Now what's with the "Learn to be gay" crack at the end?
How many homos have fought for years to convince us all that homosexuality is something you're born with, its not learned. The Church tries to say you can learn to be straight, and the homos of course resist this message as ridiculous. But now this video says you can learn to be gay? Well if you can learn to be gay, then you can learn to be straight. This just set the gay rights movement back 20 years!
I'm a strong supporter of gay rights... really... I would even support gays in the military. Well not integrated, but in special gay units. And no, I'm not suggesting they just become untrained front line bullet catchers! That would be a waste of talent. I'd use their gayness to serve America.
We make them elite military units used against Islamic terrorists. Pink tanks, pink helicopters, pink uniforms, all that. What could be more discouraging to the enemy morale, than getting their asses kicked by homos? And gays would make fine prison guards and interrogaters for the enemy combatants captured in battle. Screw the waterboarding. When you have an Islamic terrorist to interrogate, you have a straight guy, and a gay guy. They play good cop, gay cop. The straight guy asks the questions, while the gay guy lubes up a dildo or something. I'm pretty sure most Islamic terrorists would chose to talk. Hey Osama, you look mighty cute in them jeans!
Seriously, as a former military man, I know damn well there were / are gays in the military. They just keep it quiet. Well I would rather know that my shipmate is a flamer, rather than not know. We now have women on combat ships, and they have segregated berthing. Why not gays? And if any of you are worried that gay servicemen would just skirt their duties, and spend all their time humping each other, well guess what happens now that women are filling combat roles?
I was in the Navy in 91, no women in combat ships then (which I was a part of). But women were on supply ships. Roughly half of women deployed on supply ships came back from extended cruises pregnant, and it wasn't from osmosis.
I was laughing at your post, HD.
I actually agree with your Pink Brigayed suggestion. I am generally not a fan of using the military as a stage for social experimentation but I imagine it would be very demoralizing to a Gitmo detainee...wait, they're innocent...make that, to a radical Islamic soldier to have his bottom spanked by a Special Unit. Code Name: Special Unit.
On another note about the genetic causes of a complex human behavior (homosexuality) that is impacted by all elements of development: love, rejection, acceptance, reinforcement, self-esteem, culture, etc.
All human desires are filtered through these prisms.
Why anyone believes that homosexuality or heterosexuality are realities determined in genetics is beyond me.
It is certainly not supported by science...only the media and culture looking for victims who are at the mercies of things beyond their control.
Jesus canuck....can't you just s-h-u-t....t-h-e....f-u-c-k....u-p?
NO....you can not.
Because of your narcissistic ill brain will not let you. Seek psychiatric help canuck. You will always have problems with your inadequacy's until you do this.
The nuclear family is the foundation of a stable society. The nuclear family consists of a man, a woman, and their offspring. I have lots of friends and acquaintances and colleagues who believe and try to live otherwise, and I see what happens to them.
Attraction is learned behavior. It is not genetic. This is most clearly illustrated when someone "suddenly" loses their attraction to someone else because they found out something about that other person that is undesirable... or vice versa. The same goes across genders. People learn to be attracted to either men or women depending upon their environmental conditioning, their upbringing, and their own assimilation of beliefs.
This does not mean that people who chose to be gay should not have certain rights... however it does mean that those who choose to be gay should stop telling everyone else that it's "normal" and that everyone else should be that way too.
It's NOT normal. If it was normal then there wouldn't be any humans. Only a man and a woman can pro-create. Now THAT is biology.
It's kind of like saying that having ONE religion or ONE way to live is the only way to live or believe when our entire planet and ecology can only live with a diversified ecology. All we have to do is look around us at the many examples of life in other species or life forms. Humans are ridiculous.
Good afternoon, C-
Quickly to your article. That is proof to you, huh?
Worst case: DoD is wrong on a number of counts. (remember, many of these combatants are caught without documentation and are regular liars as to who they are and where they come from.)Does that mean all their claims are wrong, since it is true that a released detainee is now a Yemeni big wig (turban?) for al Qaeda? For a piece coming from a Law Center, there was a lot of unsupported conjecture in there. But, that is all you have ever relied upon: unsupported conjecture, found on the web and then cited by you as proof of your side. Keep up the great thinking, my man.
If you have an argument about my statements on homosexuality, present it. Yes, heterosexuality, by definition, is the norm/normal. Like walking on two legs for the human race is the norm.
You know, I had to sit a moment and think about it (due to my mental status after the big game) and it occured to me that, I have a few gay "acquiantences", both male and female, that are in my circle of everyday life. Knowing they are gay, it doesn't even enter my thoughts. They wouldn't need to be "segregated" from me in some sort of situation like war, or even a camp out, or at work. Just because they like the same sex...for sex, that has no bearing on anything in those situations. It would be the same thing to think of segregating someone because they like brunettes or blonds and I don't. Look around you people, do you really care about what gets another's sexual interest? No, not unless that "other" is someone YOU want!
I'm not saying I like to see two guys making out, that really is like looking at a big fat plumbers crack, but hey, I just don't look...at either! Now a couple of women making out...that will have to be another comment!
I must say that considering some of your views I've read in the past, I'm surprised at your stance on this issue. Usually, I've tended to agree with much of what you've said, buuuuut in this case....I must strongly disagree. Here's why: Once upon a time, one segment of humans said that another segment of humans were "sub-human" or "savages"; this is what they were called by Chris Columbus and his followers when they discovered "The New World", and they were not deserving of, nor did they recieve anything resembling "rights"; they were not considered to be "normal". Today, we call these folks "Native Indians". Once upon a time, one group of humans looked upon another group of humans as nothing more than owned property to be bought-and-sold at whim, because they were heathen savages who did not deserve EQUAL rights and because they were not "normal" like their owners and considered to be sub-human.....fit only to be slaves. Today, we call them "Africans". Once upon a time, one group of humans decided that another group of humans didn't have the RIGHT to vote, and were considered to be CHATTEL when you bought a house or a horse, and were not considered (in some respects) to be "normal"----like men. Today...we call these people "women". Once upon a time, one group of humans decided that another group of humans were were the scourge of humanity and inferior to the established "normality" of the ruling group and had whatever "rights" they had, stripped away and were systemically tossed into ovens (many times when they were alive). Today, we call this group "Jews".
And now here we are. Again.
Does this not become tiresome? Does this not become pathetic after a while, saying one group is inferior to you, and not entitled to the same dignity and respect, simply because you decide that they're not "normal"? Listen....do you know what all of the above examples have in common with the whack-job who posted above me? Do you? All of this standard of deciding what's "normal", or what's "acceptable" has been set by those who follow...religion. That's right. They use a book of fables to set the standard for them, to one degree or other. "God" told them that this group is better than THAT group. And as a result, they're quite comfortable in using their own religious beliefs to couch or support their own bigotry/racism/persecution towards their fellow human beings. Homosexuality being a "choice" has been debunked many, many times. It's a silly tool that racists/bigots/zealots like to use, to perpetuate the same nonsense as those those before them, as I've said above.
However, you DID say one thing I've always agreed with:
"Humans are ridiculous"
You need look no further than the post above me, for confirmation of THAT.
Your arguement of absolutely no segregation based on sexual preference, sounds like it could apply to gender just as easily. Yet the military does have a lot of close communal living, tight shared living quarters, shared showers. I'm not saying gay people can't do the job just as well. But that doesn't mean you let the openly gay men share showers with the straight soldiers does it?
Its thats the case, I'd be happy to live and shower with the female soldiers. I've always felt like a lesbian trapped in a man's body anyway!
I followed your arguement above just great, until you blamed the whole thing on religion. I don't blame religion for slavery, or abuse of native Americans, or the holocaust. I think that's a real stretch. A true Christian should recognize that we're all God's children. I'm not saying there weren't many instances of religion being perverted to support some bigotry, there were. There are today. But to blame years, decades, or centuries of inhuman treatment on some consistent aggression by religion, I think is completely unwarranted.
There have also been many religious men over history, fighting for the rights of the oppressed. Fighting to help native Americans, fighting to help slaves and later freed blacks, fighting to hide Jews from the Nazis.
While I agree a very religious person can be truly misguided and evil, I don't agree that religion alone (organized or not) makes you evil, or that religious teachings alone convey a message of superiority over others.
Wow, I broke the floodgates on the homosexuality debate - genetic or learned behavior?
I don't think science can definitively answer this one anytime soon. Although I think there have been studies examining brain structure differences between gays and straights.
Myself, I think its probably genetic, based solely on obervation and my opinion. Most gays spend years acting heterosexual, before they come out of the closet. So surely they know what the "normal" path is. Some deny it for years, and don't even want to be gay, due to the social ramifications. Yet so many do eventually come out, at great personal cost. I know of guys married with kids who decide they're gay. I have a step-sister married, who divorced and became a lesbo. I don't think its learned, I think its the way a person is, and sometimes it takes them a long time to figure it out.
I'm not gay, and I'm pretty damn sure that all the gay training in the world isn't gonna switch my sexual orientation. So how can gayness be learned, if you can't teach it to others?
I'm not saying for sure its genetic, maybe there's some environmental aspects in development. But I do think that gay people are the way they are, and you can't teach them to be straight. You can only pressure them to live in denial. It would be a bitch to be gay and religious.
My personal opinion is this is why you have so many gays and child molesters in the Catholic church. Mind you, I'm not equating or assosciating gays and child molestors, and I'm sure the majority of priests are good gays... I mean guys. I also have a gay brother-in-law, and I have no issues with him babysitting my kids. (He doesn't act gay around them.) I just think especially in years past, that people who realized they were having gay or having deviant sexual desires, and understood that society didn't accept that, would chose the "honorable" path of entering the church, thinking the environment would help them maintain celebacy forever. But that doesn't work forever of course.
I don't think gays try to convert normal people to be gay, I think they just want to be accepted as they are. Well, so long as they aren't hurting others, I think its their constitutional right to be a flamer if they chose.
The issue of two gay parents raising children is more problematic however. I think the kid(s) can't help but get a little fucked up from such an experience. But that doesn't mean they might not be more normal, and more loved, then kids raised in some crack-house.
So Canuck, what did you think of the pink brigayed? Surely you support gays openly serving in the military?
In each of the examples I listed above, the concept of organized religion (to VARYING degrees) has played a significant role in EACH case of brutality, oppression and used by so-called "christians" to justify it all. THAT....is a fact. Were there SOME religious folks who actually DID do some good because of their "faith"? Sure. But nowhere NEAR enough to make a difference overall, or for the majority of those who were the hapless and brutal target of their zeal. Not even close. You're quite welcome to show me where I'm wrong on that one.
As for gays serving in the military......they're already there. It's just that because of their firm belief that they will be persecuted and abused (by the same kinds of folks as I've mentioned above)......they stay silent, and live in fear. Recently, one was an Army medic who "came out" as they say; he was decorated for heroism on the battlefield, did two tours in Iraq but once it became known "what" he was (i.e., not "normal", as the whack-job above stated)....he was dishonorably discharged and treated like a piece of s***. There have been many others who have not only been treated badly because of their "abnormalcy".....but murdered in cold-blood outright.
As for me, personally...... this Army medic alone, that I mentioned above, is worth 1,000 bible-thumping, self-righteous, deluded, hate-mongering SOB's like Stream-O.
His "bible" tells him to believe that they are not "normal", much less 'equal'..... to him or those like him. So he/they.....don't.
Ok, I will. Hey Streamo, even I know the bible says being gay is a sin.
But do you believe the bible says gays are abnormal and less equal? Let those without sin cast the first stone.
As for gay serving military members, I fully agree they are already serving, often with distinction and valor. This medic did break the rules by admitting his gayness. I'm not sure if he was treated like crap. I do think he was probably kicked out more for trying to make a political statement, and directly challenge US military policy, than for actually admitting he was gay.
I think the days of gay men being murdered are long since past. I've heard other stories where a gay man tells his superior officer that he's gay, and the superior officer says "I don't give a fuck if you want to puff a pecker, get the fuck back to work!" I think most gay soldiers these days don't try all that hard to conceal their gayness anymore.
The old arguements of certain people destroying unit morale and effectiveness, were first used when integrating black soldiers, than drummed up again when women were integrated. How about when Japanese Americans joined the army in WW2? I think gay soldiers will integrate much more smoothly, since they are not so obvious. You might have to actually get to know the person, before you realize he/she is gay, then it might be too late to hate them for it.
However, once you know a fellow soldier is gay, even if you like and respect him, that doesn't mean you want to share showers with him. Of course, if you did segregate gay and straight showers, imagine the shit that might go on in the gay showers? I just threw up a little in my mouth.
I was always fairly suspicious of female military members. Sadly in my day, these were not the cream of the crop. I suspect many were gay. I know many enlisted to escape their podunk town and find a husband. Sadly, too many got pregnant while serving. I'm actually more against women in the military, than against gay men serving. At least the gay men are physically capable of doing the jobs assigned of them. I know, I sound like a sexist pig, but I have too many stories to back it up, and I only served 3 years.
"I think the days of gay men being murdered are long since past."
I seriously wonder where you've been, y'know? Google these names (just for starters):
Harvey Milk
Matthew Shepard
Sean Ethan Owen
Paul Broussard
Jason Gage
Charlie Howard
Scotty Joe Weaver
Ryan Skipper
These, of course, do NOT cover the simple assaults or being treating like crap by an employer......but a list of HOMICIDES.
I could go on and on, if you like.
You seriously have to get with it, man.
(and yes.....that U.S. Army medic WAS treated like crap because of his orientation....and his service to his nation was tossed into the goddamn dung heap; link provided upon request)
C, When I said gay men are no longer murdered, I was talking in the context of gay men in the military, only. I was not speaking of the civilian world, which has far less respect, accountability, and discipline.
And while its tragic whenever anyone dies, I know lots of straight guys died in similar instances, without making much for news. But no one should be killed for their sexual orientation.
The guy was on 60 minutes, on active duty, openly professing he was gay. This was a direct shot across the bow of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. He was righty discharged for violating army rules, not really for his true sexual orientation, which he had already been open about for 2 years. Whether the rule is right or not, he fucked up.
Soldiers are not to speak to the media. They are not to publicly challenge military rules. They are not to publicly take political sides. That's why he was discharged. He fucked up.
"The Pentagon has decided that it was time to boot yet another decorated service member from its ranks not simply for being gay %u2014 but for exposing the fact that the boots and the ground and most COs don%u2019t give a damn about someone%u2019s sexual orientation."
"It should be noted, too, that the number of people being discharged under DADT is less than half what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration. "
I think now-a-days, the gay card is just one more tactic is the never-ending quest for some to get out of the military, and for military leaders to get rid of bad soldiers. Good soldiers who are gay, are left alone. The DADT policy has quietly died from the bottom up. It will eventually go the way of racial and gender seperated units.
As for the "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" policy......it's a flawed, purile, inefficient and bigoted policy to begin with.
How else to challenge/change it, if not by going to a public venue? Is the military supposed to just quietly revoke this policy on its own, behind closed doors?
Plus......don't you think that the military usually has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century (unless, of course, it's some new dazzling weapon they can develope) when it comes to the human rights of its own soldiers, and how they treat them?
And you can rebut that from what, your experiences in the military? I'm sure there is some harassment, for many things, including being gay. But being gay doesn't get you shot or ostrasized like it used to.
"As for the "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" policy......it's a flawed, purile, inefficient and bigoted policy to begin with. "
Well it was a compromise to begin with, between gay soldiers wanting to serve, and leadership not wanting gays in the military. What you don't know, won't hurt you. It was a stepping stone. You don't change the conservative traditions of the US military overnight.
"How else to challenge/change it, if not by going to a public venue? Is the military supposed to just quietly revoke this policy on its own? "
The gay medic knew he'd face discharge when he came out on 60 minutes. He chose to become a gay martyr. But there are other ways to bring on change. You don't change the military by breaking the rules. You change the military by doing your job well, until you reach leadership status and can influence decision making. This happens at all levels of leadership, and probably gets progressively more conservative as you go up.
"Don't you think that the military usually has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century"
Yes and no. Of course, the military is generally very socially conservative, with deep traditions, but its also subject to political social engineering, with tight discipline. Where are the gay hate crimes happening now, in the military, or the outside? Where did racial integration happen first? Where did LSD experimentation happen first?
Good evening. (Say it like Dracula...not Lawrence Welk.)
A few points that need to be stressed about homosexuality.
First the non-religious ones:
1. Homosexuality, the condition, is a very recent development in humanity. Some researchers believe it was a natural result of Victorian models of love that are imposed on human sexual urges. Read Lord Byron. Read about Alexander the Great through the eyes of contemporary men and then read how he is portrayed now. Try finding literature that is over 250 years old that speaks of homosexuality in terms of a condition...it's not out there. Find literature describing homosexual behavior and it is abundant.
2. Homosexual behavior is as old as humans. The desire to gratify oneself sexually is impacted by many factors, the ones I mentioned above being among them. (So to suggest that there would be a genetic cause for homosexuality is really stretching it. However, saying that our sexual choices are impacted by genetic factors is another thing.)
3. Men and women, psychology has revealed, arrive at their homosexuality by appealing to very different needs and urges. Men often get there through sexual conduct whereas women often arrive at the sexual part after a relationship has developed.
4. Frank discussions are difficult about this subject due to people like Canuck who, as a bigot himself, can't imagine anyone arrives at contrary positions without being ignorant themselves. Just read the incredible load of malarky about Columbus, slaves, women and Jews. I mean, has anyone ever read a more silly bit of rationale to arrive at his position that someone is tryong to deny someone else their basic rights and dignities?!
Your ignorance knows no bounds, C-.
Now, the Christian perspective; in no particular order:
1) All sex outside of marriage is sinful; in other words, disobedient to God's commands. Homosexual conduct holds not particular value above, let's say, adultery.
2) Good Christians hold no animosity towards homosexuals. (The examples by C- show what bad people do, period. I noticed he did not mention the homosexual men who raped and killed Jesse Dirkhising.) The sin is what is hated.
3) There is a difference in doctrine and in practice of someone who errors/sins and is repentant versus someone who is in the sin and relishes it. This latter is the problem. Many in the world have abandoned critical thought because they are told that they are bigots/homophobes because they do not condone homosexuality. C- et al said so. He said the choice nature of homosexuality has been debunked. Where? When? By whom? Again, I know you feel a certain superiority when you claim you are so cosmopolitan that you think homosexuality is simply another color of the rainbow. It is not not without consequence. I ask anyone: what other human behavior is impacted by so many factors does not ultimately boil down to a choice to engage in that behavior?
4) There is no universal right to marriage. In every culture, marriage is sanctioned first by the dominant religious culture and then approved of by the state. (Notice the rites and ceremonies...they are not put together by a gubment.)It is not a state/gubment created institution. If you don't like it, that is too bad. One can no more ask a church/state to sanction homosexual marriage than one can ask a church/state to sanction a marriage to a donkey. Make the civil union appeal to the state; that has nothing to do with the churches.
5) I have a gay family member whom I admire greatly. His struggle has been extraordinarily painful, both internal and external. It is human nature to desire another's approval and this is largely what is motivating many homosexuals in their political quest: They do not simply want to be tolerated, they want to be sanctioned by society. I am not aware of anyone in my circle of friends and Christians who hate any homosexuals. However, we are vehement in opposition to the movement and have every right to take oppositional stands to the movement's desires.
Homosexuals in the military: Helldiver owns that debate. C-: It was a good idea to get out before you had to begin thinking.
HD: the Bible does not speak to homosexuality as anything but sinful, certainly not in the contexts of equality of humanity. The Bible is clear about ALL sin. Homosexuality has been singled out, like lying and murder, as descrivptive of the context at hand, not as part of some heirarchy of sinfulness, which is man's doing.
C-: Just because you cannot or will not put a cogent argument forward does nto mean that those who disagree are bigoted or hateful. The only one spewing venom on this thead, honey, is you.
Ok...I can't let this go:
C-: Sit up straight and pay attention. HD scratched the surface on your "Religion is the root of all evil" piece. Let's look deeper:
Slavery: the second oldest profession done primarily to people of one's own race until the discovery of the New World. All cultures have used slavery as an economic tool. All cultures have had their battles with ending the trafficking of human beings. Please take note that the movement to expel slavery in the US/England was almost entirely Christian. (In the US, the missionary abolitionists were in the SOUTH. Gasp!) Your assertions are dead wrong and, depending on what part of the word you refer, had nothing to do with racial superiority. That argument came later and was trumpeted by scientists, evolutionary ones at that. (BTW- what does the Bible say about slavery?)
Savages: The term was appropos. No one justifies what happened to segments of the Indians at the time of the New World discovery, but the picture you apint is crude and even dishonest by omission. Your simple story line leaves out critical day-to-day relationships and friendships and betrayals that more accurately depict the first 100 years or so. (BTW-What is Christianity's view of unknown people?)You are a joke.
Women: You mix and match cultural aspects of the man/woman relationship that were not contemporaneous. When were women property, in the USA, by law? Where? Since when did the right to vote signify chattelry? Until recently, voting was not considered a universal right. You may want to read up on that. (BTW- What does the Bible say about husbands/wives, men/women in their heirarchical context?)
Jews: This one you almost got right. You will forgive me if I don't understand the religious connection to the persecuters. Help here, C-. Were they all Christians? Or, perhaps were they of an anti-religious bent whose doctrine suggested the superiority of man and not God?
His a lost cause eh? Really? Can't say he is any more lost than you my dear. Man.......and YOU quoting Shakes.....for fucks sakes c....YOU are a general offence, to everyone here.....thats why so many lay a beat down upon you......I feel the only reason you survived your mothers abortion was so men could breath on the back of you neck.
Oh darn, now I've offended Canuck! That's too bad, I was almost getting him to communicate like an adult.
Streamo, thanks for answering my question, well really Canuck's challenge. So basically I've sinned just as much trying to hump every single woman I could find outside marriage, as some peter puffer? Well, guess I chose my username wisely.
I'm still counting on that ability of God to infinitely forgive my sins, kindly like my ability to infinitely forgive Canuck of his stupidity.
LOL! *gasp*!! Noooooooo!!!! Say it ain't so, Stream-O!!!!! PLEEAAASSEE!!! LOL! Gosh-darnit, I am really shocked that you didn't see it my way.....LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Awww, shaddap, will ya? You're a stand-alone joke around here as it is.
C-
I am surprised that you could not rebut what I wrote.
There was no hate in either of my posts nor any rationalizing. If there was something you could dispute, dispute it. Since you are reduced to ad hominem, I will consider the issue dead.
Odd bit of irrationality: Your list of homosexuals who have been killed ostensibly as a result of bigotry and hatred. Would you say that bigotry/hatred is a disorder or disease? Is it outside the norm? Is it associated with other deviant behaviors? If so, then you will have to explain the conundrum of a few of our most famous mass murderers who were extreme sexual deviants and homosexual in nature. This connection is not unusual in the abnormal psychology world.
See, I don't believe in the "condition" of homosexuality beyond it being strongly impacted by social norms any more than I believe in the condition of heterosexuality. These have historically been behaviors; nothing more, nothing less. So, if we can chalk up the brutal killing of known homosexuals to the condition of hatred and bigotry (these things aren't genetic) then what are we to say about certain serial killers and their sexual proclivities?
Well my username has no real connection to any diving sport. But I do actually go diving with some buddies of mine every year in Lake Superior, around the Apostle Islands, on some old shipwrecks. I've been on the Lucerne, the Ottawa, and few others.
http://www.maritimetrails.org/research_shipwrecks_details.cfm?VESSELID=386
Nothing very deep or technically challenging, I'm not hardcore. I'm in Minnesota, way too far from the ocean.
Leading scientist are now analyzing canuckwit. They believe there is a connection with canuckwit and brain tumors. Having canuckwit either causes the tumors, or having canuckwit is the result of the tumor itself is unclear.
Comments (51)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.