homosexual sexual preference any different? If I go through airport security and get selected for additional screening, an officer who identifies himself as Male will be chosen to perform my pat down. Do we now start requiring that he also identify himself as Male AND Heterosexual? If not, how is it any different than a woman being subjected to a pat down search performed by a male, whose sexual preference is directed towards females?

These are just a few of the issues this whole topic brings about, but I think it brings up a lot of interesting questions. The problem is not enough people will ask themselves these questions. I hardly see any difference in allowing two men to anally penetrate each other willingly, then allowing allowing a person to say, cultivate and smoke his own marijuana for personal use? In allowing this, how do you justify ANY of societies rules or precedence from the last 8000+ years of civilization? The only thing you can say, really, is that government is put in place to prevent people from wrongfully interfering or hurting other people. Things start to get very grey when you start saying "you can do this thing that doesn't interfere with anyone else, but you can't do this thing that doesn't interfere with anyone else." Where, I ask, do we draw the line, as a society?

[brennahm]

I realize you're likely asking questions to provoke discussion and whatnot but I find it highly odd to compare homosexuality to drug use. Edit perhaps?

[Sarge]

I realize you're likely asking questions to provoke discussion and whatnot but I find it highly odd to compare homosexuality to drug use. Edit perhaps?


I can clarify that I bit, I was just sort of rambling through when I wrote the rest of that.

Basically what I was getting at is that the biggest argument for drug use is that (in most cases) drugs don't hurt anybody except for the user. This is more appropriate for Marijuana than anything, as many would argue that its social impact is much less than that of Alcohol, yet one is illegal while the other is not. My point is that if I choose to smoke Marijuana, I affect no one but myself, just as those who indulge in homosexual behavior affect no one but themselves. (So long as both parties are consenting.)

Yet, there are those who would argue against both homosexuality and drug use as immoral behavior, while the reality is (at least as I interpret it, as in, I am of the opinion) that these behaviors largely have no impact on anyone else except for those parties involved. And, giving that all parties involved are consenting, who is the government to determine, one way or the other, which of these behaviors is or should be illegal?

The original spirit of the Constitution (and I have re-read it as recently as two days ago) basically dictates that the law of the land should be interpreted to protect invdividual citizens from crimes committed against them and their person (especially those crimes perpetrated by the Government), while maintaining individual freedoms and liberties. My drug use/homosexuality reference was just touching on the fact that many laws are designed and implemented to protect us from ourselves, which actually goes against the spirit of the Constitution, and exposes a number of questions about the way Government functions these days.

And finally, as a disclaimer, the purpose of these past several posts has been to provoke discussion. I'm being very careful not to take sides or denounce any other opinions. I am just enjoying the logical, philososphical and ethical aspects of this discussion.

Just to clarify things I will disclose my personal opinion, my own thoughts on the subject, and I offer this only as my opinion and NOT as necessarily the right or wrong answer here:

I honestly do not like the thought or notion of homosexuality. I can honestly say I have not spent much time knowingly in the presence of homosexuals, but I nonetheless do not approve of the idea (or whatever you want to refer to it as) of homosexuality. On the other hand, I am a FIRM believer in the rights of all Americans to exercise their own freedoms, so long as they do not detract from the freedoms or liberties of others.

I liken this to the First Amemdment and Freedom of Speach, and to quote a 18th Century philosopher and one who had great influence over the framing of the original Constitution: "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it." [dis.] - Voltaire. I don't see how this is any different when applied to homosexuality, or even drug use, for that matter.

Just for added weight, I would like to point out the fact that I have sworn, more than once, to defend the Constitution and to protect American freedoms from enemies both foreign and domestic, and have demonstrated over the period of the last several years my dedication to that oath by obeying the lawful orders of the President and those appointed over me; whether I agree with them or not is irrelevent.

[Sarge]

..

[dirkterrell]

A few quick points:

1. Homosexuality in the Animal world: Dolphins were mentioned,


I think dolphins were mentioned as a species that as species that might engage in non-procreative sex.



but I ask you this; can you tell the difference between a male and female dolphin? Do you think dolphins use smell like most other mammals do to detect the sex of their mates? Do male and female dolphins have different sounding "voices"? If so, how many male dolphins might "sound" female on occasion? I know I'm really stretching it with this example, but my point is that the "homosexual" behavior involved in animals like this is most likely accidental as opposed to a choice or programmed thing.


Perhaps in some situations, but how would you then explain extended same-sex pairings (some even for life) that have been observed as observed in a variety of animal species?



I'm sure you never actually see mating pairs of homosexual dolphins that consistently "mate" with each other, and even if you did, how many of those pairs are female?


Actually, in dolphins extended male-male bonds form quite commonly and male-female encounters are usually of short duration.



Does this "animal homosexuality" ever involve female on female sexual behavior? And if it does, is it ever consistent, i.e. more than just a random sexual act?


In several species, like hyenas and macaques.



comes up when you start talking about status. Who cares who's gay and not gay, but when do you start actually giving these groups status as recognized by the government, and the definition of marriage. One could almost argue that it's just as appropriate to marry ones brother or sister, or even an animal for that matter. Where do you draw the line?


Perhaps you draw the line by saying that the government's is not to "give status" to anything. Doing so merely gives weapons to those who disapprove of behavior between consenting adults.



Decades from now are we going to have a debate over whether or not beastiality and interspecies sexual relations and marriage are appropriate?


The ability to consent is probably the defining line.



Is it really that different? Isn't it the point of marriage to create a functioning family unit that can both procreate and produce future generations?


Is it? I wonder how humans survived before the concept of marriage came along? How do other species survive?



Allowing gay marriage dissolves that idea, and labeling homosexual sex inappropriate or unnatural is hardly any different than labelling sex between man and dog or man and sheep inappropriate or unnatural. Where do you draw the line?


It is different because a dog or a sheep can't really consent to such activity.



3. Furthermore, and this goes deeper into the recognition topic of my previous point, and has added weight due to the fact that I am both in the military and currently deployed to a combat zone, how exactly DO you recognize them?


Actually, I think the whole point is not to "recognize" them, i.e. give them any status different from anyone else.



Giving homosexuals status creates a litany of new logistical issues across the board. Right now my unit currently performs a nightly "courtesy patrol" more informally known as a "rape guard" around our living areas because in the period of two weeks we had four sexual assaults against members of the unit. In at least one case this involved a man getting anally raped by another man. To prevent sexual assault and "inappropriate" conduct, sexual or otherwise, how do you further define the genders in the case of a possibly 4 gender sexual cornicopia? Do you have Gay Male, Straight Male, Gay Female, Straight Female accomodations?


Sexual assault is a crime (that consent thing again) and should be punished as such no matter the gender/orientation of those involved. If sexual activity is detrimental to the unit's performance, then ban it.



The same for just bathrooms and such in the general populace. Should I be "forced" to use a restroom at McDonald's for Males, if it means that I might be in close proximity to a person who might sexually desire me? If this is acceptable, what is the original reason that we decided to segregate restrooms based on sex in the first place? Honestly, I feel the best solution for this is to go completely transparent. Sexual preference and gender will need to be ignored entirely for everything except for things such as clothing and medical issues. (The military does issue Female cut uniforms and such.) It's the only way for it to completely work.


I know all-gender bathrooms have been used in a variety of situations without any real problems. Maybe we are just a bit too prudish?



4. Those last two points bring up another one: Are gays allowed to serve in the TSA? How do I know Joe Snuffy, the male they pick for my same-gender genital pat-down, isn't a homosexual who might otherwise find me sexually attractive? Isn't this the point of using same-gender TSA officers for these pat downs in the first place? Why is it appropriate to segregate between the sexes if we can't segregate between sexual preference? That's what this whole thing really comes down to it, isn't it? If homosexuals are allowed recognition as a group, why is it not appropriate that we segregate gays and straights as we do between males and females? Isn't the whole point of the current segregation between males and females because of sexual preference in the first place? How is homosexual sexual preference any different? If I go through airport security and get selected for additional screening, an officer who identifies himself as Male will be chosen to perform my pat down. Do we now start requiring that he also identify himself as Male AND Heterosexual? If not, how is it any different than a woman being subjected to a pat down search performed by a male, whose sexual preference is directed towards females?


Well, the efficacy of the whole pat-down thing in airports could be the subject of a lengthy debate regardless of the gender/orientation issue. I find the requirement of being groped by a government agent in order to get on a plane quite unnecessary.



These are just a few of the issues this whole topic brings about, but I think it brings up a lot of interesting questions. The problem is not enough people will ask themselves these questions. I hardly see any difference in allowing two men to anally penetrate each other willingly, then allowing allowing a person to say, cultivate and smoke his own marijuana for personal use?


I agree.



In allowing this, how do you justify ANY of societies rules or precedence from the last 8000+ years of civilization? The only thing you can say, really, is that government is put in place to prevent people from wrongfully interfering or hurting other people.


Bingo.



Things start to get very grey when you start saying "you can do this thing that doesn't interfere with anyone else, but you can't do this thing that doesn't interfere with anyone else." Where, I ask, do we draw the line, as a society?

By remembering what freedom really is.The ability to do as you see fit, as long as you harm no one else in a tangible way. The responsibility to care for yourself if those activities harm you. Conservatives have a hard time with the former. Liberals have a hard time with the latter. But that's freedom, my friends. Government should be employed to protect the rights of its citizens. It shouldn't be used to "endorse" or "recognize" or "promote" anything but the protection of its citizens from the harm of others and to provide for the common infrastructure that a society needs.

Dirk

[Sarge]

Nice, I appreciate the response. I have to confess that I didn't research the whole animal topic thoroughly before posting though, good job bringing more information to the discussion. :up:

[dirkterrell]

Nice, I appreciate the response. I have to confess that I didn't research the whole animal topic thoroughly before posting though, good job bringing more information to the discussion. :up:

It's actually a fascinating subject, if for nothing more than to see human biases applied to basic research. As a scientist, I try to avoid bias as vigorously as possible. When you study stars (like I do), there are some kinds of biases you don't run into when your subject is something like sexuality. And, as I pointed out earlier, this field has only recently gotten the attention that it truly deserves. The subject has been either shunned or very poorly explored because of the biases. But claims like "it's not natural" or "animals are only driven to procreate" can be adequately addressed by scientific research. What we're finding is that sexuality in the animal kingdom is much more diverse than our primarily religious-based biases have led us to believe. And it's not the first time that has happened, on topics that we now understand (e.g. heliocentricity).

Dirk

[Sarge]

In response to your response (lol?) about dog and sheep not "consenting," couldn't you argue that they might actually consent by not otherwise protesting?

Maybe swap the assumed gender role of human male vs female animal, and look at some of the beastiality cases in which a dog or other male animal willingly mounts and even penetrates a human female? Is that not consent?

I understand one could also argue that it might not be "knowing consent," but again it begs the question of exactly where you draw the line. This question would make a more difficult case for marriage, obviously, as one could never argue (hopefully, or more accurately "realistically") that an animal could willingly and knowingly enter into such an agreement, but nonetheless I find it difficult to argue that, especially in the case of male animal vs female human, that the animals are not willing participants at least "some" of the time.

Again, this is just more to add to the discussion. I am most definitely not arguing in favor of any of this, like you I am more interested in the debate even more so than the outcome, necessarily.

[dirkterrell]

In response to your response (lol?) about dog and sheep not "consenting," couldn't you argue that they might actually consent by not otherwise protesting?


Perhaps.



Maybe swap the assumed gender role of human male vs female animal, and look at some of the beastiality cases in which a dog or other male animal willingly mounts and even penetrates a human female? Is that not consent?


As abhorrent as I find the thought of that, if the animal truly isn't harmed then I don't see the need for the government to do anything. Cross-species sex does occur in the animal kingdom BTW, sometimes with reproductive results when the species aren't too widely separated genetically (e.g. mules and ligers).

Dirk

[TinkerinWstuff]

I'm surprised, unless I missed it, that no one countered Black Knight's assertion regarding a genetic predisposition (or lack of) to homosexuality, that it's a learned trait like murderers. Seems to me, I've read that there's growing evidence that there are abnormalities discovered in the brains of some serial killers.

I also watched an episode of 60 Minutes two weeks ago where they found six people who can remember every day of their lives. What they wore, what they ate, who they were with, what they watched on T.V. etc. The doctors did a brain scan and found the brain in these individuals was developed differently than most people.

It would seem to me that our science and understanding of the human brains development and function are not nearly good enough to say one way or the other what exactly is a learned or genetic behavior.

For some individuals, I believe it's possible that homosexuality is a choice. For others, I think they are odd people who have developed differently and couldn't "change" if they wanted to. And for still others, they are no different than you and I and we wouldn't know their preference if they didn't want you to.

Here is the episode preview with more clips from the segment available on HULU. Search: 60 Minutes endless memory
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=VDKn5p5aq5pKUn9MWFx0W0BNYkSDXn5O&vs=Default&play=true

[TFOGGuys]

We know more about the surface of Mars than we do about the workings of the human brain.

[Sarge]

Interesting points Tink, but wrap your mind around this one. (By the way, I love loading this page and seeing your response at the top, cracks me up every time :lol:)

The human body is extremely adaptive and can literally shape itself to meet certain requirements. Just take a look at your skin, for instance, do you think that your skin is "programmed" to shape itself to your body, or is it more that it serves as more of a wrapper, and adjusts itself to your body shape? The same thing is true about muscles, for the most part they are just attached to certain joints and ligaments, but as you move your body they actually shape themselves to adjust literally to your regular behavior. Another example of this would be the addiction response. I.e., your body senses you drinking alcohol and even before a potent amount enters your bloodstream, your body is somewhat programmed to begin resisting it.

I'll give you the point about those few people with the rediculous memories, but I don't think it's quite the same. I liken that more to something like Einstein, where they are just extradinarily intelligent as far as memory is concerned, especially considering the extreme rarity of cases.

My point is that I don't see why the brain itself wouldn't change the way it works in reflection of your behavior as other organs in the body do, as I exampled above. I mean, it's obvious that some people are disgusted by blood and guts, while others get off on killing people, but just look at any Military organization during time of war. How many young kids, otherwise afraid of blood and guts, learned to kill or be killed during Vietnam or WWII and just came to accept it as the law of nature? I'm curious as to what brain scans of those individuals would show when compared to that of a serial killer.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Interesting points Tink, but wrap your mind around this one. (By the way, I love loading this page and seeing your response at the top, cracks me up every time :lol:)

I'm assuming you must have seen his unedited post too?


I'll give you the point about those few people with the rediculous memories, but I don't think it's quite the same. I liken that more to something like Einstein, where they are just extradinarily intelligent as far as memory is concerned, especially considering the extreme rarity of cases.

If you get an opportunity to see the piece, they said these individuals have brain development, and some symptoms, similar to those with OCD disorder.


My point is that I don't see why the brain itself wouldn't change the way it works in reflection of your behavior as other organs in the body do, as I exampled above. I mean, it's obvious that some people are disgusted by blood and guts, while others get off on killing people, but just look at any Military organization during time of war. How many young kids, otherwise afraid of blood and guts, learned to kill or be killed during Vietnam or WWII and just came to accept it as the law of nature? I'm curious as to what brain scans of those individuals would show when compared to that of a serial killer.

Likewise, the results of such a study and scans would be very interesting to see.

[Sarge]

Yeah, I saw all of it while it unfolded, that's why it's so funny.

This thought just occurred to me, in relation to what I mentioned before: It would be VERY interesting to see whether or not these traits existed in the brain BEFORE the homosexuality came about, or even the same before and after portrait of murderers and the like.

[Kim-n-Dean]

I'm surprised, unless I missed it, that no one countered Black Knight's assertion regarding a genetic predisposition (or lack of) to homosexuality, that it's a learned trait like murderers. Seems to me, I've read that there's growing evidence that there are abnormalities discovered in the brains of some serial killers. I almost did, but decided what's the point. Here is what my example was going to be; When I was eight years old there was a younger boy in the neighborhood who had a thing for hanging cats and dogs and beating them to death with baseball bats. He would also swing them around by their tails until they died or were paralyzed. He was about six or seven years old. This was in 1975 when we didn't have violent video games and the Brady Bunch was on TV. So, where did he learn his behavior from? I believe the fucked up littler bastard had a predisposition to this type of behavior from birth.

[Sarge]

Definitely f*ed up. I'm just curious though, how was his relationship with his father, or do you know? I've heard previously of connections between this type of behavior and alcoholic, abusive parents. More than just "daddy got drunk and hit mommy" type thing, but of full blown "daddy got drunk, punched me in the mouth and burned the house down" type abuse.

[Kim-n-Dean]

Definitely f*ed up. I'm just curious though, how was his relationship with his father, or do you know? I've heard previously of connections between this type of behavior and alcoholic, abusive parents. More than just "daddy got drunk and hit mommy" type thing, but of full blown "daddy got drunk, punched me in the mouth and burned the house down" type abuse.I lived in that same house for ten years and grew up with the fucker, but can't remember any details except that I stayed away from him and eventually he went away for the animal killings sometime in junior high. The times that I was around him, he seemed like an average kid. He was even nice and pretty polite. You would never guess that he was so fucked up on the inside. Always had a smile on his face, too.

[The Black Knight]

I almost did, but decided what's the point. Here is what my example was going to be; When I was eight years old there was a younger boy in the neighborhood who had a thing for hanging cats and dogs and beating them to death with baseball bats. He would also swing them around by their tails until they died or were paralyzed. He was about six or seven years old. This was in 1975 when we didn't have violent video games and the Brady Bunch was on TV. So, where did he learn his behavior from? I believe the fucked up littler bastard had a predisposition to this type of behavior from birth.
I have a response to that Dean, however it would be a religious one. So with regards to not adding more fuel to the fire and starting WWIII over this and turning it into a religious discussion, I shall hold my response. However, I do have an answer to that question.

[Snowman]

^^^ Nuke and Pave away...

[Kim-n-Dean]

^^^ Nuke and Pave away...Agreed.


I have a response to that Dean, however it would be a religious one. So with regards to not adding more fuel to the fire and starting WWIII over this and turning it into a religious discussion, I shall hold my response. However, I do have an answer to that question.I was a bible thumper for the first twenty years of my life, so I assume you're going to say the Devil made him do it. At least that's what they always told us in church.

[The Black Knight]

Agreed.

I was a bible thumper for the first twenty years of my life, so I assume you're going to say the Devil made him do it. At least that's what they always told us in church.
Alright, just don't blame me when the board erupts because I brought up religion. Here goes...

You're on the right track. However, I don't believe that Satan can make you do anything. But he can influence you. He's that little voice in your ear, egging you on.

Just as I believe the Holy Spirit(read: a Conscience) speaks to me, willing me to walk the path of righteousness. I also believe that Satan is there, whispering thoughts into your ear. He's trying to get you to betray what is right.

I, also believe that we are born with a propensity to Sin. We have a choice whether or not to act on that propensity. As Christ has shown, a perfect life can be achievable.

But when Satan, sees that we are striving to do good. Making a conscientious effort to walk with God, I believe that's when he steps up his game, to try and bring us down. He's the catalyst for which all the evil on this Earth has originated. Father of Lies, Son of Perdition, etc. etc.

Just as Eve gave into Satan's temptation, so did your young friend. There was a tipping point for him, when it was just him and Satan. And unfortunately he chose a path of evil. Did that make him a bad person per se?? Not completely, however he allowed Satan to constantly influence him and his actions as he grew and matured.

By constantly and over time avoiding the voice of the Holy Spirit, his mind was left open to the influence of Satan.

I've always likened it to this. God does not or will not ever turn his back on you. However, when you turn your back on God. The first thing you'll run into when you turn away is Satan. He's always waiting with baited breath. The interesting thing is, God will always follow you as you walk away. Waiting and hoping for that day, when you say enough is enough and decided to turn back around. Because just as Satan was waiting for you when you turned you back on God. So is God waiting for you when you break the bonds of Satan.


I didn't want to put all that, but you asked so I gave you an answer that I truly believe. I know it's coming. So let the flaming begin...

:(

[chanke4252]

I'm surprised, unless I missed it, that no one countered Black Knight's assertion regarding a genetic predisposition (or lack of) to homosexuality, that it's a learned trait like murderers. Seems to me, I've read that there's growing evidence that there are abnormalities discovered in the brains of some serial killers.

I also watched an episode of 60 Minutes two weeks ago where they found six people who can remember every day of their lives. What they wore, what they ate, who they were with, what they watched on T.V. etc. The doctors did a brain scan and found the brain in these individuals was developed differently than most people.

It would seem to me that our science and understanding of the human brains development and function are not nearly good enough to say one way or the other what exactly is a learned or genetic behavior.

For some individuals, I believe it's possible that homosexuality is a choice. For others, I think they are odd people who have developed differently and couldn't "change" if they wanted to. And for still others, they are no different than you and I and we wouldn't know their preference if they didn't want you to.

Here is the episode preview with more clips from the segment available on HULU. Search: 60 Minutes endless memory
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=VDKn5p5aq5pKUn9MWFx0W0BNYkSDXn5O&vs=Default&play=true

i guess it could be learned. it's definitely not out of the question in some cases. like you said as well (if i'm understanding you corectly) i don't think it's always one thing that causes people to become homosexuals. sometimes it might be a genetic thing, other times it might be a choice, or learned.

i don't think it's realistic to assume that homosexuality comes about for one specific reason, but i do think it's realistic to assume that the cause of homosexuality is likely due to many reasons, including genetics in some cases.

sex, for instance, lots of reasons to have sex, lots of different and maybe unrelated reasons to choose one person or another. maybe someone reminds you of something that happened to you or someone you knew, maybe you react more strongly to their pheromones. i know that i have been attracted to people for a great variety of reasons, some of which are in the active forefront of my mind, others i can't put my finger on. i'm sure it's the same for most other people here.

i think it's a little tricky. at some point we are responsible for our actions and who we ultimately are, but if you look at how our development can impact how we make our decisions, it's easy to suggest that a lot of our behavior is not in our control. i think there's middle ground in there somewhere, and i don't like making excuses for people who knowingly cause others harm.

good post

[chanke4252]

Alright, just don't blame me when the board erupts because I brought up religion. Here goes...

You're on the right track. However, I don't believe that Satan can make you do anything. But he can influence you. He's that little voice in your ear, egging you on.

Just as I believe the Holy Spirit(read: a Conscience) speaks to me, willing me to walk the path of righteousness. I also believe that Satan is there, whispering thoughts into your ear. He's trying to get you to betray what is right.

I, also believe that we are born with a propensity to Sin. We have a choice whether or not to act on that propensity. As Christ has shown, a perfect life can be achievable.

But when Satan, sees that we are striving to do good. Making a conscientious effort to walk with God, I believe that's when he steps up his game, to try and bring us down. He's the catalyst for which all the evil on this Earth has originated. Father of Lies, Son of Perdition, etc. etc.

Just as Eve gave into Satan's temptation, so did your young friend. There was a tipping point for him, when it was just him and Satan. And unfortunately he chose a path of evil. Did that make him a bad person per se?? Not completely, however he allowed Satan to constantly influence him and his actions as he grew and matured.

By constantly and over time avoiding the voice of the Holy Spirit, his mind was left open to the influence of Satan.

I've always likened it to this. God does not or will not ever turn his back on you. However, when you turn your back on God. The first thing you'll run into when you turn away is Satan. He's always waiting with baited breath. The interesting thing is, God will always follow you as you walk away. Waiting and hoping for that day, when you say enough is enough and decided to turn back around. Because just as Satan was waiting for you when you turned you back on God. So is God waiting for you when you break the bonds of Satan.


I didn't want to put all that, but you asked so I gave you an answer that I truly believe. I know it's coming. So let the flaming begin...

:(

what are your views on sex before marriage? are they concordant with the views of your religion? i don't think religion is wrong, but given that the rules of any given faith are pretty much man-made, i don't put much stock in it, especially given the history of the catholic church, from which most of our many versions of Christianity developed (as far as i know).

[The Black Knight]

what are your views on sex before marriage? are they concordant with the views of your religion? i don't think religion is wrong, but given that the rules of any given faith are pretty much man-made, i don't put much stock in it, especially given the history of the catholic church, from which most of our many versions of Christianity developed (as far as i know).
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

^^^
27 Fundamental Beliefs of an SDA. There you'll find everything you need to know as my beliefs parallel them. Have I not followed some of them?? HAHA I plead the 5th. Honestly, I've never claimed to be perfect, nor do I expect anyone else to be either. Hence the "judge not, lest ye be judge" outlook I have. That doesn't mean I won't have an opinion on some things though.

[chanke4252]

thx,was just curious. i think that "judge not" bit is good advice for almost everyone.