• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

Should gays be allowed to serve openly gay in the military?

  • yes

    Votes: 40 78.4%
  • no

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • Total voters
    51

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
you said
But, if a child is born gay the roll is lost as to the child’s purpose in life, rendering the child to nothingness but simply existence and sexual gratification. .

my gay clients who are looking for a multi-million 2nd home would disagree with your simplistic views of homos
and no, they did not make their millions in porn

I haven't said gays cannot be sucessful but merely said they serve no function other than sexual to the culture.

kind of hard to be successful if you are rendered to nothing but existence & sexual gratification, unless you are in gay porn.
 

Alastor

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
45
Location
Reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No, gays should not be able to serve openly in the military.

And no, heteros should not be able to serve openly in the military.

Sexuality has nothing to do with combat, and "don't ask, don't tell" should go both ways. It shouldn't be an issue.

If I'm in a foxhole with someone (and I have been), and we come under fire (and I did), I don't really give a crap what they do in their bedroom as long as I can count on them to cover my butt.

Period.
 

Topsez

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
38
Location
Near the equater
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How anyone could suggest someone like Freddie Mercury left nothing from his time on Earth....:shock: Obvious horseshite.
I didn't know he was gay.

The swipe at Caine belongs in the basement. What's DADT? I too think I'd be madder if my man left me for another man instead of another woman. It would sting more. Not sure why that is but I at least recognize that it's my issue.
I hereby publicly apologize to Caine, his family, his extended family and friends for my statement. I was wrong. I'm emotional on the issue because I see Boy Scouts, military recruiters, school kids, conservative college students and religious folks being beat around the head and shoulders for not sucking up to gays. I felt the hurt for the wife and family of the NJ Governor and their friends and the same for those associated with my wife's former lover... It sickens me that someone that knowingly enters a relationship to build a family that has ever as much had a thought about someone of the same sex would gamble with dealing out that kind of hurt.

DADT is Don't Ask-Don't Tell military policy.

Yeah well the kind of hate you're walking around with can cause cancer you know.
I don't hate gays! I hate it that gays demand the world accepts their birth defect in public bringing them to an equal status of normal people. They should seek medical cures for the defect and while doing so present themselves as normal. I'd support an annual $50 billion dollar program to find a cure or government subsidized communities where people with their differences could live together so as not to bother the normal majority.

Why would anyone insist Freddie Mercury should be a door stop? Honestly what the **** is wrong with you?
My doorstop statement was out of frustration for mandatory litigation and legislation that I have to accept gays openly displaying gay affections. I see gays as broken people that require repair, perhaps they can't be repaired but someone should attempt to find a cure. Again, I don't have a problem with the fact that some people are born gay, I just don't think that gives them the right to demand anything special. Keep their damned mouths shut about their birth defect in public and they are normal... behind closed doors do what ever the hell they want... I even agree to the government providing them with a license to legally live as a co supported couple with legal rights equal to a family unit. No adoptions to gays because it is social experimentation. Just two old maids, or young maids or two old guys or young guys that share a home... could be brothers or sisters for those on the outside looking in if they would just quit talking about gay sex and demanding everyone supports it.

What's your point? If people are having sex at work, homo or hetero, that's a problem. If not who gives a shite what kind of sex they have when they're off the clock?
My point was made in earlier posts that you apparently haven't read. Being that gay popping out of the closet would be like straits coming to work to find out everyone but you were nudists and now insist on equal rights.


Well I'd object to gays being called perverts in school. And honestly I'd probably object to any kind of "sex" talk until jr. high at which point I don't think there is anything wrong with mature sexual discussion.
I think the only thing school needs to speak about sex is the science of how it works, std's, unwanted pregnancy, puberty and little more. What needs to be the message is to be nice to everyone... don't pick on the fat girl or the sissy boy... be nice or you will be sent home... go strait to jail, do not collect the $200... Be nice or you are out of here and sent to a special institution.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,497
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Two quick comments as I'm on a break at work. Firstly, I am glad to see the public appology to Caine. You're initial comment was uncalled for and it shows responsiblility and integrity that you recinded it and appologized for it.

Secondly, your 'birth defect' comments are totally without evidence. I'd like to see some substantiation and would be happy to provide information/education on the opposing side of the issue.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Well the senior sergeant was from Tenn. and not a foreign nation and I would guess at some point his family took a sail boat ride against their will and worked as slaves but considering the number of decades of freedom this man had to assimilate I thought he should be a little more along in his communication skills... He wasn't my platdaddy and I ended up likeing him because he really cared about his soldiers regardless of race, he was a great American that someone should have helped to speak normal English. He ignored the James Brown stuff at the time and focused on teaching young men how to stay alive on the battlefield regardless of origin or skin color. I used his communication skills to represent abnormality to the normal communication skills expected. He was from a different culture but no one had did him a favor of allowing him to speak like he was a slave decades after being free. I have had many black friends in my military career and since and have little problem with diversity with blacks other than the blacks that lean on a crutch the man makes them need. Blacks need to speak normal English and not slave language, no da's or bitches or dats because then need to be normal to other people around them to be accepted... you wouldn't want your doctor to talk like that regardless of his skills. Being accepted as normal is to be considered normal, and I don't consider bearded ladies or conjoined at the head sideshows as normal representations of normality. Likewise, because one is born gay is not an excuse to act differently than normal persons of the culture. Considering you find yourself "different" one would think reason would lead one to consider they are different and ask why? This question would yeild an answer that nature has delt you an abnormality that may be addressed by medicine or that you manage your differences privately. At no point in time should an abnormality become a reason for a parade or celebration or to turn the abnormality into a sideshow like in a circus and then to condemn the normal for not accepting your abnormality.

So the guy did his best to keep you alive, but you wish he had just spoken a little bit more like a WASP. Okay.
If you insisted in indoctrinating school children about how you celebrate a love union that differs with the norm already known to school children then I could care less how you and your girlfriend celebrate your perfect union. I don't think any child needs to understand how you or a gay person consumates love unless you are the child's parent.

I think if two adults want to have sex in their ears, nose or jerk beads or lightbulbs out of their butts it isn't anyone's business and it shouldn't even be a subject for discussion if no one speaks of the acts in the first place. There are moral laws you speak of on the books of some state laws... some repealed and some ignored... But to answer your question... I don't care about anything strait or gay people do to each other or with animals, insects or objects as long as they don't share it with me or teach my children this is the way gay people do ... Because sex is public as a part of the gay agenda is why people focus on gays and sex... if no own knew what happened in a gay relationship then they would be consiedered normal by most.

So please show me one example of any public teacher or anyone else educating your children about anal fisting. Otherwise, it seems you have nothing to complain about.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is also from my source.

There is more than one expert. I tend to follow the logical conclusion that it will have some negative impact. It doesnt matter how big or small the impact, it is still a negative one.

For the fourth time, you have it completely backwards. It doesn't matter whether it's negative, it DOES matter how negative.

I was directing that at everyone on here, not your article. Sorry for the confusion. However, I came across this blog that I thought posed an interesting question in regard to the financial aspect that you are proposing:

From here link

And that raises a good point. Except for one problem - there is nothing that would offer any evidence of those costs, because its immeasurable. So until a study shows that it would cost more than $360 million, its worth it.

Unit cohesion, reaction of american military to open service, the effect on leadership, privacy, morale, core values, medical issues, recruiting, retention, longevity of the policy, investigations, berthing, etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Again, nothing shows that it would actually affect those.

The DADT policy creates a useful fiction that the showers are completely heterosexual.

Are you serious? Are you actually saying that you think soldiers (or any people) are so stupid or gullible that as long as someone doesn't come out and SAY they're gay, that they're heterosexual? You think that they're going to bed each night saying to themselves "Gosh, Luberace keeps on looking at me in the shower and making my bed for me and pressing my uniform all nice and reading poetry to me. Good thing he's not a fag, otherwise that'd be awkward."?

Sorry. I wasnt focusing on the entire nation. I was referring to you as an individual.

Well I as an individual am much much more likely to suffer from any one of those first listed things than I am AIDS, so again, my statement stands.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Wal Mart was blacklisted by straits that were informed about the store's support for the gay agenda and lost their butts this Christmas but the gays will be back to ensure Wal Mart and congress understands the power of gay just like jessy.

Your intricate knowledge of economics astounds me.
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For the fourth time, you have it completely backwards. It doesn't matter whether it's negative, it DOES matter how negative.
But you would agree that it is going to have some negative affect, correct? We arent sure how much of a negative, but definitely a negative.

And that raises a good point. Except for one problem - there is nothing that would offer any evidence of those costs, because its immeasurable. So until a study shows that it would cost more than $360 million, its worth it.

But surely it is going to cost something. That something + the other negative affects that it could have on the military, IMO, would have an overall negative affect on the effectiveness of the military.

Again, nothing shows that it would actually affect those.
Being in the military, understanding how the military works, I disagree. I have also provided explanations on why I feel that would happen. Can you prove otherwise?

Are you serious? Are you actually saying that you think soldiers (or any people) are so stupid or gullible that as long as someone doesn't come out and SAY they're gay, that they're heterosexual? You think that they're going to bed each night saying to themselves "Gosh, Luberace keeps on looking at me in the shower and making my bed for me and pressing my uniform all nice and reading poetry to me. Good thing he's not a fag, otherwise that'd be awkward."?
I am not calling the military stupid, your words not mine. I am saying it creates a useful fiction and it does.

Well I as an individual am much much more likely to suffer from any one of those first listed things than I am AIDS, so again, my statement stands.
I respect that.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
They are too big for door stops and leave nothing from their time on earth.

Look - before I waste anymore time discussing this with you, why don't you go here and read these lists:

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/F-J - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/K-O - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/P-T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/U-Z - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then why don't you come back and admit to me that the Nobel Laureates, world leaders, inventors, reformers, actors, and Olympic athletes on that list have done more and will have a more lasting impact on the earth than your *** ever will.

Then we can continue this discussion.
 
Last edited:

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Christ you are ignorant.

Look - before I waste anymore time discussing this with you, why don't you go here and read these lists:

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/F-J - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/K-O - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/P-T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/U-Z - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then why don't you come back and admit to me that the Nobel Laureates, world leaders, inventors, reformers, actors, and Olympic athletes on that list have done more and will have a more lasting impact on the earth than your *** ever will.

Then we can continue this discussion.

What does all that have to do with gays serving openly in the military? Rock Hudson was a great actor but I would not want to be my bunk buddy aboard ship, showering and undressing with him....
 

Topsez

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
38
Location
Near the equater
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Two quick comments as I'm on a break at work. Firstly, I am glad to see the public appology to Caine. You're initial comment was uncalled for and it shows responsiblility and integrity that you recinded it and appologized for it.

Secondly, your 'birth defect' comments are totally without evidence. I'd like to see some substantiation and would be happy to provide information/education on the opposing side of the issue.
OK, I went and read from studies of Masters, William H, Virginia Johnson and Alfred Charles Kinsey research resulted in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association eliminated homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses and, in 1980, dropped it from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

The other research I did in Microsoft Encarta indicates:
Sexual orientation may become a question during puberty or adolescence. The term sexual orientation refers to a person's erotic, romantic, or affectional attraction to the other sex, the same sex, or both. A person who is attracted to the other sex is labeled heterosexual, or sometimes straight. A person attracted to the same sex is labeled homosexual. The word gay may be used to describe homosexuals and is most often applied to men, whereas the term lesbian is applied to homosexual women. A person who is attracted to both men and women is labeled bisexual. A transsexual is a person whose sense of self is not consistent with his or her anatomical sex—for example, a person whose sense of self is female but who has male genitals. Homosexuality is not synonymous with transsexuality. Homosexual men's sense of self is male and lesbian women's sense of self is female.
This quote would almost leave one to think it is a personal preference of choice. So load me up with your reference... I read from fertilization of the egg to adulthood and the only new thing I learned was that women have gonads too.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What does all that have to do with gays serving openly in the military? Rock Hudson was a great actor but I would not want to be my bunk buddy aboard ship, showering and undressing with him....

It has to do with the fact that he's making the ridiculous and untenable claim that gays have contributed nothing to society and bring absolutely no benefit to the world.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
What does all that have to do with gays serving openly in the military? Rock Hudson was a great actor but I would not want to be my bunk buddy aboard ship, showering and undressing with him....

How about someone like Mark Bingham....go ahead do the research and tell me you'd be opposed to this guy having your back.
 

Columbusite

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
808
Reaction score
6
Location
Columbus
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I agree it only has to do with expected norms. Sexual orientations are what they are and I see heterosexual as normal and all other orientations as abnormal. I view it as a person would view normality as people normally have ten fingers and toes but some are born with differing numbers making them abnormal. The analogy using gay/nudist was to depict how I place the sexual orientation difference as a shock to my norm. Someone with less or more fingers would not shock my norm to the same level as gay-normal shocks my norm. For example my sons have a friend whose mom has no legs below the knee that I wasn’t aware of and when she came to pick up her son I invited her in the house but she insisted that she would wait in the car… learning she had no legs I was shocked but adjusted instantly. Had the child’s dad came and I invited him in the house to learn he was gay I would be shocked equally to the level of entering a nudist colony without warning.

I have always asserted gay is a normal occurrence in nature, but unlike nature where the weak is killed by the strong humans excuse the weakness and show compassion, compassion but not elevation to the normality shared by the normal majority of the people. I would think there should be a team of scientist working around the clock looking for a cure to this abnormality. In the meantime gays should understand the shock their differences cause and not shock those around them.

No you didn't, you stated they are an abomination of nature. How are are gays "weak"? Not to mention you have a poor understanding of evolution. It's who passes on their genes, strength alone doesn't guarantee that happening. As for what is normal, ask everyone what is normal and everyone will find that everyone else is abnormal in some manner. If you knew me, you'd have no problem describing me as normal except for the gay thing. How does that one thing dominate the rest of my normalness? I also doubt you'd be just as shocked for a gay person to be in your home as you would a nudist. I'm not about to respect people being idiots and if they want to make a stink and look stupid they are free to do so. I expect people to use sound reasoning, but I guess that makes me abnormal.

Well I think your and all progressive liberals are speeding toward a cliff and change should happen over time and not instantly… you can say women are equal in the military but give them a separate physical test to make up for physical differences but they are not equal to men soldiers, you can say Afro Americans are equal but many refuse to stand without being propped up by law and rights not earned… I would refer you to a post on the Do you consider yourself selfish thread

Physically, men and women are different andf there's nothing that can be done about that. What's important is if women can perform the tasks assigned to them. I advocate following through on our Constitution and Bill of Rights. All Americans should, not just progressive liberals. And I'm not about to waste time on a post you believe to be insightful.

Now this person states he is half white-black and from several posts he’s made perhaps gay and he sounds as conservative as me. People earn respect and not demand respect. People earn compassion and understanding and like the quote above refers to others not having yet earned it are not qualified for it. In stead of earning acceptance the agenda chooses to abuse Boy Scouts and mess with military recruiters... the agenda demands acceptance!

First of all, we're not talking about "earning respect", so you're wrong again. Just like you tried to dodge the natural aspect of homosexuality you attempt to conflate respect for a minority with equality under the law. Stick to the issues, I'm not going to waste time on this stupidity. If you were an immigrant seeking citizenship and your status was hanging on the question, "Do you have to earn your rights as an American citizen? Circle "Yes" or "No"" You'd fail because you wouldn't have circled either and just wrote a bunch of unrelated drivel about earning respect which has nothing to do with rights. And the worst part is you'd think you were clever. Many gay people would like acceptance, but don't demand it. What we demand are equal rights. The Boy Scouts wanted to be a private organization and accept federal funding while discriminating against non-religious scouts and gay scouts. All they had to do was stop taking federal funding, but they wanted to have their cakee and eat it too. Why don't you look at the facts instead of accepting whatever sounds good to you, ie use your brain. You're not a ferret, a baboon, etc you have the capacity for sound reason so if you're going to debate me you better use it.

The majority wish gays were the same way they are, normal because normal is normal and feels good to be normal. In the 1950’s/60’s every American household had an ashtray on the coffee table and if a smoker met a non smoker the non smoker usually apologized for being unable to smoke because of asthma or some similar reason because they desired to be normal. Then most people smoked… compare that to now fifty or sixty years later where smokers are the ones required apologizing for smoking… The point is gays were in the closet forever but the agenda is to make such an equal transition on a dime and the normal hasn’t shifted that quickly.

So all you've demonstrated is that what is "normal" is subjective and changes over time, hence the term "normal" doesn't mean all that much. Again, normal or not, we are supposed to be the "Land of the Free", but we seem to think we can claim that title while denying fellow citizens the same treatment under the law.

I’m not religious.

Then you have no excuse to adhere to dogma of any kind.

I agree and came to the defense of a gay man as I posted before.

I don't recall and I'd rather stick to the issues.



Because the word gay represents desire for those sex acts of the same sex and nothing more. That is why it is repulsive to me and I think it should be the desire of any person struck with the condition to seek out a cure. Homosexuality serves no purpose in nature as I see nature therefore one should desire to avert it.

Why does that make it repulsive? If you find the acts personally repulsive, well of course you would, you're not gay. And just because you don't like it it needs to be cured? I guess all those gay couples who want to be married don't exist. What? Just because you're too dense to see any benefits of homosexuality in nature, it should be averted? How about the fact that I find ignorant people who have unchangeable opinions on matters they know nothing about repulsive? Chances are you're an ugly individual. If so, I find the ideathat you and every other ugly person having sex to be repulsive. That said, I'm not about to pass laws against ugly people just because they're visually offensive. Like I said, anyone would rather see two hot A&F guys have sex than two nasty looking straight people. Forgoing the inborn ability to be a rational being should be averted.

I seldom think of strait people having sex because it is normal function that is part of many things normal people do where when one thinks of homosexuals it seems to be their purpose in life and nothing more.

Why would being straight or gay change your position that sex is ones only purpose in life? That makes no sense. Sex is normal/excpected regardless of orientation. I can't help it if you think all I want to do is have sex. You obviously have an unhealthy fixation on gay sex considering that you claim to be straight.
 

Topsez

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
38
Location
Near the equater
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So the guy did his best to keep you alive, but you wish he had just spoken a little bit more like a WASP. Okay.
No, he wasn't my platdaddy, he was ignorant about everything but soldiering and had survived three tours in Vietnam working with the Infantry... His ambition for retirement was to open a hotdog stand.


So please show me one example of any public teacher or anyone else educating your children about anal fisting. Otherwise, it seems you have nothing to complain about.
Where the hell do you think I learned of fisting? It was on the news that it was presented to MA students and that students across the nation were recieving gay sensivity indoctrination to make strait students understand how gays live and react in a strait world. My kids attend private school and gay issues are not discussed.

By the way Wal Mart was threatened to be boycotted by millions of Americans because of their support for gay organizations... they provided somewhat of an apology that didn't go over well with many Americans... and, the result was lowered sales.
 

Columbusite

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
808
Reaction score
6
Location
Columbus
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The other research I did in Microsoft Encarta indicates:
This quote would almost leave one to think it is a personal preference of choice.

How stupid can people be? Of course it's a choice, now just make yourself find guys attractive and get a boyfriend. See? It's just that retarded. Refrain from posting if you're going to leave your brain's switch on "off". Thanks so much. :2razz:
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No, he wasn't my platdaddy, he was ignorant about everything but soldiering and had survived three tours in Vietnam working with the Infantry... His ambition for retirement was to open a hotdog stand.

None of that changes the fact that you're attacking this man simply because he wasn't that smart. Great.

Where the hell do you think I learned of fisting? It was on the news that it was presented to MA students and that students across the nation were recieving gay sensivity indoctrination to make strait students understand how gays live and react in a strait world. My kids attend private school and gay issues are not discussed.

Please offer a source for this.
By the way Wal Mart was threatened to be boycotted by millions of Americans because of their support for gay organizations... they provided somewhat of an apology that didn't go over well with many Americans... and, the result was lowered sales.

Please find me one economist (hell, anyone) who agrees with you that the cause for walmart's same store sales this year declined.
 

SpooK

Self Destructive
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
554
Reaction score
6
Location
USS JOHN C STENNIS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I personally boycott wal-mart. The fact that we import approx. 250billion worth of goods from China each yea and export only 50billion and that walmart sells lots of these goods, is good enough reason for me. :eek:t

Gay theory? Never heard of that, intersting though.
 

Topsez

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
38
Location
Near the equater
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No you didn't, you stated they are an abomination of nature. How are are gays "weak"? Not to mention you have a poor understanding of evolution. It's who passes on their genes, strength alone doesn't guarantee that happening. As for what is normal, ask everyone what is normal and everyone will find that everyone else is abnormal in some manner. If you knew me, you'd have no problem describing me as normal except for the gay thing. How does that one thing dominate the rest of my normalness? I also doubt you'd be just as shocked for a gay person to be in your home as you would a nudist. I'm not about to respect people being idiots and if they want to make a stink and look stupid they are free to do so. I expect people to use sound reasoning, but I guess that makes me abnormal.
I said gays are an abomination of nature, birth defected and weak... Weak is probably not a correct catagory... so choose birth defect or abomination... Earlier Captain Courtesy advised he would provide information to resolve this assumption that I could not in my hasty investigation using the encyclopedia, as of yet I can find no basis as to why gays, or gay men have a preference for men instead of women. I conclude that something went wrong after conception prior to birth but have no proof... I can find nothing to prove otherwise... the studies indicated science thought it to be mental illness until the 1970's... if you have some information that clears up when a person becomes a homosexual please share it with me. Many homosexuals have argued it is a natural occurance in nature referring to animals... this caused me to believe that homosexuals thought they were born that way, different than the intent of nature for procreation. I grew up on a farm and watched nature closely... I've seen calves born with two heads, seen turtles with two heads and other non intentions of nature... we called this an abomination of nature or birth defect. I also saw normal bulls fight over the cows for dominance to later see them in a market sales pin performing homosexual acts on each other as happens in prisons with humans. I don't know the cause of the abnormality, do you?

You seem like a pretty nice normal person and if I met you and we shared similar likes or interests we would probablly share a good conversation with no problem. You seem normal as you have stated, but if we visited you and you kissed your same sex lover or showed affection in any way I would be repulsed because I would immediately think I don't know the real you or understand how you could do something so abnormal. You ask "As for what is normal, ask everyone what is normal and everyone will find that everyone else is abnormal in some manner. If you knew me, you'd have no problem describing me as normal except for the gay thing." and I'll ask you in return how many TV shows or movies represent what you consider to be "your" normal? I used to post on a site where there were no rules, whatpissesyouoff, and was part of a dialog with a gay man who stated he was repulsed by the very thought of sleeping with a woman as I was to him with a man. I was busy asking why a minority desiring equal rights would beat up on the Boy Scouts and others but I ended the conversation out of disgust when one of the posters posted an older gay man bent over spreading his butt wide enough to insert a soft ball. Sorry, I find that when a human being is that different they are defected at birth or an abomination of nature. I entered the discussion just frustrated about gays bothering straits about Boy Scouts, army recruiting and left with a disgust for the acts gays do to each other.

Physically, men and women are different andf there's nothing that can be done about that. What's important is if women can perform the tasks assigned to them. I advocate following through on our Constitution and Bill of Rights. All Americans should, not just progressive liberals. And I'm not about to waste time on a post you believe to be insightful.
It is hard to argue that point.

First of all, we're not talking about "earning respect", so you're wrong again. Just like you tried to dodge the natural aspect of homosexuality you attempt to conflate respect for a minority with equality under the law. Stick to the issues, I'm not going to waste time on this stupidity. If you were an immigrant seeking citizenship and your status was hanging on the question, "Do you have to earn your rights as an American citizen? Circle "Yes" or "No"" You'd fail because you wouldn't have circled either and just wrote a bunch of unrelated drivel about earning respect which has nothing to do with rights. And the worst part is you'd think you were clever. Many gay people would like acceptance, but don't demand it. What we demand are equal rights.
We are talking on two different levels here... under the constitution I think gay people might be able to have same sex unions, kiss and make out in public and serve in the military as any other citizen without restrictions based on the judge looking at the issues. But I was speaking of gays being accepted by the people... The black people in the south now have the right to enter any resturant and order a meal but they don't have the ability or acceptance to assure someone hasn't spit in their meal. Some things are in your control and others are in the control of the rights you desire.

The Boy Scouts wanted to be a private organization and accept federal funding while discriminating against non-religious scouts and gay scouts. All they had to do was stop taking federal funding, but they wanted to have their cakee and eat it too. Why don't you look at the facts instead of accepting whatever sounds good to you, ie use your brain. You're not a ferret, a baboon, etc you have the capacity for sound reason so if you're going to debate me you better use it.
The facts are the Boy Scouts were just fine for generations before the gay backed ACLU bothered them... the military still finds the judgment in contempt and fully supports the Boy Scouts outside to the US. I fail to understand how a minority desiring something would attack something they cherish... It made me your enemy, I had an open mind until the gays attacked the Boy Scouts and the military recruiters.

So all you've demonstrated is that what is "normal" is subjective and changes over time, hence the term "normal" doesn't mean all that much. Again, normal or not, we are supposed to be the "Land of the Free", but we seem to think we can claim that title while denying fellow citizens the same treatment under the law.
Normal is what normal is and one day normal will be for gay men to have unions, show affections in public and serve openly in the military. I could, if I so desire purchase pay for view lesbians making love but I cannot purchase gay males making love because in the year 2006 it is not normal.

Then you have no excuse to adhere to dogma of any kind.
I've explained my position.


I don't recall and I'd rather stick to the issues.
You missed the thank you Captain Courtesy gave me? You should go back a few pages and read it and scratch your head afterwards.

Why does that make it repulsive? If you find the acts personally repulsive, well of course you would, you're not gay. And just because you don't like it it needs to be cured? I guess all those gay couples who want to be married don't exist. What? Just because you're too dense to see any benefits of homosexuality in nature, it should be averted? How about the fact that I find ignorant people who have unchangeable opinions on matters they know nothing about repulsive? Chances are you're an ugly individual. If so, I find the ideathat you and every other ugly person having sex to be repulsive. That said, I'm not about to pass laws against ugly people just because they're visually offensive. Like I said, anyone would rather see two hot A&F guys have sex than two nasty looking straight people. Forgoing the inborn ability to be a rational being should be averted.
Refer to my last paragraph on Pay Per View.

Why would being straight or gay change your position that sex is ones only purpose in life? That makes no sense. Sex is normal/excpected regardless of orientation. I can't help it if you think all I want to do is have sex. You obviously have an unhealthy fixation on gay sex considering that you claim to be straight.
Perhaps less gay pride parades and locking up religious people would help... don't use sex and gay together ever.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,497
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OK, I went and read from studies of Masters, William H, Virginia Johnson and Alfred Charles Kinsey research resulted in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association eliminated homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses and, in 1980, dropped it from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)

The other research I did in Microsoft Encarta indicates:
This quote would almost leave one to think it is a personal preference of choice. So load me up with your reference... I read from fertilization of the egg to adulthood and the only new thing I learned was that women have gonads too.

My research/evidence is based on refuting your statement of homosexuality being a 'birth defect'. Your information from Encarta is a good start. The quote discusses all types of sexual orientation, and does not indicate that any are 'defective'.

You identified the 1973 and 1980 decisions from the APA, and indicated that Master's and Johnson, and Kinsey did the research that cemented these decisions. This not accurate. Although some of Kinsey's research was pertinent, I don't beleive that Masters and Johnson's was used in the decision-making process. The quintesential study was the one by Evelyn Hooker: Being Gay Is Just as Healthy as Being Straight.
The Hooker study has held up under peer review, has been reproducable, and it's reserach methodology has been deemed valid. It was this study along with others and re-reviews of prior studies that lead to the APA declassification.

A good history of the topic is presented here: Homosexuality and Mental Health

I participated in an intense debate on this topic about 3 months ago. Here are links to some of my posts from that thread. I am NOT citing myself, here. There are many good links to primary sources that I presented along with, what I think, is pretty good comentary. I post these links only to not have to completely rehash things I've already debated. If this seems like a cop out, let me know.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/392263-post124.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/393697-post141.html
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,497
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
After I reread the last few posts, I figured I should add a few more things. Theorists have no conclusive evidence of what causes sexual orientation. They believe that heredity/genetics, biology, and environment have something to do with it, but nothing points, specifically, to one, a combination, all, or something else. Also, your argument that since you nave found no evidence disproving the 'birth defect' theory, it must be true is a Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance) logical fallacy. Just because something hasn't been proven false, doesn't make it true.
 

Topsez

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
38
Location
Near the equater
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
After I reread the last few posts, I figured I should add a few more things. Theorists have no conclusive evidence of what causes sexual orientation. They believe that heredity/genetics, biology, and environment have something to do with it, but nothing points, specifically, to one, a combination, all, or something else. Also, your argument that since you nave found no evidence disproving the 'birth defect' theory, it must be true is a Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance) logical fallacy. Just because something hasn't been proven false, doesn't make it true.
I was really hoping that you had a source or conclusive evidence of why a sexual orientation is chosen. I read the links in your last post and took notes and found the conclusion confusing. Strait science thought gays were mentally ill because they chose a sexual orientation other than the opposite sex and then proved they weren't mentally ill after doing some tests. Perhaps some test should be administered to the scientist who thought they were mentally ill in the first place? I would think the key point of the first conclusion, mental illness, was to explain an abnormal sexual preference. It seems the question is why do other than strait people choose differing preferences for sexual orientation... first guess, mentally ill, wrong they are sane... then why?

I never in my life concerned myself with something like all gays are mentally ill... If that were the case they all should have been in an institution, or not? So the new breaking news that gays are normal or sane is hardly worthy of headlines. On the DP thread conversation on why child molesters are considered mentally ill is quite a compelling point if gays are sane and normal... it appears to me the only difference is morals once again. The ACLU equally defends NAMBLA with gays in rights protections under the constitution.

Back to the topic of gays serving openly in the military... I would conclude the problem isn't a military problem but the general society's acceptance of gay sexual orientation since they are allowed to serve if they keep sexual orientation to themselves.

All research indicates gay problems of acceptance are religion so gays should do everything to end religion. Morals associated with religion seem to be the only thing standing in the way of the gay agenda. Perhaps this is why the ACLU supports NAMBLA, gays and every opportunity to remove religion from the public view or discussion.

Based on the above I can see why the gays attacked the Boy Scouts and religion but I fail to understand why they bother military recruiters if they desire to serve in the military. The military did not establish DADT congress did... why does the gay agenda insist on beating up on recruiters that may be gay recruiters when their problem is congress or in truth the fellow American citizens? Why give Prez Clinton and Barney Frank a pass and bother a military recruiter, ROTC and other military elements. Mr. Frank and Clinton's arms were not being twisted behind their backs.

I would think gays would like to live in harmony with citizens but their actions indicate they require dismantling the church in any manner and moral's supported by the religious beliefs... this alone is a civil war between gay-strait family members... then attacking the military makes more enemies... I think if acceptance is the goal tactics of the gay agenda should be changed to negotiate with religion and congress rather than defeating those institutions. Not to do so may yield the equal access to the dinning table with straits but all the cooks will spit in your food.

One final thought about stress causing gay selection… Prisons yield normal people that perform homosexual acts… Animals that otherwise were normal for their entire lives captive in small stock yard pens turn instantly homosexual… I would think Naval personnel have every right to be very vigilant of unusual sexual swings resultant of close captivity and do not need gays among them to compound an already stressful living condition.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,578
Reaction score
12,384
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, maybe straight men ought to just toughen up a little; women have been dealing with unwanted sexual advances in the workplace ever since they entered the job market.
And we didn't have the option of simply excluding the culprits: men.
They were there first, and we were there on sufferance.
Women just have to deal with men and their antics; perhaps it's time men learned to deal with them too.
I mean, if the unwanted advances cross a line into harrassment, it can be dealt with through legal channels, whether you're male or female.
As long as it's confined to looks, innuendos, and uncomfortable feelings... welcome to the world.
People have the right to look at other people all they want, and your discomfort does not give you the right to prevent others from serving in the military.

This is the elephant in the room though, isn't it. In our culture, we recognize that there is sexual attraction and unwanted sexual interest is frowned on. That's why we have separate restrooms for men and women in most places, we don't force women to room with guys on campus, and it is considered unseemly to place a male attendant in a women's locker room and vice versa. There are many of us who think it is wrong to allow female reporters into team locker rooms where men are dressing and undressing and I would imagine male reporters are not allowed into female team locker rooms.

The military has long recognized that sexual activity within military ranks is disruptive and can create other problems and it is strictly forbidden. Even President Clinton, who was hardly a prude when it comes to sex, recognized the impropriety of putting an openly gay man in intimately close quarters with a straight man or two gay guys in the limited space available on a ship, etc. It would be the same situation as putting men and women together in the same circumstances and the vast majority of our society would think that should not be done.

It does not reflect in any way on the morality or whether it is good or bad to be gay. It reflects strictly on the reality of sexual attraction and the knowledge that you don't want your soldiers or sailors or flyers 'getting it on' or put in intolerable situations in the midst of military training, exercises, or combat situations.

The problem is solved by separating straight guys from straight gals. But how do you avoid the problem with homosexual orientation without putting each gay person by himself/herself?

There are other issues that can be addressed here too and probably have--I haven't read the entire thread--but this is the reality. The military is not and never has been an equal opportunity institution and the vast majority of Americans disapprove of it being used in any way for social engineering projects.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,497
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was really hoping that you had a source or conclusive evidence of why a sexual orientation is chosen. I read the links in your last post and took notes and found the conclusion confusing. Strait science thought gays were mentally ill because they chose a sexual orientation other than the opposite sex and then proved they weren't mentally ill after doing some tests. Perhaps some test should be administered to the scientist who thought they were mentally ill in the first place? I would think the key point of the first conclusion, mental illness, was to explain an abnormal sexual preference. It seems the question is why do other than strait people choose differing preferences for sexual orientation... first guess, mentally ill, wrong they are sane... then why?

Unfortunately, there is no conclusive evidence denoting why one's sexual preference is straight or gay. The intial premise, since debunked, that homosexuality was equivilent to mental illness, was disproven through the Hooker study I cited. It was found that, those of the gay sexual orientation had no more psychological stressors or emotional difficulties than those of the straight sexual orientation. In order for something to be considered a mental illness, one must exhibit some sort of psychological stress or some type of impairment. Homosexuality does not apply here.

I never in my life concerned myself with something like all gays are mentally ill... If that were the case they all should have been in an institution, or not? So the new breaking news that gays are normal or sane is hardly worthy of headlines. On the DP thread conversation on why child molesters are considered mentally ill is quite a compelling point if gays are sane and normal... it appears to me the only difference is morals once again. The ACLU equally defends NAMBLA with gays in rights protections under the constitution.

To be clear and specific, the ACLU does not defend NAMBLA. The ACLU defends NABLA's right to free speech. They do not discriminate in regards to what the message is; as long as it complies with the Constitution/Bill of RIghts, they will defend it.

Back to the topic of gays serving openly in the military... I would conclude the problem isn't a military problem but the general society's acceptance of gay sexual orientation since they are allowed to serve if they keep sexual orientation to themselves.

I would agree that societal acceptance is a key issue.

All research indicates gay problems of acceptance are religion so gays should do everything to end religion. Morals associated with religion seem to be the only thing standing in the way of the gay agenda. Perhaps this is why the ACLU supports NAMBLA, gays and every opportunity to remove religion from the public view or discussion.

Religion isn't the problem. Religious extremism/fundamentalism is. I am more religious than most, yet have no problem accepting gays in relation to my religious beliefs. Those who narrowly construe biblical texts or use them to support their own beliefs or bigotry are the problem.

Based on the above I can see why the gays attacked the Boy Scouts and religion but I fail to understand why they bother military recruiters if they desire to serve in the military. The military did not establish DADT congress did... why does the gay agenda insist on beating up on recruiters that may be gay recruiters when their problem is congress or in truth the fellow American citizens? Why give Prez Clinton and Barney Frank a pass and bother a military recruiter, ROTC and other military elements. Mr. Frank and Clinton's arms were not being twisted behind their backs.

The attack on the Boy Scouts is related to a discrimination and federal funding issue. If a group receives federal funding, they must comply with anti-discrimination laws. If the Boy Scouts refuse federal funding, they can exclude whoever they want.

I would think gays would like to live in harmony with citizens but their actions indicate they require dismantling the church in any manner and moral's supported by the religious beliefs... this alone is a civil war between gay-strait family members... then attacking the military makes more enemies... I think if acceptance is the goal tactics of the gay agenda should be changed to negotiate with religion and congress rather than defeating those institutions. Not to do so may yield the equal access to the dinning table with straits but all the cooks will spit in your food.

Again, it's extremists on both sides that create most of the problems. There are plenty of gays who are religious and numerous religions that are accepting of gays.

One final thought about stress causing gay selection… Prisons yield normal people that perform homosexual acts… Animals that otherwise were normal for their entire lives captive in small stock yard pens turn instantly homosexual… I would think Naval personnel have every right to be very vigilant of unusual sexual swings resultant of close captivity and do not need gays among them to compound an already stressful living condition.

These behaviors you describe are not homosexuality. They are some sort of stress-related or other type of mental illness that is exhibited by these dysfunctional sexually acting out behaviors. There is a big difference between an inmate sociopath preying on others with acting out sexual behavior and a homosexual engaging in a healthy relationship
 

Topsez

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
38
Location
Near the equater
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Unfortunately, there is no conclusive evidence denoting why one's sexual preference is straight or gay. The intial premise, since debunked, that homosexuality was equivilent to mental illness, was disproven through the Hooker study I cited. It was found that, those of the gay sexual orientation had no more psychological stressors or emotional difficulties than those of the straight sexual orientation. In order for something to be considered a mental illness, one must exhibit some sort of psychological stress or some type of impairment. Homosexuality does not apply here.
Yes, I got the significance of Hooker's findings but am left wondering as most of the world the answer to the question of sexual orientation. I can understand how a homosexual must view their normality because I use the same bar to justify my sexual orientation... I would think the world would be a better place if science could determine the cause and make it possible for all persons to be born strait. I don't say that in a cruel way but when strait couples decide to rear a family the intent is for rearing a normal strait family.

To be clear and specific, the ACLU does not defend NAMBLA. The ACLU defends NABLA's right to free speech. They do not discriminate in regards to what the message is; as long as it complies with the Constitution/Bill of RIghts, they will defend it.
This is a debate on its own so I will simply state I disagree and see ACLU as part of a conspiracy with Secular Progressives and George Sorus.

I would agree that societal acceptance is a key issue.
This is the part I truly have friction with the gay agenda... it seems they don't care who gets in the way the objective is all that matters. The creating of hate towards views from opposing parties prolongs the accomplishment of acceptance. If the problem is to be resolved without war the opposing parties must negotiate. If gays find themselves treated as inferior then they need to talk with those who treat them that way, their families and extended families because every family has one or more.

Religion isn't the problem. Religious extremism/fundamentalism is. I am more religious than most, yet have no problem accepting gays in relation to my religious beliefs. Those who narrowly construe biblical texts or use them to support their own beliefs or bigotry are the problem.
In America no one may judge religion as extreme inside of government. For example Baptists believe persons of all other religions will not be accepted into heaven... if you are a believer from another religion then those are fighting words but the government stays out of religion for that reason. A question for any gay person reading this thread... Are there places in America where gays cannot show affection for a partner in public as in the military... a DADT unwritten law? Because of the way our laws are made, usually by religious people some people are not happy. For example in TX you can drive for hundreds of miles unable to purchase a beer... the same in GA. In NC I learned you could be arrested and fined for drinking a beer on your own front yard if you were in public view... a DADT for alcohol based on the religious beliefs of that hood. Are those who care to drink in their front yards rights violated?

The attack on the Boy Scouts is related to a discrimination and federal funding issue. If a group receives federal funding, they must comply with anti-discrimination laws. If the Boy Scouts refuse federal funding, they can exclude whoever they want.
I and millions of Americans find it a vicious gay attack on traditional values. If I complain I become an axis of intolerant azzhole. Everyone knows what went down and steaming crap cannot be made to smell better no matter how many flowers are thrown on top.

Again, it's extremists on both sides that create most of the problems. There are plenty of gays who are religious and numerous religions that are accepting of gays.
There are religions that will never accept gay lifestyle to their moral belief... many of these religious folks fill the ranks of the military.

These behaviors you describe are not homosexuality. They are some sort of stress-related or other type of mental illness that is exhibited by these dysfunctional sexually acting out behaviors. There is a big difference between an inmate sociopath preying on others with acting out sexual behavior and a homosexual engaging in a healthy relationship
That is illogical and I would guess you're guessing or jumping to conclusion. I feel confident in my sexuality that regardless of captivity I could not "turn gay" ... do you think gay prisoners could turn strait if the opportunity offered itself? Perhaps we should test that and see if it is the cure science seeks as to sexual orientation.
 
Top Bottom