Bravery is not this
The Washington Times reports that the media has gone apeshit over a gay kiss between two Marines as one returns from his overseas deployment.
“This is TRUE bravery!” reads one [comment on Facebook]. “The most insidious enemy we face in the struggle for equality is internalized homophobia. Kudos to any and every one who comes out for any and all to see!!”
Yeah all of you whiners who’ve been blown-up and shot and carried your friends on your back to get them out of the line of fire, or dragged them from burning vehicles with ammunition zinging around your head, this is what true bravery looks like (content warning – if you don’t want to see two men kissing, don’t click the “More” link. If you don’t want to see an iconic photo ruined by political correctness, don’t click the “More” link);
Yeah, I put it below the fold because I don’t want it on my front page until I write something else – that’s my choice, and in the current climate, who is going to call me brave?
I have nothing against folks being as gay as they want to be in the privacy of their homes, but I’m not having it shoved down my throat with the media telling me what I should think about it. And equating it to the countless truly brave acts that I’ve witnessed and had recounted to me is enough to make me sick.
I’d tell you imbeciles to stick it in your ass, but, well, you know….
March 1st, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Yeah, he’s not gonna take any shit from the rest of his unit for jumping on his “boyfriend” like a little bitch.
March 1st, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Sigh
A sign of the times, it was inevitable.
I absolutely DON’T agree with the political message being packaged with the picture, but it’s impossible for me to stand against the simple content of the ‘gay’ photograph unless I’m prepared to stand against the simple content of the other photo.
And while I do think it took a certain amount of courage to publically display his affection like that, I in no way think that equates to the courage it takes to face incoming fire or the constant daily threat of death or injury.
This genie is out of the bottle and there aint no putting it back.
Sigh
March 1st, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Damn, I just threw up a little.
March 1st, 2012 at 12:54 pm
He is in uniform and should conduct himself as such
March 1st, 2012 at 12:56 pm
^^^^^^ THIS.
I served under several COB’s (Chiefs of the Boat) who would have tell the married/dating guys to keep it in their pants until they got home.
It ain’t about who you’re banging, it’s about PROFESSIONALISM. And he’ll still take shit over it.
March 1st, 2012 at 12:56 pm
…counting down the days until retirement. I cant put up with this bullsh….
March 1st, 2012 at 12:59 pm
have tell = have told.
Jesus, even my brain is frozen today. And the snow is coming down like a sonofabitch. 10 inches and counting.
March 1st, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Innappropriate and unprofessional … PERIOD!
March 1st, 2012 at 1:07 pm
All things being equal, that sailor with the hotty in NY should have comported himself better also, right?
Or the husband/boyfriend with the hot wife/girlfriend he hasn’t seen in 12-18 months, right?
Or the soldier/Marine with the waiting family member they haven’t seen in a year?
If your argument is simple military bearing, ok fine I agree, but we then need to reel in a whole lot more than just homosexual displays of affection in that case. The ‘loved one mob fest’ is pretty universal across the country when troops get home these days.
If your argument is that homosexuality is just-plain-wrong, or immoral, well that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish, one that’s boiling dry in today’s culture, and is ceasing to have influence.
March 1st, 2012 at 1:10 pm
61 and sunny here today Sparky, supposed to be 76 by Monday. Ya need to move to the South West young man.
March 1st, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Wonder how much fuel this adds to the koran burning riots. If I was one of them mullahs, I would plaster this pic everywhere to denounce the great satan and their corrupted ways. “Look they are sending homosexuals to burn our korans….”
March 1st, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Semper Fag?
March 1st, 2012 at 1:40 pm
The sailor does not have a tassel of flowers around his neck and doesn’t have his legs wrapped around the girl. I’d call that fine for a homecoming the marine pics is strait inprofessional and gives the corps a bad image.
March 1st, 2012 at 2:24 pm
So if he had bent his boyfriend over for the lip lock the way the sailor did the woman in the WWII picture, and he wasn’t wearing flowers, it would be ok?
Just looking for clarification Anon.
March 1st, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Call me homophobic, old fart or whatever. The fact is that I dont like fags in or out of uniform, period. Sexual orientation by choice? WTF? so, having a sick desire is ok and aceptable behavior?
Next will be the pedophiles, they need love too, dont they? they are just as sick and perverted as a fudgepacker.
March 1st, 2012 at 2:42 pm
John,
Any reason why your trying to piss me off today. The friggen libs and their social engineering agenda have friggen won.
March 1st, 2012 at 2:50 pm
You see, the worst thing about all of this is that the fellow with the jeans on was trying to enter a secure and prohibited area, when this daring and brave marine ran up to perform the latest in U.S.M.C. hand-to-hand combat moves. …and he did it in textbook fashion, too!
First, you run up to your attacker/enemy/opponent, and jump on him from the front. Wrap your arms and legs around him/her. Clasp hands and cross feet, if possible, to maintain better control and prevent your opponent from escaping or counter-attacking. Now, suck all of the breath out of your opponent. Alternately, if the breath-stealing effort is not working, then jam your tongue all the way down his/her throat in an effort to strangle them to death. When performed correctly, this maneuver is the most lethal move in the marine hand-to-hand arsenal.
Now, the media all went and assumed that this was some sort of “affection”. Pure garbage. Total spin doctoring. Sickening.
March 1st, 2012 at 2:57 pm
@ #15
See, now THAT response is honest and straight. No tiptoeing around the elephant in the room.
I appriciate that response because I can now clearly identify what I’m dealing with and religate it to it’s proper slot, right next to the folks who still think “All n****rs need to move to back of the damn bus, what’s the world coming to.”
I can’t prove a gay guy is born that way, and you can’t prove that they’re not. Most of your expression is simple hyperbole. In the absense of proof it’s easy to give into fear and strike out at things you find confusing or unsettling.
And comparing behavior between two consenting adults to child predation? Sigh , like I said above, at least I know what I’m dealing with now.
March 1st, 2012 at 3:41 pm
No it isn’t. Among most Marines it would be considered conduct unbecoming. We don’t normally enforce the prohibition against public displays of affection when in uniform, but whether straight or queer, this is unsat.
March 1st, 2012 at 3:46 pm
As for those of you who are pissing about the photo on the left, one, he is a sailor, and two, in 1945 there were no regulations existing as to public displays of affection per se. Plus, he was on liberty in the only clothes he was allowed to wear. In 1945, civilian attire was forbidden to be owned by enlisted men while on active duty. The homo Marine was at a unit formation/function in uniform at the time of this nonsense. Not at all the same thing.
March 1st, 2012 at 3:52 pm
I gotta say, as a liberal, I find his professionalism whilst in uniform, offensive. There is no need to act like that, be it gay or straight. You don’t see Hetero couples jumping into their partners arms like they’re Yogi Berra and the Yankees just won the series. I don’t want to see a straight couple playing tonsil hockey in public. PDA should be kept to minimum and not look like you’re chewing someones face off. Straight or gay. Damn… Guess they’re gonna take my liberal card away now.
March 1st, 2012 at 3:53 pm
I’m inclined to agree with you Steve.
The more I think about it the more I put it in context with a female Marine or Soldier in uniform jumping into her civilian boyfriend’s arms. I wouldn’t care for that either. I don’t find public affection necessarily disagreeable, but more decorum and or class could be shown. You’re still going to have reactions like Abnmdc’s, but I doubt a simple embrace or simple kiss would be as widely objectionable.
March 1st, 2012 at 3:56 pm
At 14 in my opinion it wouldn’t have been ok no matter what he did if that puke was in my infantry squad while I was in I would have hazed him everyday till he offed himself or left my unit. I was just saying he went way to far and made the corps look bad. The only way it would be ok was if a girl had her legs wrapped around him.
March 1st, 2012 at 3:58 pm
As for your statements in #20, if one is honest, the issue most people have with the photo on the right doesn’t have a thing to do with regulations, it has to do with their personal morality being offended, I believe claims other wise are mostly whitewash, not all, but most. Your arguments in defense of the photo on the left are null in that context.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Jacobite–see my comment above. I don’t want to see two guys doing it, I don’t want to see two women doing it, I don’t want to see a guy and a gal doing it–not like that.
And believe me, had some of the “boat wives” tried that, there would have been ambulances and spinal boards needed. They don’t call ‘em “Bremelos” or “Grotopautamuses” for nothing.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Perfect example of my point in #24 Anon. Your reaction to the photo is based more on emotion than on reason.
Interestingly this is one of the situations where men may exhibit unreasonable emotional response more than women will.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:06 pm
“Grotopautamuses”
Awesome! I hadn’t heard that one (or herd that one?) before, that’s hilarious!!
March 1st, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Concur completely with the calls for this act (by any gender) in uniform, at an official function……totally unbecoming for any service.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Jacobite: you might want to re-think your comparison of race and sexual orientation above. You’re equating the two, IMO invalidly. The two are not directly comparable.
Race is innate and determined by heredity; it requires no voluntary action for its expression. However, whether innate or learned sexual orientation is only manifested through voluntary action.
One cannot control one’s heredity. However, one can control one’s conduct.
I personally had no problem with DADT, as it was a prohibition on conduct – not belief. And conduct in general can be lawfully regulated.
Whether a particular type of conduct should be regulated is an entirely different discussion than whether or not racial prejudice should be allowed.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Hondo nails it–whether sexual preference is genetic or learned, CONDUCT is the question at issue here.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Damn, I’m off today. First sentence of para 4 above should end ” . . . on conduct – not orientation.”
March 1st, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Conduct is certainly the issue in this particular case, but speaking generally, sexual orientation is about far more than conduct.
It’s also about biological attraction and emotion. I could become celibate (not going to happen though), but would still remain distinctly heterosexual.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:20 pm
I view this with the same yawn as I did a couple months back when they had the Navy chick sucking face with her girlfriend when her ship came into port. big whoop. If they’re that starved for attention, then they have bigger issues in their life that need to be addressed.
However, I believe this is a media driven story in order to get a certain amount of “buzz” going, or to sensationalize the concept of a Marine jumping into his boyfriend’s arms as something more than it really is.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:22 pm
CI: that is true. And if married, except with regard to your spouse you’d damn well best remain celibate if you want to avoid potential charges of adultery under Article 134 of the UCMJ.
Conduct may be regulated.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:26 pm
@34 – “Conduct may be regulated.”
Absolutely, if based on a logical rationale….(at least in a perfect world. Much of the regulations we labor under aren’t logical). I think PDA in uniform, especially at an official function should fall under that restriction.
And I am married, though thankfully retired. And Mrs. CI doesn’t have to worry, I married up and am damn grateful that I did!
March 1st, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“One cannot control one’s heredity. However, one can control one’s conduct.”
I agree, conduct is the question. And I wasn’t drawing a comparison between race and sexual orientation, I was drawing a parallel between racism and moral bigotry, specifically as it related to Abnmdc’s response. They are both unreasonable reactions to admittedly different stimuli, and usually rooted in either ignorance or fear.
Being upset with the conduct by its self is understandable and supportable. Being upset with the conduct because it’s “fags” doing it, is harder to justify.
And like OT, I believe this is hugely media driven. I’m way more upset by the political manipulation of the whole thing than I will ever be by the photo.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:43 pm
@ 25 Sparky, I’m with you. I don’t want to see two ANYONEs trying to inhale each others heads. My wife and I will either, depending on the situation, hold hands or she will take my arm and if we get real racy I might put my arm around her waist! We rarely kiss in public and I mean rarely.
Something I remember about graduation day from MCRD was one of our DIs reminding us about excessive DPA. I remember thinking, I haven’t seen or talked to my girlfriend in three months and all I can do is shake her hand?!
March 1st, 2012 at 5:26 pm
I may vomit. A lot.
March 1st, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Back in the day,we were not even allowed to hold hands while in uniform…His conduct is despicable!
March 1st, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Gentlemen,
As a former United States Marine, I do not care about what you do off -duty and in your own home. This display of affection in uniform is absolutely uncalled for. I could a rat’s rear-end what their personal preferences are, but that was an absolute disgrace to my uniform. When I graduated boot camp we were strictly told that we would not act like a bunch of horny apes when we were dismissed, we couldn’t even hug our mothers in uniform. Same-same coming off of deployment. To Beretverde, I don’t appreciate that particular comment. I am not trying to get into a pissing contest with you, just please don’t.
Semper Fi.
March 1st, 2012 at 5:29 pm
I find it interesting that Edith Shain (the woman in the 1945 photo)didn’t admit to being the woman in the photo till around 1970 because she was too ‘embarassed’ by it.
That sailor that kissed her may not have had any class, but she certainly did.
March 1st, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Guess we know who is the top is, and I ain’t talking ’bout the first sergeant.
March 1st, 2012 at 5:46 pm
I wouldn’t even care if he gave him a hug and a peck, but Jesus man nobody wants to see you dry humping your partner.
March 1st, 2012 at 5:55 pm
@34 – “Conduct may be regulated.”
Absolutely, if based on a logical rationale.
Yeah, CI. And the old DADT had a very logical rationale. You didn’t understand it. CI isn’t the judge of what is and isn’t logical rationale.
We had this argument before. It seems like a moot point now because the policy is gone. The military can tell you what to do. It isn’t a violation of your “liberty” to do so. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.
March 1st, 2012 at 5:56 pm
“Concur completely with the calls for this act (by any gender) in uniform, at an official function……totally unbecoming for any service.”
Wow!
And it’s happening anyway, much to the delight of the media. Speak out against it and you’re a bigot.
Told you so. This is beyond predictable.
March 1st, 2012 at 6:02 pm
I remember when we were having this DADT debate, the pro-homosexual normalization side claimed that we wouldn’t have to worry about rampant gayness because “the gays would have to follow all the same rules as the straights.”
Ergo, no kissing while on night guard duty, no PDA, no hooking up in the back of the humvee in Iraq.
I had two things to say about that. One, the “straights” violate those rules too. When they’re caught they get punished but it happens all the time. Having a rule against it doesn’t mean that it simply doesn’t exist. Ever since there have been women in the military, those rules have been violated. I saw it. But with “straights” you can at least segregate them by sex at certain times. Not so with homosexuals.
And secondly, I didn’t believe for a moment that homosexuals would be punished for breaking the rules. They would break them with impunity and be treated with kiddy gloves.
So…who was right?
March 1st, 2012 at 6:03 pm
All Marines are brave for being Marines.
These guys are not extra brave for being perverts.
March 1st, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Today, the Sailor in the left picture would be prosecuted for sexual assault (more than likely, as he didn’t even know the woman).
As for the other picture, when I was in the Marine Corps, it was against the rules to even hold hands with your wife/girlfriend.
March 1st, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Brave? This crap is now legally protected. Brave.
That would be like me displaying bravery by planting grass in my own backyard.
Except I would haven’t to tolerate the grass and feign guilt for years of rejecting it’s abhorrent lifestyle.
March 1st, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Lessee here: One just got back from a mere six month deployment, may have seen some shit, may not have. Jumps into the arms of his “lover” like a little girl.
The other, is in New york on leave, and just found out the war he’s been fighting for the last 4 fucking years that has killed upwards of 80 fucking million people, has forced everyone in America to sacrifice food, goods, and services for the war effort, put 16 million men and women in fucking uniform and another fucking 8 million in direct support of the war effort.. is finally won and over with the fucking socialist monster dead and fucking defeated. And he finds the one person that symbolized all that is good and kind and caring with America, and plants a big fat wet one on her in gratitude and thanks.
yeah, I can see where they compare…..
…that last sentence is sarcasm, thick heavy fucking sarcasm.
March 1st, 2012 at 6:37 pm
@46 – “So…who was right?”
Doesn’t look like it’s you….unless you have some sort of statistics showing that post-DADT, straight Servicemembers have been prosecuted at a higher rate than gay Servicemembers for like offenses; or examples of ‘rampant gayness’. If you think the photo above is proof, then you haven’t been to many unit homecomings.
You seem obsessed with nullifying your own arguments for some reason. Don’t like DADT repeal? There’s the door…..
“CI isn’t the judge of what is and isn’t logical rationale.”
Of course I’m not (and coincidentally never claimed to be), that is surely you’re domain, as you deem to tell others what they understand or do not.
March 1st, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Gentlemen,
I still do not understand a world where sodomites, homosexual vermin is a completely aceptable social behavior when it has been despised and chastised through ages as inappropriate behavior. The argument that it is genetic is flawed, there is no conclusive evidence. It is another ploy to justify a behavior that is outside of the aceptable moral standard. No, I do not share everyone acceptance of homosexual conduct, I find it repulsive.
I really do not care if you think I am ignorant. Your mind can process it, find admiration for the conduct, then you may need to check yourself and address your latent homosexual tendencies. I say it as I see it, I do not like it, I do not accept it, I hate the position that I have been placed in by the government and the liberal crowds. I have invested a lifetime and I am too short to let this wear me down, I will leave at the first posible opportunity because this goes against my personal value system. I still have a back bone and I do not bend to fit the times and the new trends. What I think is wrong, is wrong and will stay that way.
It is pure ignorance to compare this to racial bigotry. They chose to be homosexual, they pleasure themselves through sodomy and call it love? WTF? sexual gratification is now love? so these bastards here (in Afghanistan) pleasure themselves with goats, guess they feel love for their goats, I have not seen one marring one (yet, I may be surprised) Same thing with any other deviant sexual perversity, if we accept any then we are forced to accept it all. When do we say this is enough? If you do not have a problem with deviant sexual behavior then cast a vote to allow underage teenagers marry older men like in the past, it was done by centuries and it is still practiced in the world, when a 12 year old married a 30 something guy. Then you liberal scums will say it is ok, it is not called pedophilia. Do you get my point?
March 1st, 2012 at 7:07 pm
@#41 – Actually, Italian, Glenn McDuffie was a guest of ours at a veterans’ recognition event over the weekend last May and he’s quite the classy gentleman.
March 1st, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Can I just go with, “Ew. Ick.”?
March 1st, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Its social engineering. We’re now conditioned to except this shit and the Left has done a great job. Its perhaps one of the best psyop jobs ever. We always qualify any anti gay post or comment with things like “I don’t care what you do behind closed doors”…or “gays don’t bother but,”. I’m sure both statements are true..but goddamit we type it. Its been soaked into popular culture to such an extent that anybody under a certain age doesn’t bat an eye.
I’m happy for our friend pictured above that he feels his chain of command supports his life style….actually they all suppport their individual careers and paychecks there devildog so don’t get all froggy.
I think its disgusting. That fact won’t make me violate regs but I don’t have to like it or support it.
March 1st, 2012 at 7:32 pm
I call it shit, it looks like it, if I touch it its consistency makes it look like shit. It smells like shit, I wont taste it despite the media and the fucking liberals saying that it is not shit and that is good for you to eat.
Some people will do, and think the right way despite the bullshit conditioning. A Fag is a Fag, is not a pretty thing nor do I want to do anything with it. Period.
March 1st, 2012 at 7:44 pm
@ 17 (Sorry, I’m late to the game) Now that S*** is FUNNY. Although, had they attempted to teach me that maneuver during my MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program) training, I would have used an eye gouge followed by a knee thrust to the groin then a modified figure four to unconsciousness on my instructor.
Also, I would have called it quits with a tan belt; with moves like you described I don’t want to imagine what it would take to get to brown belt.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:16 pm
#53 is me, and I’d hate to be confused with other, ignorant anonymi.
Let me know when you bigoted assholes play scientist for a living. If you’d take 5 minutes off from being ridiculously ignorant dicks, you’d find that some people ARE genetically programmed to be homosexual, and I really don’t give 2 fucks whether you like it or not.
That said, it HAS become so acceptable in today’s society to be homosexual that those who were not born such choose to be so. It is not, however, a choice that every gay person makes.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:35 pm
I don’t care what you apologists have to say about it, it’s still a disgusting public display of affection that has been overplayed.
Where are the pictures of the female Marines jumping into their husbands’ arms and planting a liplock on them? NOWHERE! Because it’s not politically correct and doesn’t fit the media template to glorify immorality.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:43 pm
If we’re really going to get nitpicky at this then I think the WWII photo would be considered unprofessional. If you look up the background story you’ll see the sailor just grabbed some random woman, kissed her without asking, and then she slapped him. These guys hadn’t seen each other in months, and I’ve seen way more ‘dramatic’ returning from deployment makeout sessions between straights. I’m one of those Dirty Queers everyone loves to hate, but unfortunately for the fundies I served honorably got my blood stripe. Most of the unit knew, and they honestly didn’t care. I wasn’t winning boards left and right, but I did my job and my fellow Marines respected that.
While I never tried to have any relationships when I was active duty I know that if I did I would probably react similarly if I saw them for the first time in months. I personally think the new picture is cliche, but does it honestly matter? Nobody was made to sit and watch, and no poor straight people were forced into unwilling gay PDA. So stop being hypocrites by championing the original, and decrying the new one.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:45 pm
And to be clear I don’t think kissing someone constitutes bravery unless you’re playing wingman for a buddy. That Facebook commenter is an idiot, and should apologize. I’m sure the Marines photographed would agree.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:31 pm
If a woman in uniform jumps up and wraps her legs around a guy for the cameras, is that “TRUE bravery”?
March 1st, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Although I’ve not yet become homo-phobic, neither have I become homo-friendly. I prefer people-friendly. I keep my sexual escapades private, as gentlemen and ladies are expected to. But I can’t help seeing these types of staged press-release events as symptomatic of failure. For the participants, failure at being whichever gender they were born as. Alternatively, failure – before this date – at being courageous enough to succeed at whichever gender they want to be. For the organizations and their spokespeople, failure at damn near everything.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Maybe some people have a genetic defect that leads them to be homosexual, I don’t know. The fact remains, that is easily determined by simple evolutionary logic, that it is a defect, not a feature. It is not a survival trait. Up until the ’70s, it was listed as a mental illness, which makes sense, especially as it has been successfully treated. There are also quite a few examples of it being the result of sexual trauma.
How “kind” or “compassionate” is it to tell someone who is mentally ill NOT to seek treatment? If it was done in any other case, it would be a case of severe negligence. But here, because it creates such a reaction of revulsion among those with any sort of functioning moral compass, it has been latched on to as a cause to help further the crumbling of Western mores.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:48 pm
@ #52
“when it has been despised and chastised through ages as inappropriate behavior.”
This is part of the problem. Some folks, and I’m trying to be sensitive here, really don’t have a grasp of history. Homosexuality has been accepted down though the ages far more often than not.
Let me clarify something for you, what you should be hating is the backwards and sheltered upbringing that left you, in your later years, in a position of having to try and assimilate ideas which have been around, and public, for centuries.
You’re so programmed you even attempt to tell me how I feel about it, without even knowing, a predictable attempt to de-humanize your perceived enemy. It’s “ignorance to compare this to racial bigotry”, really? They chose to be homosexual? really?
Prove it you clown.
And I’m not a Liberal, fact is I’m probably even further to the right of the political spectrum than you are. So choke on that.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:53 pm
@ ROS
That’s cool as hell. They were a generation of heroes, I’ll bet it was cool as hell to talk with him.
My criticisms were offered with a degree of sarcasm. His lack of class being predicated on the logical assumption of others opinions of ‘un-classy’ behavior.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:54 pm
@#58: You said:
” . . . play scientist for a living. If you’d take 5 minutes off from being ridiculously ignorant dicks, you’d find that some people ARE genetically programmed to be homosexual . .”
I won’t ask “Where;’s the beef?”, but I am asking you to provide that scientific proof.
March 1st, 2012 at 10:13 pm
@ #64
“is easily determined by simple evolutionary logic, that it is a defect, not a feature. It is not a survival trait.”
That’s you argument? Really? Hmmm, sexual liaisons across genders has been recorded among many species throughout recorded history. Is it your position that evolution should have eradicated it by now if it was a genetic issue? Lots and lots of holes in that argument friend.
I should also point out that if you’re going to use a theory based in evolution (however incorrect) to try and dispute the morality of homosexuality, you might have a moral dilemma on your hands when trying to make a case for homosexuality being immoral on religious grounds. You either believe “Christ’s Word”, or you don’t, you don’t get to spin from a loom your ‘source’ says doesn’t contain any thread.
And this really got me “How “kind” or “compassionate” is it to tell someone who is mentally ill NOT to seek treatment?”
You shift gears in your argument making the presumption that a. Homosexuals are mentally ill, and b. I or anyone here agrees with that position.
I don’t. Prove it. And until you can, it’s nothing more than ‘feelings’ on your part.
Cheers
March 1st, 2012 at 10:16 pm
@64 Actually there is evidence that once a woman has a son any subsequent sons have an increasingly higher chance of being homosexual for purposes of kin selection. Genetically speaking having several brothers in the gene pool only increases competition, and across the board lowers the chances of any of them achieving reproductive success. Kin selection and reciprocal altruism are survival traits, albeit in a less direct way.
There are several well documented studies featuring brain scans of males and females of both orientations. Homosexual men tended to have several brain structure appear more like heterosexual women. Gay women have several brain structures that line up more with heterosexual men. This is all evidence for hormones mucking around with brain structure in utero.
There are plenty of LGBT individuals who were never abused as children, and while it may play a factor it is by no means the determinate. I was never abused as a children, and I’m not mentally ill. Of course ‘hysteria’ was widely touted as a mental illness for hundreds of years (mostly as a result of women not acting meek enough.) Drapetomania was touted as the reason slaves tried to escape captivity since Biblically they shouldn’t ever have the inclination to.
March 1st, 2012 at 10:19 pm
@67
For the most part, the research is in it’s infancy at the moment.
In it’s absence I’ll say this. You can’t prove a negative.
There is not empirical evidence for either side of the argument. But the side that claims thee’s nothing wrong with homosexuality is quite a bit closer to proving it than the side saying it’s wrong.
I could as easily ask you to give proof that it’s fundamentally immoral, or wrong. Here’s a clue, you can’t.
Cheers
March 1st, 2012 at 10:31 pm
At #67
Go look for it yourself if it’s that important to you. No one here is required to do your leg work.
You provide the “proof” homosexuality is immoral, I’ll provide the “proof” it’s not.
Cheers
March 1st, 2012 at 10:40 pm
I’ll be nice, and link the first few studies that come to mind:
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10531.full
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness_and_sexual_orientation
March 1st, 2012 at 10:47 pm
so Jacobite is saying they’re born that way. Does that make it an abnormality like a cleft palate, spina bifida, Down’s syndrome or other things. Shouldn’t they have a telethon to search for a cure then?
And I love the fact that he uses the good old “homophobia” is the same as racism arguement too.
March 1st, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Blue eyes and blond hair are recessive traits, and would be considered abnormalities. Do people with those traits warrant fixing? What about left handed people? What about webbed toes? Attached earlobes? ‘Dumbo’ ears? Curly hair? Handedness isn’t fully a matter of heredity, so do we need to follow the old psychiatric model of burning them at the stake?
March 1st, 2012 at 11:01 pm
There are a lot of genetic variants that are not abnormal. Red, black, blond hair; green, gray, blue eyes. Different — not abnormal.
March 1st, 2012 at 11:09 pm
And just for the record: I’ve never liked the WWII photo of the sailor kissing the nurse. He didn’t know her, and he grabbed her without her permission; and if it’d been me, another war would have started just as soon as I got loose.
March 1st, 2012 at 11:15 pm
@PintoNag They tracked the nurse down a few years ago, and apparently right after the picture was taken she slapped the guy.
I can only hope LGBT veterans repudiate those idiots who equate making out with heroism. It’s bad enough having to overcome associations with nutjobs with persecution complexes like Bradley Manning. I would definitely be interested to know who anticipated and promoted that photo op. The guys in the picture seemed a bit too preoccupied to have staged it.
March 1st, 2012 at 11:16 pm
#75 Some of you may think I’m a dummy (although I’m young and public education sucks) but I never knew that the sailor just grabbed a random nurse. Kinda makes me view it in a different light.
March 1st, 2012 at 11:23 pm
#65
You are either a HOMOSEXUSUAL or a have LATENT HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES. You may like to pack your rump with a stiffie, or would like someone to do it to you.
Regardless, it is sick, aberrant behavior that has been around for ages and NEVER has been PART OF THE MAINSTREAM SOCIETY UNTIL TODAY. And today it is accepted because we have people like you, who scream to the world how great perversion and deviant sexual behavior is.
I know I am right. Wish that MEN were still MEN and stoop up for what right looks like. Two men having sex is wrong, unatural and aberrant behavior. Sodomite.
March 1st, 2012 at 11:25 pm
@Adam_S I’m also a young product of public school, and I didn’t know the whole story either until I read the article with the woman in the photo. That’s just photography, and it doesn’t necessarily nullify the importance of the image.
The famous Iwo Jima flag raising picture wasn’t the ‘real’ one, Robert Capa’s iconic Spanish Civil War photo was probably staged, the famous Vietnam War photo of the ‘innocent’ Vietnamese guy about to be shot never mentioned how the guy had murdered countless SVN woman and children, several Civil War photographers would actually move around bodies to make shots look more gruesome, etc.
March 1st, 2012 at 11:30 pm
@Abnmdc Hope you don’t eat shrimp, or work on the Sabbath…
March 1st, 2012 at 11:40 pm
@66- It was amazing, D. Both he and his daughter are 2 of the nicest people I’ve ever met and have since done a lot for our organization to assist wounded TRUE heroes have a little down time. I enjoyed his company immensely.
@67- For starters: http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html (This also addresses the “homosexuality as a mental disorder” theory and its declassifocation as such over 3 and a half decades ago.)
Now just Google “Xq28″.
That said, this does not mean that everyone who claims to be homosexual is actually so. As I said before, it’s become so accepted that even those born without the trait have made the CHOICE to engage in a homosexual lifestyle.
But, as Carl said previously, I am of the opinion that what one does in one’s bedroom is one’s own business and ladies and gentlemen do not discuss those matters with others. Calling someone “brave” for telling the world whom they engage in personal relations with is ridiculous. It’s tacky, not brave.
March 1st, 2012 at 11:44 pm
Abnmdc, you have issues. Being gay obviously didn’t interfere with the military prowess of King Richard I, Alexander the Great or T.E. freaking Lawrence.
March 1st, 2012 at 11:55 pm
First, let me make this clear, I do not agree with homosexuality. Whether it’s through choice or genetics I don’t know and don’t care. As a Christian I can “hate the sin but love the sinner” and mean it. That being said,
Over the length of this thread I have seen many good points made, both pro and con BUT as soon as the profanity and sarcasm start, your respective points are lost. Mother always said if someone has to resort to cursing to prove a point, they have no point to prove. It reminds me of school kids saying, “I know you are but what am I?” How about some civility?
March 2nd, 2012 at 12:00 am
to me, it’s obviously unbecoming. and calling it HEROISM is sickening.
but also, truthfully, it speaks to the same issue, to me, as women in combat. goofy ass girly girls who jump into the waiting boyfriends arms don’t belong in combat– and nearly does this guy. tell me you think this guy will have your back when it gets down in it.. or are you going to be hauling his pack.
Hate me. whatever.
March 2nd, 2012 at 12:02 am
@BooRadley How exactly does some PDA justify saying this guy couldn’t hack it in combat?
March 2nd, 2012 at 12:22 am
well…. since you’ve already brought up ‘burning at the stake’ I’m not sure you’re really that interested in my answer. If it doesn’t agree with you– I’m wrong.
That said, It’s childish, unprofessional and shows a lack of self control and bearing. People who can’t keep their feet on the ground while kissing, knowing they are in full violation of policies they have agreed to, aren’t generally the kind of people who are going to control their emotions when it is life or death.
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:14 am
My intolerance for perversion and deviant behavior is not religious oriented. I am an equal opportunity hater. I hate liberals, religious fanatics, democrats, fags, dikes, intravenous drug users, thieves, politicians equally and the list goes on.
Because you have 3 or 4 homosexuals who amounted to something through the ages it makes it ok to be one? that is flawed logic.
resting on the Sabbath is still a good idea, back then it was made to ensure the farmers had a day of recovery from their duties in order to keep a healthy lifestyle. Same with the prohibitions on pork and other food, from observation they concluded that people got sick more often from eating certain animals. There you got it, it was not religious fanatism that motivated them to come up with sensible rules. Just as they concluded that being a fag was a bad thing, or have you not read it? It was abhorrent behavior then, it should be now too.
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:20 am
No, flawed logic is judging another adult and concluding that they are beaneath you (no pun intended) because of whom they choose to have sex with. Mayhap I sense a bit of denial and self-loathing……
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:05 am
@Abnmdc Yes, those prohibitions on multi-fiber clothing really helped maintain their personal morality. Or, y’know, the whole guide on how to sell your daughter into slavery bit (the cliff notes version is unlike males she can never go free.)
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:34 am
At 72
“homophobia” is the same as racism arguement too.”
It is ma’am, sorry you can’t make the connection.
“so Jacobite is saying they’re born that way. Does that make it an abnormality like a cleft palate, spina bifida, Down’s syndrome or other things. Shouldn’t they have a telethon to search for a cure then?”
No, I’m saying they MAY be. I can’t say for sure they are, and you can’t say for sure they aren’t. Real simple eh? And even if it pans out it’s a straight up genetic predisposition, why would you characterize it as a defect that needs ‘fixing’?
Since we can’t answer the first question definitively, we can’t answer the second.
Gawd I wish they taught logic in high school. Might prevent some of these ‘mis-understandings.’
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:36 am
Ah those were better days when women knew when it was right to close their yap. Ah, we have gone backwards instead of forward.
I said that I do not approve of the conduct, and that is sick deviant behavior. You want to put words in my mouth that I have not uttered. Denial, nothing to prove son, I have proven my worth as a man plenty of times, more than it is required. Perhaps you are still lingering in curiosity for some homoerotic pleasure and projecting yourself.
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:41 am
#4&5 My thoughts exactly.
I have said my piece on this to many times before, so I’ll leave it at the repeal not being wise. What worries me more though is who or what else are we next going to accomodate? I can think of a few entities right off my head that rae inevitable…
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:48 am
@78
“I know I am right.”
Hitler knew he was right to, so did Stalin, and the Catholic Church during the inquisition for that matter. Abnmdc, you’re not ‘right’ in the philosophical sense that the bold facts line up on your side of an attempted equation, you’re only ‘right’ in your own head as it relates to how you interpret your own environment. That aint the same thing by a long shot.
Thomas Paine is rolling in his grave. (Founder 1, 1737 – 6, 1809)
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:52 am
At 82
“T.E. freaking Lawrence”
Gawd, one of my all time heroes since I was a wee lad.
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:01 am
@Abnmdc Yes, those wonderful days of slavery, lobotomies for everyone, barring the landless from voting, and charging the public for tours of mental hospitals (who often got to poke the ill with sticks if they weren’t acting Crazy Enough.)
Hate to disappoint you, but I’m never going to ‘shut my yap.’ And never fear: your tax dollars are funding my biochemistry degree, and more than likely med school so I’ll be even less inclined to shut my yap.
@Cedo I’ve definitely seen worse post-deployment behavior, and commands tend to ignore overly enthusiastic initial reunion PDA. As long as they quickly rein in the tonsil hockey then I don’t see it as unprofessional. Again, my question is who promoted the photo? Either it was PA personnel snagging a PR opportunity, or social networking/emailed personal photo that got hijacked (and yet another excellent anecdote to a unit social networking rules class.) If those guys DID stage and promote this then I think that would definitely qualify as unprofessional just like that idiot Army National Guard soldier who was endorsing Ron Paul in uniform.
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:02 am
“Because you have 3 or 4 homosexuals who amounted to something through the ages it makes it ok to be one? that is flawed logic.”
The problem is, it ain’t 3 or 4, you’re just speaking to the 3 or 4 that have been mentioned here. Folks with a different view have been fully intertwined throughout human history, including large population groups. And besides, good works don’t make it ‘ok’ to be one. There isn’t any good reason why it’s NOT ok. It’s as simple as that.
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:12 am
@Jacobite Judging by your handle I think we’re going to quickly see comments about the good old days when The Dirty Papists knew when it was right to close their yap.
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:17 am
Come on naysayers, leaving religion and these photos out of it, why is it not OK to be a homosexual? Personal un-comfortableness is not a good ‘reason’ by the way. I’m looking for concrete reasons why we should be upset if a portion of the population is attracted to same gender partners.
Facts please, leave your hyperbole at the door.
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:20 am
The should have, lol.
I’m of close Scottish decent, and I’m a romantic. The Jacobite handle goes back more years than I care to remember in my military career. I’d make a good Jacobite only in that I love lost causes. I’m originally from Chicago and something of a Cubs fan. That should explain a bit too. lol
March 2nd, 2012 at 3:47 am
the inquisition was a necessary evil, it drove the damned heathens from Spain back to hell where they came from. It would be nice if it existed today to do the same thing for all of us and send them back to hell.
Hitler? Stalin? the justifiers, you omitted Mao, Polpot or Idi Amin. People use them to justify a point. If they would had won the war, the justifiers would had been Roosevelt, Truman and Churchill. Or is it that you think it ok to drop a nuclear bomb on civilians the right thing to do?
Still that does not change the fact that a homosexual is a sick deviant individual that choses to engage in sodomy for pleasure or sexual gratification.
March 2nd, 2012 at 4:30 am
Support the Inquisition do you? You’ve now proven your self guilty of lying (about whether your stance was religious or not), good job.
By the way, I didn’t intentionally omit anyone, I simply provided enough to support my point, and I did. lol
As for whether or not I believe we should have nuked civilians, well naturally. It saved American lives, that’s good enough for me.
Man oh man, you are even further off the mental grid than I originally though. A shame really.
And your statement that homosexuality is a ‘sick deviant’ behavior? Well thankfully that’s just your opinion, and it’s worth exactly what it cost for you to verbalize it, Exactly nothing. You’ve provided no proof that your opinion has any basis in fact and can therefore be comfortably relegated into the ‘mildly irritating but inconsequential’ bin.
Gawd I’m glad folks like you are becoming relics.
March 2nd, 2012 at 4:36 am
@Jacobite I think we’ll have to leave Abnmdc in Crazyland. Hopefully he gets evicted into the real world sometime soon.
March 2nd, 2012 at 5:04 am
I would like to point out that we’ve already had a gay president. Its not Abe Lincoln as some seem to suggest. It was the guy before him. James Buchanan. Its ok that he’s regarded as one of the worst presidents in US history. You’ve had a gay president! Have a parade.
Just something to think about, look at the old Renascence paintings. Notice how. . .chubby some of the women in there are? Today, we’d tell them that they’d better get their ass in the GYM! We’d rip on them for how fat they are. Now while this might seem like a tangent, from left field it undercuts one of the central thesis’ of the Gay “movement” Standards of Beauty, and sexual desire are not set in stone. While you’re born with “leanings”, no one is born that way. It also takes responsibility away from ones actions. You make a choice.
March 2nd, 2012 at 5:11 am
Eviction is satisfactory I suppose, but I’d prefer understanding.
It irks me when people are unable to grow beyond their own narrow world views. My own myopic problem I suspect, because logic dictates that illogical people are never going to go away, no matter how much we would wish it to be otherwise.
I’m not ‘gay’ myself, and I used to make fun of the lifestyle in my ignorant youth. But as I’ve grown older, and since I’ve made the decision to be as honest with myself as possible, I’ve been forced to face a bunch of inconsistencies in my world view. Facing those inconsistencies and adjusting my beliefs based on history, logic and cold common sense has been overwhelmingly eye opening and rewarding.
Everyone has to find their own path I suppose, and many never will.
March 2nd, 2012 at 5:15 am
Doc, I respect you greatly, but there are HUGE problems with you argument. The biggest being some suppositions for which there is no empirical evidence.
March 2nd, 2012 at 5:18 am
You lost my point because you need to justify your lifestyle choices. Yes, I am a dinosaur I am glad I am one, I stand for something. Homosexuals have no room in my world. Maybe you missed the fact that the inquisition served its primary political purpose, through war and religious terror the Muslim vermin were eradicated from Spain. It worked. If we had a tool like that, instead of making excuses, America would rule the world instead we are selling it out to our enemies and making this once great country a cartoon.
You want to say that being a homosexual is a good thing, I should feel glad for you, but I really dont. Hope that your sphincters still work when you are older, if you make it that far and do not catch some disease in between and die from it which would not make me too sad.
The argument justifying the use of Atomic weapons, you must catch up on your history. The bombs were dropped to let the Russians know we could blow them away if they had contemplated any idea of an advance in a very vulnerable Europe. The European Theater was over and the only place that justified its use was Japan. Simple politics, bad choice and almost an imposible one, but still it does not make it right by any means. Did it save some American lives? probably, but it is still a scholarly debate. It might have deterred our enemies until the Rossenbergs sold us out to the Russians.
You question my sanity, but I am not the one attempting against the laws of nature. You have not proven that being a homosexual is a biological imperative. The research is at best flawed, so nothing has been definite proven.
Is the world a better place since women speak out of place and homosexuals can create all this mess? Not. Your “real” world with all its sick deviant behavior holds no interest for me.
March 2nd, 2012 at 6:19 am
@102 Ann, ya know I was starting to like your posts then you do this. You’re doing what everyone else does when they can’t get someone to change their point of view. And I’m talking about folks on both sides. Insults and sarcasm add nothing to a debate.
Is homosexuality genetics or a life style choice? I don’t know. I saw a thing a while back where they did brain scans and gay and lesbian brains that showed differences from hetero brains. Genetics? My cousin married his Jr High sweetheart, after 20 years of marriage she left him for another guy. Six months later my cousin announced he was gay. Life style choice?
Personally I think homosexuality is wrong. That’s my opinion. Do i hate gays? Not at all.
If I might ask one question? Why do you, Jacobite, BD, etc keep coming here? You know you’re in the minority and you’re not going to change anyone’s mind.
March 2nd, 2012 at 6:21 am
@Doc Bailey I respect your opinion, but I chose my orientation about as much as you’ve chose yours.
@Abnmdc Again: reciprocal altruism and kin selection. Look them up. And how about actually reading the studies mentioned in the links I provided earlier?
March 2nd, 2012 at 7:09 am
@Abnmdc – “Is the world a better place since women speak out of place….”
What exactly is their place?
March 2nd, 2012 at 7:10 am
@Yat The sarcasm was meant to be directed to Abnmdc’s perceived tinfoil hattery, not at everyone who shares a particular viewpoint with him. Saying the tonsil hockey was unprofessional or that you think queerosexuality is wrong is one thing, but frothing rage against ‘deviate sodomites’ is another. To me the absurdity earns a bit of ridicule. Everyone else has been more than reasonable in their disagreements.
As for why I keep coming back to this post I personally love to talk about science, and the orientation debate is no exception. I also appreciate hearing both sides of an argument, and exchanging views. If you stick with people who completely agree with you then you risk becoming trapped in the MSNBC or Fox News crowds.
March 2nd, 2012 at 7:19 am
@Doc Bailey I don’t care if there’s been a gay President. So long as they’re not breaking any laws then I don’t really care what they do in their bedrooms. Being forced to hear nonstop clips about Clinton’s escapades was torture enough. I just have an issue with the accusations of it somehow being lewd or shameful simply because it’s two guys. If they were straight would everyone oppose it just as staunchly?
March 2nd, 2012 at 7:28 am
Jacobite:
OK, here’s the short version of the argument.
There is full justification for regulation of sexual conduct – either homosexual or heterosexual – while in uniform on grounds of military effectiveness. Military personnel often live in close quarters, with little privacy, and are faced with situations where any hesitation to come to the aid of their comrades can literally be lethal to all. Unit morale, cohesion, and esprit de corps are therefore critical – much more so than even in the closest civilian equivalents, police and firefighting organizations, as police and firefighting organizations don’t live together nonstop for months at a time. The element of sexual tension that having overt homosexuals literally living with members of the group in close quarters brings has foreseeable, adverse effect on morale, esprit, and cohesion. (The same is also true if one has an overt pedophile, over nymphomaniac, or boorish satyr hitting on female unit members.) This can lead to unnecessary mission failure and loss of lives. For what it’s worth: adultery is banned for the same reason – i.e., it’s effect on unit cohesion, esprit, and morale, and thus on the unit’s military effectiveness.
The situation is far different than racial integration, and comparing the two is an invalid comparison. Race is based on innate, unchangeable, and non-maskable hereditary factors. One simply cannot control one’s race. Therefore, insisting on racial equality is based on the principle of innate equality of all, and is proper – period. In contrast all sexual conduct (either homo- or heterosexual) is a voluntary act. For those in uniform, all sexual conduct – including all overt displays, either homosexual or heterosexual – may thus be regulated in the interest of military effectiveness.
In fact, unless things have changed radically in the past 4 years sexual conduct of all forms is today still strictly controlled in theater. It’s called “General Order 1″ – and until a few years ago, its blanket ban (no pun intended) on sex included not only unmarried personnel/geographical bachelors but also married couples deployed together to Iraq and Afghanistan. (That particular part of GO1 was reinterpreted in either late 2007 or early 2008 to allow married couples stationed together to have sex when appropriate privacy was available.)
The bottom line is that DADT was a good, workable compromise between individual rights and military necessity. It prohibited only conduct (including overt displays of homosexual orientation) that would have deleterious effect on military effectiveness. One was free to have whatever sexual orientation one liked; one just had to keep it private.
Fair? Not necessarily. But as JFK put it: “Life is not fair.”
And by the way: Jacobite, you did effectively equate race and sexual orientation earlier. See your own comment #18 above.
March 2nd, 2012 at 7:51 am
@Hondo The only problem was the sporadic, and often petty enforcement of DADT. How are straights so much more responsible that they’re allowed to be open about their relationships? This isn’t an issue of orientation, it’s an issue of the maturity and responsibility of the person. Again, randomly making out with your significant other at work is one thing. Some PDA after you haven’t seen each other for 6-18 months is another. So long as it’s quickly reined in I don’t see why it would be an issue.
I think that everyone would be too busy finding their loved ones to stand there scandalized at the supposed impropriety. I bet that the vast majority of those present had no idea this even happened until the picture was published. Both times I got back from deployment the moment we were dismissed I didn’t so much as look at any of the guys I deployed with. I found my family, and took off so I could ditch the cammies and get some home cooked food.
March 2nd, 2012 at 8:18 am
@111 Ann, I agree with you 100% that both sides can fall into the “neener, neener, neener” mentality and it makes me sad. there are some very intelligent people that post here and I love it when a thread gets started and it runs it’s course with good dialog and civility.
Well keep coming back, as I said, I really appreciate your posts. Hopefully some topic will get posted that we can have at it over!: ) unfortunately this isn’t it. I’ve stated my opinions on this and they’re not going to change. Unless of course the good Lord Himself came down and told me I was wrong.
Semper Fi
March 2nd, 2012 at 9:09 am
Ann: no system or policy is ever enforced perfectly, and no system or policy is impossible to abuse. IDADT was no different in that respect. People enforce systems and policies; people are fallible.
That said, I’d hazard a guess that the rate of abuse in enforcing DADT was no higher than in enforcing any other aspect of military discipline. An allegation of abuse of subordinates or discrimination will kill a NCO’s or officer’s career if substantiated, and depending on the circumstances could get them in serious legal trouble also.
That said, DADT was workable without undue adverse impact on either individuals or military effectiveness. I’m not at all certain that the new policy will be – and I’d prefer not to find out the hard way that it isn’t.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:15 am
To be homosexual is a choice; giving into an urge. If we would give into urges, what would be taboo?
Homosexuality is a sin and, yes it’s been around for a long time; it still doesn’t make it right.
Whatever one does behind closed doors or privacy it’s fine by me. What I don’t want is to be forced to accept it as normal.
There’s a reason that it is a sin; it’s against natural order and, brings diseases such as Aids. A scientist once wrote that homosexual men are the majority contracting or suffering from that disease due to their lifestyle.
Naturally, this scientist found himself out of a job!
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:21 am
yeah Jacobite, if they taught logic in high school, maybe you could learn the fallacy of assumption (ie, my soldiers address me as “Sir” not “Ma’am” common mistake and assumption on your part)
If they’re born that way, then it is a abnormality and if they’re not born that way it’s a behavior.
And homophobia (a made up word) is NOT the same as racism.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:27 am
Uhm, Jacobite, you might want to research the Nazi’s predilictions for homo-sex before you consider old Adolph one of your enemies.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:33 am
@ 113
Hondo,
Not sure why you addressed your response to me? I already generally agree with your points.
And no, go back and read #18 a little closer, I did not equate race and sexual orientation, I equated racism and bigotry.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:37 am
@Cali HIV was a zoonotic disease that jumped to humans from chimpanzees. There’s evidence it’s been doing this for some time, but the massive urbanization is what allowed it to escape small villages and spread. It arrived in the west courtesy of infected Congolese, infected Hatians, and was able to morph into a pandemic when it found it’s way into the gay and IV drug user community. It’s also a pretty crappy disease for punishing those evil gay people since lesbians have some of the lowest infection rates for any demographic.
It isn’t a gay disease, it merely exploited a niche courtesy of some really stupid attitudes about sex. SARS wasn’t called an Asian disease despite it gaining a foothold, and transmitting from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtypes_of_HIV
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:42 am
@Athena Nobody is trying to say that all gay people are awesome (to be fair I think Hitler was more of a sadist than a homosexual.) That’s just like inferring gay people are somehow attracted to every single person of their gender in the whole world. Jeffrey Dahmer became an Evangelical Christian in prison, but you’d still never call him a nice guy or condemn every other Christian because he was nuts.
I always used to tell my guys that if a gay guy is ‘checking you out’ they’re probably thinking ‘Oh my God, why are you wearing those shoes with that belt?!’ instead of ‘Must… rape… straights…’
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:44 am
Ann, HIV exploited gay males propensity for lots and lots of anal sex. You must know nature didn’t design the anus for sex, right Ann?
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:46 am
Ann, I wasn’t saying that at all, I was referring to Jacobite inferred idea that Hitler hated homosexuals.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:57 am
@Athena tuberculosis exploits poor urbanites who have a propensity for overcrowding in small spaces, and malaria exploits Equatorial inhabitants who don’t use bugnets. Nature also didn’t design ears for piercing, skin for tattooing, or double jointedness to entertain grade schoolers.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:58 am
well there goes the neighborhood
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:58 am
@Athena Sorry, I misread the comment. Studying for midterms is making me crazy…
March 2nd, 2012 at 11:23 am
Jacobite: I was responding to your request in comment 99 above. My answer was aimed at justifying why open homosexuality in a military context can be prohibited. I didn’t intend to argue the merits of homosexuality per se. If that was the intent of your question, then I missed it.
I didn’t read your comment 18 the way you now claim. The example you used – e.g., the “back of the bus” reference – was a clear example of racial prejudice vice bigotry. And IMO, your statement slotting it right next to prejudice against homosexuals clearly equated bias against homosexuality with racial prejudice.
In any case, bigotry and racism are not the same. Bigotry is based on belief, and is defined as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own”. Racism is based on distain for a particular race simply because of what they are, not what they belive. So equating the two is not correct.
March 2nd, 2012 at 11:48 am
Bigotry is based on belief, and is defined as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own”. Racism is based on distain for a particular race simply because of what they are, not what they belive.
A distinction without a real difference. You can say all racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racist it’s true, but that wasn’t the point. The point was that the Abnmdc’s comments deserve the same disdain one would show Archie Bunker’s rants. They’re narrow minded, uneducated and willfully hateful. I had already identified what I was dealing with in him and was right on target in comment 18 as his eventual rants against women and further statements have proven.
March 2nd, 2012 at 11:52 am
@118
My apologies “Sir”. I would imagine it can be irritating having your name misinterpreted. I apologize for making that mistake, however, that doesn’t lessen the correctness of my assertions.
“If they’re born that way, then it is a abnormality”
Really? How so? Facts please, not feelings.
@107
“You lost my point because you need to justify your lifestyle choices.”
Really? I don’t feel the need to justify my lifestyle at all. Not that it matters but I’m a straight hetero male, retired soldier, and father of two. I don’t see that I’ve done anything to justify my choices in this thread.
”You want to say that being a homosexual is a good thing”
Really? Where did I say that?
”The bombs were dropped to let the Russians know we could blow them away”
Ya, so? Truman himself stated his reasons for deciding to go ahead with the attack. The full decision tree, and the people involved, can be found here http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_23.htm . All I said was, it saved lives.
@108
“If I might ask one question? Why do you, Jacobite, BD, etc keep coming here? You know you’re in the minority and you’re not going to change anyone’s mind.”
I’ve been coming here for years because I love the open debate Jonn’s site encourages. And I argue my points in the face of adversity because I like to test them against people whose opinions I respect and because I feel they need to be argued. I also believe people like Abnmdc need to be publically challenged so their bigotry is never given the dark space of privacy in which to grow and pollute.
I love a good debate.
@117
To be homosexual is a choice
Really? You base that on what?
As for it being a sin, well sin is a Judeo Christian concept and I fully support your right to that opinion, but it is just that in the greater scheme of things, your opinion. I don’t share your faith, and am not bound by your prejudices.
@124
I did not infer anything about Hitler’s position on homosexuals, I pointed out that Hitler was a man who was convinced he was right, about everything, not just homosexuality. You read into my statements something that wasn’t even there, and took them entirely out of context.
Man, hope I got all that straight, lol.
March 2nd, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Jacobite: No. There is indeed a distinction between bigotry and racism. Bigotry is based on objection to a particular belief, while the latter is based on finding an entire group of persons objectionable solely because of their race.
As you’ve pointed out above, beliefs can change over time – and often do to some extent as people age. Race is invariant and permanent.
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Looks like probable cause for NCIS to investigate for Art. 125 violations…..
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Hondo,
Again, all racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racist.
Definition of BIGOT from Merriam-Webster.
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Definition of RACISM from Merriam-Webster.
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
And again, my main point was that both are despicable and deserve the same treatment. I can’t figure out why your splitting hairs over this?
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Uh, no, Jacobite, YOU inferred that Hitler’s ideas on homosex were what led to the suppression of homosexuals in Germany. Nice try though.
March 2nd, 2012 at 4:04 pm
I did eh?
Please point out for me where I did that, and please don’t be upset if I don’t hold my breath while waiting for you to find it.
March 3rd, 2012 at 7:17 pm
@135 Ahhh, denial.
March 4th, 2012 at 2:51 am
#104 Doc, James Buchanan was not gay or at the very least there is no evidence to assume so. Just because he was a bachelor, unusual at the time, and boarded with another man when he served in the Senate(I believe), doesn’t in itself prove homosexuality.
#105 “It irks me when people are unable to grow beyond their own narrow world views.” This one statement alone Jacobite, reveals who is approaching this from a limited perspective. It alludes to your world views being the correct ones, whatever those may be, all others being null. The moral argument is no less compelling, despite your constant attempts to dismiss it.
First, because there were gays in the past is irrelevent, we had criminals then as we do now, so?
Gays are a tiny minority amongst the general population, who’s very identity is defined by an unnatural behaviour. A behaviour, the cultural tradition opposes and has for about 1500 years.
Even the preChristian Greco-Roman world was far from uniform on. Most of our ancient sources were writers from a very narrow band of said society. Who’s demographic bias were over represented in literature not just on gays but also on the certain historical figures(like emperors) or events. Just because same-sex sexual acts were tolerated(defined mostly upon who was doing the penetrating) and not criminal, in no way quantifies its commonality amongst the general male population. Outside the Senatorial/Equetrian classes, the shamed persons of entertainers and prostitutes, and some religious cults it is hard to know how much of this was engaged in.
#113 “The element of sexual tension that having overt homosexuals literally living with members of the group in close quarters brings has foreseeable, adverse effect on morale, esprit, and cohesion.” Bull’s eye!
This has always been my primary objection and worry. Much of the sexualization of the force has been with the entrance of a large number of women over the last generation. Practical topics like pregnancy and honest assesments of truthful sexual predation are now purposely obfusicated. At all male units(like combat arms battalions) have had little of this to deal with. Either out of sincerity, vindicativeness, or misunderstanding this will be an issue. This is another distraction which will do nothing but add stress and distraction on the military. Why bother? This serves us how?
March 5th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
@136, still waiting.
@ 137,
“It alludes to your world views being the correct ones”
No, you are narrowly defining my statements, and taking them out of context to boot. My comment actually alludes to a willingness to examine my world view on a regular basis, admitting by default that I may be incorrect or too narrow minded either in basis, or in light of new information or changing societal norms. And no, the moral argument is less compelling since morals are a human construct based on intangibles. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have morals, but you can bet they will never be consistantly uniform or applied.
“The element of sexual tension that having overt homosexuals literally living with members of the group in close quarters brings has foreseeable, adverse effect on morale, esprit, and cohesion.” Bull’s eye”
I don’t recall arguing against this specific topic in this thread, but I’m willing to touch on it. Frankly, though our unit had 2 known gay men in it for between 2 and 5 years and we <didn't experience those problems, for the force as a whole I actually agree.