NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This is unrealistic, unworkable, and just plain wrong. The military is in desperate need of finding a better way than Clinton's "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy. Your recommendations?


Pentagon Lists Homosexuality as Disorder (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,101883,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Associated Press | June 20, 2006
WASHINGTON - A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position.

The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities, and in a section on defects lists homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders.

Critics said the reference underscores the Pentagon's failing policies on gays, and adds to a culture that has created uncertainty and insecurity around the treatment of homosexual service members, leading to anti-gay harassment.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeremy M. Martin said the policy document is under review.

The Pentagon has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, at the University of California at Santa Barbara, uncovered the document and pointed to it as further proof that the military deserves failing grades for its treatment of gays.

Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the center, said, "The policy reflects the department's continued misunderstanding of homosexuality and makes it more difficult for gays and lesbians to access mental health services."

The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association.

"It is disappointing that certain Department of Defense instructions include homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake," said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.

Congress members noted that other Pentagon regulations dealing with mental health do not include homosexuality on any lists of psychological disorders. And in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday, nine lawmakers asked for a full review of all documents and policies to ensure they reflect that same standard.

"Based on scientific and medical evidence the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 - a position shared by all other major health and mental health organizations based on their own review of the science," James H. Scully Jr., head of the psychiatric association, said in a letter to the Defense Department's top doctor earlier this month.

There were 726 military members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy during the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. That marked the first year since 2001 that the total had increased. The number of discharges had declined each year since it peaked at 1,227 in 2001, and had fallen to 653 in 2004.

It's sad, but they're closer to the truth that most people, who usually explain homosexuality as "just something". It's something biological.

Meh.

Seeing homos as sick is 22 years out of date.

Meh on that.
Is it just me, or is the Pentagon under you-know-who becoming the ever so meh-able institution?

So Cheney's daughter has a "disorder" then?

Your recommendations?
How about a 'don't ask, cos we don't care' policy?

I do find the idea that gays can't serve in the military bizarre. Who at the Pentagon really thinks that when someone is trying not to have their head blown off in the middle of combat they're really going to be more interested in chatting up the new Private?

With woman serving these days, the argument that it would be 'distracting' is moot anyway. What is the current reasoning on why they can't serve?

Meh.

Seeing homos as sick is 22 years out of date.

Meh on that.
Is it just me, or is the Pentagon under you-know-who becoming the ever so meh-able institution?
There's been what I would call a hardening of position in the military on a wide variety of subjects since 2004. It may or may not have anything to do with who's in office, but much of it is just as unworkable and incorrect as this damned "Don't ask. Don't tell." rule, which was instituted under the previous President.

So Cheney's daughter has a "disorder" then?
Heh! Interesting thought, that. :)

All they need to do NOW is list "Gay" as a disorder too, and i'll be the happiest person on NS General!

Heh, they're also thinking of reintroducing muskets and giving medics leeches.

How about a 'don't ask, cos we don't care' policy?

I do find the idea that gays can't serve in the military bizarre. Who at the Pentagon really thinks that when someone is trying not to have their head blown off in the middle of combat they're really going to be more interested in chatting up the new Private?

With woman serving these days, the argument that it would be 'distracting' is moot anyway. What is the current reasoning on why they can't serve?
I don't think there IS any "reasoning" involved. Personall, I smell the religous far-right at work in this one.

I tend to agree with your position. If you are in need of volunteers, why eliminate an entire sector of the eligible population for no other reason than that they have a different sexual orientation?

Heh, they're also thinking of reintroducing muskets and giving medics leeches.


*Shivers* Remind me to not go to the doctor.

Heh, they're also thinking of reintroducing muskets and giving medics leeches.

Gotta be white leeches too! :p

I don't think there IS any "reasoning" involved. Personall, I smell the religous far-right at work in this one.

Possibly, but why are atheists and followers of non-christian religions admitted then ?

Heh, they're also thinking of reintroducing muskets and giving medics leeches.
LOL! Interesting that you should mention leeches. Special Forces medics are taught to use both leeches and maggots as field preventatives for infection and gangreen. :eek:

Hey now, if you're sick you need your humours to be put back into balance. A good bleeding is the best way to rebalance the humours!

Possibly, but why are atheists and followers of non-christian religions admitted then ?
Damned if I know. Perhaps religion ( or the lact of it ) is too much of a sacred cow?

There's been what I would call a hardening of position in the military on a wide variety of subjects since 2004. It may or may not have anything to do with who's in office, but much of it is just as unworkable and incorrect as this damned "Don't ask. Don't tell." rule, which was instituted under the previous President.

*shrugs in the gallic way ( implying at least partial agreement*

'Don't ask, don't tell' was fine by my book.
I consider a man's choice in bedmates his own private matter,
and not a proper subject for inquests.

On a more personal level, I'm still seething with rage about the time some 12 years ago, when I was subpoenad to give evidence on the bedmates of one of my subordinates.
And mind you, he was a proper young officer in the field.

That Commision evidently expected my cooperation ( I never made a secret out of my own small-town religious beliefs ), and lost its collective temper while I was dancing about the issue ( As If! ). 'I have no recollection of that, Mr Chairman.' ( You know the drill. )

Finally, an aggresive young female lawyer in uniform ( who obviously had never ever been near a battlefield ) asked me pointblank if I could:
'think of any reason why Mr X was unfit to serve'.
I exploded back: 'Do you think I would recommend him 3 times for promotion if I did not think the world of him?'

I'm not in the least bit surprised. So what's the 'official line' when it comes to an attempt to claim disability compensation for 'being gay'?

I'm not in the least bit surprised. So what's the 'official line' when it comes to an attempt to claim disability compensation for 'being gay'?

"I'm Gay. I need money. Give me money"

I don't know.:rolleyes:

"I'm Gay. I need money. Give me money"

I don't know.:rolleyes:

What a sweet deal! KA-CHING!

I'm not in the least bit surprised. So what's the 'official line' when it comes to an attempt to claim disability compensation for 'being gay'?
A disorder doesn't necessarily involves a disability. Insomnia, for instance, is a mental disorder but not a disability. The Pentagon might use that argument when gay people try and demand compensation.

Anyway, if gays would do that, it'd be like accepting they have a disorder and betraying their principles.

What a sweet deal! KA-CHING!

Maybe gays should quit complaining and start lining up to recieve disability money. Who wants to get married when you can get money for a disability you didn't even know you had?

I'd settle for that- the Welfare State gets screwed over, and Homosexuality is legally a disorder.

I'd keep my Rightist mouth shut if that happened.

A disorder doesn't necessarily involves a disability. Insomnia, for instance, is a mental disorder but not a disability. The Pentagon might use that argument when gay people try and demand compensation.

Anyway, if gays would do that, it'd be like accepting they have a disorder (which they don't) and betraying their principles.

I'd betray my principles for a fat pay-out.

I'd betray my principles for a fat pay-out.
And then you'd lose your right to protest for your rights (pardon the pun :p) and be considered equal, since by accepting that money you've confirmed you're not.

And then you'd lose your right to protest for your rights (pardon the pun :p) and be considered equal, since by accepting that money you've confirmed you're not.

Meh. As long as people don't start trying to cure me I'd accept my payup and be a quiet little pet gay of the government. :D

Meh. As long as people don't start trying to cure me I'd accept my payup and be a quiet little pet gay of the government. :D
Heh. What if they tried to lock you up in some kind of mental institution? You would be unable to complain and money would be pretty useless there.

Heh. What if they tried to lock you up in some kind of mental institution? You would be unable to complain and money would be pretty useless there.

I'd quietly point out that I'm not a US citizen and that my claim was completely fraudulent... Then Kung-Fu my way out of the institution.

And then you'd lose your right to protest for your rights (pardon the pun :p) and be considered equal, since by accepting that money you've confirmed you're not.

Well... choose one:
- Live with your partner in poverty, married/as military men.
- Live with your partner in comfort, unmarried/civilian - but comfort paid by the people who do not wish you to get married/enlist.

It is a bribe, yes - but do you actually suffer due to it ;) ?

Well... choose one:
- Live with your partner in poverty, married.
- Live with your partner in comfort, unmarried - but comfort paid by the people who do not wish to get married.

It is a bribe, yes - but do you actually suffer due to it ;) ?

Gosh, that's a toughie.

Ignore me, for I am newbish and it takes me a moment or two to find links.

At any rate. this is infuriating.

Well it seems this "paper" has settled this whole debate.

Gays don't get married, but get lots of money.

Homosexuality is a disorder.

And we on the Right will accept that- for it makes us right, and that's all we care about is being right!

Well... choose one:
- Live with your partner in poverty, married/as military men.
- Live with your partner in comfort, unmarried/civilian - but comfort paid by the people who do not wish you to get married/enlist.

It is a bribe, yes - but do you actually suffer due to it ;) ?
As I said, nobody would stop them if they tried to confine you in an asylum, since the known mentally-ill might not be allowed to be free. :p

A disorder doesn't necessarily involves a disability. Insomnia, for instance, is a mental disorder but not a disability. The Pentagon might use that argument when gay people try and demand compensation.
I'd have to see the document and any associated contextual documents to know for certain, but it seems reasonable to speculate that one thing that differentiates orders that are grounds for discharge from the military, from ones that are not, is some degree of 'disablement'.

Anyway, if gays would do that, it'd be like accepting they have a disorder and betraying their principles.
Not necessarily, although either way, it's neither here nor there in the context of the point the rhetorical question I posited was intended to make.

And then you'd lose your right to protest for your rights (pardon the pun ) and be considered equal, since by accepting that money you've confirmed you're not.
You are mixing up two distinct and contrary definitions of 'equal'. The first refers to generalised 'rights', the second refers to specific individual circumstances.

As I said, nobody would stop them if they tried to confine you in an asylum, since the known mentally-ill might not be allowed to be free. :p

Well, now, that's not entirely true.

We don't confine people with down syndrome. Why would we confine you. Just don't kill anybody, and you should be fine.

Well, now, that's not entirely true.

We don't confine people with down syndrome. Why would we confine you. Just don't kill anybody, and you should be fine.

Ahem...

<_<

>_>

Heh. What if they tried to lock you up in some kind of mental institution? You would be unable to complain and money would be pretty useless there.
Depends on where you are. I rather suspect if you were in a place where what you describe could be true, you are in a place where there is no 'disability compensation'....

I don't see what else it could be. I believe it is a disorder of some kind.

I don't see what else it could be. I believe it is a disorder of some kind.

What do you believe being left handed is ?

I don't see what else it could be. I believe it is a disorder of some kind.

If so, what the fiddlesticks has it go to do with the ability to cut, maim, brutalise and destroy?

I don't see what else it could be. I believe it is a disorder of some kind.

I think heterosexuality is a disorder. What else could it be?

Ok homesexuality i would like to ask exactly HOW is it a disorder? they are no different to us 'straight' people. they just like the same sex. That is so not a disorder. Personally i think that yes people may feel uncomfortable around homosexuals, but really it is not a disorder. It is your life, you should live it how you want without being judged.

i always thought that people were homosexual because of their choice, or pheromones.

*shrugs in the gallic way ( implying at least partial agreement*

'Don't ask, don't tell' was fine by my book.
I consider a man's choice in bedmates his own private matter,
and not a proper subject for inquests.

On a more personal level, I'm still seething with rage about the time some 12 years ago, when I was subpoenad to give evidence on the bedmates of one of my subordinates.
And mind you, he was a proper young officer in the field.

That Commision evidently expected my cooperation ( I never made a secret out of my own small-town religious beliefs ), and lost its collective temper while I was dancing about the issue ( As If! ). 'I have no recollection of that, Mr Chairman.' ( You know the drill. )

Finally, an aggresive young female lawyer in uniform ( who obviously had never ever been near a battlefield ) asked me pointblank if I could:
'think of any reason why Mr X was unfit to serve'.
I exploded back: 'Do you think I would recommend him 3 times for promotion if I did not think the world of him?'
GOOD FOR YOU! [ high fives ]

Well, now, that's not entirely true.

We don't confine people with down syndrome. Why would we confine you. Just don't kill anybody, and you should be fine.
The quoted poster says MIGHTnot be alowed to be free. As far as I can tell this is a correct statement

I personally believe that Homosexuality is the result of choice, events from childhood, and possibly some minor influence of genetic wiring. However, I also believe it to be correctible.

I think heterosexuality is a disorder. What else could it be?

Heterosexuality is a condition through which human beings are able to reproduce. Homosexuality is apparantly a disorder in the condition which causes the sufferer to longer desire reproduction.

I personally believe that Homosexuality is the result of choice, events from childhood, and possibly some minor influence of genetic wiring. However, I also believe it to be correctible.

Try it. :) You might get turned. :D

GOOD FOR YOU! [ high fives ]

*grins*

*straightens face*

What no one ever tells us clearly, and never has, is:
in what way does the disorder known as homosexuality interfere with the carrying out of the duties of an Officer?
If it doesn't interfere ( and I think so ) then being gay is a distinction without a difference.

It has got owt to do with military merit, and therefore has owt to do with staffing-policy.

*rages*
I despise the policy of letting all kinds of Ruperts interfere with the running of our military organisation.
If it has never used a rifle in action, it should keep its fat trap shut.

I personally believe that Homosexuality is the result of choice, events from childhood, and possibly some minor influence of genetic wiring. However, I also believe it to be correctible.
High Five *gives cookie*

I personally believe that Homosexuality is the result of choice, events from childhood, and possibly some minor influence of genetic wiring. However, I also believe it to be correctible.
No study nor respectable medical test or opinion agrees with you there buddy … guess you know more then those silly therapists. If that is the case I believe Heterosexuality is the result of choice and can be correctable as well :rolleyes:

i always thought that people were homosexual because of their choice, or pheromones.
I use to think much the same way. But consider this:

I've known several people who are homosexual, some of them who were in public schools. Almost without exception, they were harrassed unmercifully, humiliated, shunned, etc. Ask yourself why anyone would go through that sort of thing because of a "choice" they had made.

Try it. :) You might get turned. :D

Thank You, No.

Nice try though;)








Then again....:fluffle:

How's them carrots?

*grins*

*straightens face*

What no one ever tells us clearly, and never has, is:
in what way does the disorder known as homosexuality interfere with the carrying out of the duties of an Officer?
If it doesn't interfere ( and I think so ) then being gay is a distinction without a difference.

It has got owt to do with military merit, and therefore has owt to do with staffing-policy.

"I can't shoot him, he's gorgeous!"

"Right then troops, perform a striptease for my pleasure!"

That just about sums it up.

No study nor respectable medical test or opinion agrees with you there buddy … guess you know more then those silly therapists. If that is the case I believe Heterosexuality is the result of choice and can be correctable as well :rolleyes:


it can you know.

It was disproven as a physical disorder (The whole AIDs are from homosexuals thing).
I don't think it has ever been disproven as a mental disorder.

I use to think much the same way. But consider this:

I've known several people who are homosexual, some of them who were in public schools. Almost without exception, they were harrassed unmercifully, humiliated, shunned, etc. Ask yourself why anyone would go through that sort of thing because of a "choice" they had made.
I have been sent to the hospital before for standing up for a gay friend of mine. It was not his choice to be gay any more then it was mine to be BI

in fact while we are labeling everything i say that life is a mental disorder and can be easily cured.

it can you know.
Show us one time where it has been saftly and sucessfully "Corrected"

"I can't shoot him, he's gorgeous!"

"Right then troops, perform a striptease for my pleasure!"

That just about sums it up.


And when did that allegedly happen?

Theban heataroi, anyone?
( All-gay outfit that served with utmost distinction in the Theban War. )

in fact while we are labeling everything i say that life is a mental disorder and can be easily cured.

where on earth is that grant from the government?

And when did that allegedly happen?

Theban heataroi, anyone?
( All-gay outfit that served with utmost distinction in the Theban War. )

Uh... It didn't...

I was trying to mock the anti-gay side. Nice going, BogMarsh!

It was disproven as a physical disorder (The whole AIDs are from homosexuals thing).
I don't think it has ever been disproven as a mental disorder.
Then why was it taken off the mental disorder list in the 70’s ?

Show us one time where it has been saftly and sucessfully "Corrected"

my freind was a hetero then she turned lesbian. This is just the "are zebras black with white stripes, or white with black stripes" debate. (even though they are black with white)

I've known several people who are homosexual, some of them who were in public schools. Almost without exception, they were harrassed unmercifully, humiliated, shunned, etc. Ask yourself why anyone would go through that sort of thing because of a "choice" they had made.

A significant number of people subconciously likes to be subjected to humiliation - one of the reasons bdsm dungeons exist.

My stance is that it doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice, physical or both. It is not harmful, and can make the participants happy if they engage in it. Why should it matter if *I* think it is icky ? I am after all not the one doing it, nor forced to watch.

my freind was a hetero then she turned lesbian. This is just the "are zebras black with white stripes, or white with black stripes" debate.
You sure she “Turned lesbian” rather then just finally figuring out their own feelings?

You sure she “Turned lesbian” rather then just finally figuring out their own feelings?
It was the Gay Conspiracy. They work in mysterious ways.

You sure she “Turned lesbian” rather then just finally figuring out their own feelings?
I dunno but it is the change that is important. I actully really don't know lemme call her.

Heterosexuality is a condition through which human beings are able to reproduce. Homosexuality is apparantly a disorder in the condition which causes the sufferer to longer desire reproduction.
I disagree. It is not true that homosexuality excludes a desire to reproduce, nor is it necessarily true that lack of such a desire constitutes or is symptomatic of a disorder.

Then why was it taken off the mental disorder list in the 70’s ?

I guess it isn't a mental disorder.
I wikipedia'd it and it agreed with that statement.
And Wikipedia is the most intelligent source I know of.

Uh... It didn't...

I was trying to mock the anti-gay side. Nice going, BogMarsh!

Thanks :) :D
Meanwhile, please don't forget that a large deal of the pro-gay Lobby is also full of ridiculous nonsense.

Being a queer doesn't make you a devil.
Being a gay doesn't make you a saint either.

I'll only answer this one, because the other 2 replies to me were beyond retarded. I can't believe they were serious...:headbang:

If so, what the fiddlesticks has it go to do with the ability to cut, miam, brutalise and destroy?

Nothing, and I support their right to join the military.

You sure she “Turned lesbian” rather then just finally figuring out their own feelings?
Now most of you on here are going to get a bit upset at me. IMHO, and based on nothing more than my own experience, women are far more likely to have "made a choice" to become either lesbian or bisexual than men are to have "made a choice" to become gay. I know quite a few women who, although hetero most of the time, aren't averse to a female/female relationship now and then.

yeah it was her choice actully.

=The Remote Islands]All they need to do NOW is list "Gay" as a disorder too, and i'll be the happiest person on NS General!
dan nobody will blow you out anymore...
Their are many form of disorder,but the best one is believing in it

I'll only answer this one, because the other 2 replies to me were beyond retarded. I can't believe they were serious...:headbang:



Nothing, and I support their right to join the military.

Oh, good! Join the club then :D

Oh, good! Join the club then :D

What club?:confused:

Now most of you on here are going to get a bit upset at me. IMHO, and based on nothing more than my own experience, women are far more likely to have "made a choice" to become either lesbian or bisexual than men are to have "made a choice" to become gay. I know quite a few women who, although hetero most of the time, aren't averse to a female/female relationship now and then.

And women, or shall I say teenaged girls, love calling themselves Bisexual.

Now most of you on here are going to get a bit upset at me. IMHO, and based on nothing more than my own experience, women are far more likely to have "made a choice" to become either lesbian or bisexual than men are to have "made a choice" to become gay. I know quite a few women who, although hetero most of the time, aren't averse to a female/female relationship now and then.
So they are more naturally bisexual (and the loose social norms on the part of women don’t hurt either)? Why would we be mad … you are not saying they chose their sexuality (something more akin to bisexuality) you are saying they choose their actions which is correct.

And we on the Right will accept that- for it makes us right, and that's all we care about is being right!

And as always at the expense of the freedom and happiness of others. Typical of an ignorant right-winger.


It was disproven as a physical disorder (The whole AIDs are from homosexuals thing).
I don't think it has ever been disproven as a mental disorder.

Homosexuality is only considered a 'disorder' by those who actually believe the Bible is 100% true. Medical professionals have long dropped this issue, and found Homosexuality can not be proven as an disorder. AIDS is a disease, and can be passed from a straight person to another straight person. What a misinformed opinion you hold...

i always thought that people were homosexual because of their choice, or pheromones.

Stop thinking then, because it helps you in no way.


I personally believe that Homosexuality is the result of choice, events from childhood, and possibly some minor influence of genetic wiring. However, I also believe it to be correctible.

What you believe is completely rubbish. Homosexuality is still not completely understood as to the reason why they are, the way they are. Should a sexual perference be correctable? No. Could a sexual preference be correctable? In most cases, no. Once you start "correcting" the sexual preference of a person, you start correct other factors that make that person who they are. Correcting political preference is something you probably would want as well....:rolleyes:


Whenever this issue is brought up, and I debunk the false opinions and wrong stances upon this issue, I always feel bad for what the gay community goes through. The same people I argue with, are the ones that make other human being's life complete hell. And it saddens me that others are capable of ruining other's lives, especially when it's about a preference. I don't know how you hypocrites live with yourself.

What club?:confused:

Of the people who do believe that being gay may not be the coolest thing ever, but don't see what the F it has got to do with being good soldiers.

Of the people who have no objection to homos in the military.

Gaiety hasn't got anything to do with bearing arms.
It's irrelevant, professionally.

I disagree. It is not true that homosexuality excludes a desire to reproduce, nor is it necessarily true that lack of such a desire constitutes or is symptomatic of a disorder.

Meh... I simply dribbled this crap in response to some other crap someone else posted. And I agree with you that homosexuality does not exlude one from feeling a desire to reproduce - but it's an uphill battle when your sticking it in teh wrong hole.

I'll only answer this one, because the other 2 replies to me were beyond retarded. I can't believe they were serious...:headbang:
The comments are entirely appropriate responses to the comment that they reply to. Did you really miss the rather obvious and not-intellectually taxing point they refer to or are you simply trying to avoid having to 'argue out'/logically justify the rather inane comment that they were responses to?:confused:

Meh... I simply dribbled this crap in response to some other crap someone else posted. And I agree with you that homosexuality does not exlude one from feeling a desire to reproduce - but it's an uphill battle when your sticking it in teh wrong hole.
Also an uphill battle when you are using protection … but most of us think that’s a good thing as well

Of the people who do believe that being gay may not be the coolest thing ever, but don't see what the F it has got to do with being good soldiers.

I believe it is a disorder, but not so big that they should'nt be allowed into the military. It's one of the smallest disorders, I believe they should be respected like everyone else.

So yeah, I'm in. :D

Homosexuality is only considered a 'disorder' by those who actually believe the Bible is 100% true. Medical professionals have long dropped this issue, and found Homosexuality can not be proven as an disorder. AIDS is a disease, and can be passed from a straight person to another straight person. What a misinformed opinion you hold...


I was not aware of the disproving of it but Thrust pointed it out to me and I researched it finding it to be true.
I accept the truthfullness of it and I am glad you read all the posts before rambling on making yourself look like a complete fucking jackass.

Oh, it's nice to see you automatically assume that the only people who hold anti-homosexual values are Christian.

Ignorant fuck.

Jesus Christ. Who the hell calls homosexuality a disorder these days? Are the Pentagon sealed in some kind of bizarre time-warp, in which the date is still somewhere in the mid-fifties?

Actually, that worryingly explains a lot about the Pentagon these days...

The comments are entirely appropriate responses to the comment that they reply to. Did you really miss the rather obvious and not-intellectually taxing point they refer to or are you simply trying to avoid having to 'argue out'/logically justify the rather inane comment that they were responses to?:confused:
ROFLMAO!!! Uh ... well said? LOL! :D

I'll only answer this one, because the other 2 replies to me were beyond retarded. I can't believe they were serious...:headbang:



Nothing, and I support their right to join the military.
You use a headbang smiley and were too lazy to even address those posts and you have the gall to not believe our posts were serious? :rolleyes:

Jesus Christ. Who the hell calls homosexuality a disorder these days? Are the Pentagon sealed in some kind of bizarre time-warp, in which the date is still somewhere in the mid-fifties?

Actually, that worryingly explains a lot about the Pentagon these days...
The military in America simply reflects, and sometimes magnifies, the prevailing attitudes ( particularly political ones ) of the rest of American society. As a matter of fact, if you want to know what issues are uppermost in the minds of most Americans, take a look at what the military is struggling with.

I was not aware of the disproving of it but Thrust pointed it out to me and I researched it finding it to be true.
I accept the truthfullness of it and I am glad you read all the posts before rambling on making yourself look like a complete fucking jackass.

Oh, it's nice to see you automatically assume that the only people who hold anti-homosexual values are Christian.

Ignorant fuck.

If you base this opinion on any religion ( not just Christianity...there are more religions you know), then my assumption is correct.

:rolleyes:

You use a headbang smiley and were too lazy to even address those posts and you have the gall to not believe our posts were serious? :rolleyes:
Heh! Well, after reading some of your posts ... ! :D

Also an uphill battle when you are using protection … but most of us think that’s a good thing as well

But at least it's going in teh right hole - for good practice you know...

And women, or shall I say teenaged girls, love calling themselves Bisexual.
Well, at least it makes threesomes interesting! :D

If you base this opinion on any religion ( not just Christianity...there are more religions you know), then my assumption is correct.

:rolleyes:

Yes because I forgot that The Bible contains each individual religion within its pages.

Heh! Well, after reading some of your posts ... ! :D
Lol those were clearly humor … lol I am less so on here. Its kind of funny in real life I am more like LP then the semi-serious poster I am on here.

Gaiety hasn't got anything to do with bearing arms. It's irrelevant, professionally.
I concurr.

In the fine words of the late, great Barry "In your heart, you know he's right"/"In your guts, you know he's nuts" Goldwater, USAF Major General, WWII veteran (and pilot over the "hump"), and grandfather of Modren real conservatism (NOT to be confused with Bushit neo-"conservatism":

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.

You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.

I personally believe that Homosexuality is the result of choice, events from childhood, and possibly some minor influence of genetic wiring. However, I also believe it to be correctible.

LOL! You are a silly person.

Male, female, gay or straight, the only question that matters is: Can you kill an enemy? If the answer is yes, then you should be allowed to serve. I've said it before: If you are under fire, and you are worrying about your buddies sexuality, then you really need to rethink your priorities.

The Pentagon is homophobic. During the annual week-long gay days at my school, the people from GLAD clearly told each of us that being gay is perfectly normal, sometimes even better than being straight. My parents didn't agree, but they are always telling me not to do things, so why would I trust them. Plus, my teachers are qualified union professionals that only care about Science.

Even if you think about it from an objective perspective, having two dads or two moms is actually better for some kids. A mom and dad is so fundie Christian anyway.

I hate Bush and the Pentagon for being so homophobic.

Lol those were clearly humor … lol I am less so on here. Its kind of funny in real life I am more like LP then the semi-serious poster I am on here.
:D :fluffle:

The comments are entirely appropriate responses to the comment that they reply to. Did you really miss the rather obvious and not-intellectually taxing point they refer to or are you simply trying to avoid having to 'argue out'/logically justify the rather inane comment that they were responses to?

The 2 replies I refered to said roughly:

"It is the same as left handedness"

and

"In that case, Straight is a disorder!"

Both of them are thoroughly logically fawed. It is the most retarded thing ever. You have the right to believe it's "natural" or whatever, but make logical sane arguements. If you really think they were good responses, there's something wrogn with you.

In the fine words of the late, great Barry "In your heart, you know he's right"/"In your guts, you know he's nuts" Goldwater, USAF Major General, WWII veteran (and pilot over the "hump"), and grandfather of Modren real conservatism (NOT to be confused with Bushit neo-"conservatism":
Wow! I had totally forgotten that Goldwater said that! Just ... wow! :)

The Pentagon is homophobic. During the annual week-long gay days at my school, the people from GLAD clearly told each of us that being gay is perfectly normal, sometimes even better than being straight. My parents didn't agree, but they are always telling me not to do things, so why would I trust them. Plus, my teachers are qualified union professionals that only care about Science.

Even if you think about it from an objective perspective, having two dads or two moms is actually better for some kids. A mom and dad is so fundie Christian anyway.

I hate Bush and the Pentagon for being so homophobic.
Uh ... and you are how old again?? :rolleyes:

I'lll have to leave now.

I'm sure there is some good arguements for it not being a disorder, but I haven't seen it yet. From the looks of the people on these forums, I don't think I'll be finding it here lol.:p

Male, female, gay or straight, the only question that matters is: Can you kill an enemy? If the answer is yes, then you should be allowed to serve. I've said it before: If you are under fire, and you are worrying about your buddies sexuality, then you really need to rethink your priorities.
LOL! No shit! :D

BTW ... LOVE the quote in your sig! :D

The 2 replies I refered to said roughly:

"It is the same as left handedness"

and

"In that case, Straight is a disorder!"

Both of them are thoroughly logically fawed. It is the most retarded thing ever. You have the right to believe it's "natural" or whatever, but make logical sane arguements. If you really think they were good responses, there's something wrogn with you.
How so? The first one is an example of an out of “Norm” trait and asking how you would treat people just because one trait about them is not “Normal”

The second one is relating directly back to sexual orientations, what makes one orientation inherently a “disorder” but not the other?

I'lll have to leave now.

I'm sure there is some good arguements for it not being a disorder, but I haven't seen it yet. From the looks of the people on these forums, I don't think I'll be finding it here lol.:p

Good Arguments for it not being a disorder? How about not being an idiot? That seems to be a good start. I mean, jesus, homosexuality is a disorder? Don't tell me, we should start electroshock treatment, right?

Okay if we were to follow some peoples thoughts;
Cure homosexuals of homosexuality

But then follow other peoples thoughts;
Cure heterosexuals of heterosexuality

What exactly would be the end product? Autosexuality?

Good Arguments for it not being a disorder? How about not being an idiot? That seems to be a good start. I mean, jesus, homosexuality is a disorder? Don't tell me, we should start electroshock treatment, right?
Yes! And anal probes. Don't forget the anal probes. Gays hate those! :D

LOL! No shit! :D

BTW ... LOVE the quote in your sig! :D

Your welcome. The quote pretty much sums up my opinion on humanity.

Okay if we were to follow some peoples thoughts;
Cure homosexuals of homosexuality

But then follow other peoples thoughts;
Cure heterosexuals of heterosexuality

What exactly would be the end product? Autosexuality?

How about give everyone the freedom they deserve, to be who they are?

Okay if we were to follow some peoples thoughts;
Cure homosexuals of homosexuality

But then follow other peoples thoughts;
Cure heterosexuals of heterosexuality

What exactly would be the end product? Autosexuality?
Those were not our thoughts … unlike most of the nutjobs out there we do not want to “Cure” heterosexuality. We were using it as satire to point out how stupid it is to mess with it.

I'll only answer this one, because the other 2 replies to me were beyond retarded. I can't believe they were serious...:headbang:

You mean you could not think of an answer, are incapable of admitting you could possibly be wrong and therefor had to call them retarted ?

Intruiging.

COMMENTARY: This is unrealistic, unworkable, and just plain wrong. The military is in desperate need of finding a better way than Clinton's "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy. Your recommendations?

Yes. Stop blaming it on Clinton's don't ask don't tell policy and get your head out of Karl Rove's ass. Clinton's been out of office for 6 years now. Clinton's don't ask don't tell policy was a step in the right direction. The only thing is that there's a lot of crap between here and where we need to be.

The ban is wrong and the most that a president can do is refuse to enforce it. The military has a cultural disorder which compels it to believe that homosexuality is wrong and makes them fall back on such irrational nonsense as "closeted gays can be blackmailed and are a security risk, so we'll ban them from the military so that they'll stay in the closet and be a security risk as our justification for banning them."

Congress needs to pass a law lifting the ban.

Yes! And anal probes. Don't forget the anal probes. Gays hate those! :D

ROFLMAO!

Wow! I had totally forgotten that Goldwater said that! Just ... wow! :)

One of the biggest problems with Bush is that he comes off as like "I'm your elder and I know more than you do." I hate this type of thinking. True freedom would be to allow each person to freely develop without having to think about financial consequences. This way, each of us achieve our potential. Bush only wants to make this harder, so we have to work at Walmart.

Okay if we were to follow some peoples thoughts;
Cure homosexuals of homosexuality

But then follow other peoples thoughts;
Cure heterosexuals of heterosexuality

What exactly would be the end product? Autosexuality?

Well, I dont think the fundies consider heterosexuality to be a disorder. They are so arrogant and call it "normal."

I was not aware of the disproving of it but Thrust pointed it out to me and I researched it finding it to be true.
I accept the truthfullness of it and I am glad you read all the posts before rambling on making yourself look like a complete fucking jackass.

Oh, it's nice to see you automatically assume that the only people who hold anti-homosexual values are Christian.

Ignorant fuck.

Well, yes, radical right-wing Jews and Muslims are also anti-homosexual. To the point of capital punishment in the case of some of the Mullahs. But they aren't really much of a force in American politics, are they? Unless you count Ron Silver.

True freedom would be to allow each person to freely develop without having to think about financial consequences. This way, each of us achieve our potential. Bush only wants to make this harder, so we have to work at Walmart.
Can't say I agree with you on that one, but meh! :)

The Neurodiversity movement classifies homosexuality as being largely a manner of outlook, much like left-handedness or autism. None of them need to be treated; they need to be respected.

Wow! I had totally forgotten that Goldwater said that! Just ... wow! :)

Yep. A great man he was. :D

The 2 replies I refered to said roughly:

"It is the same as left handedness"

and

"In that case, Straight is a disorder!"
The two comments both challenge your comment that simply states you cant see any alternative but to call homosexuality a disorder. That being the case any question, quiry or comment that might illicit something from you other than 'I just think so', is an appropriate reply. You simply made a statement that appears not to be true and which you have not posited a single supporting premise for.

Both of them are thoroughly logically fawed. It is the most retarded thing ever.
Neither are logically flawed. One is a statement of opinion on the exact same order as the one that it was replying to (specifically the latter of the 2), the other is an attempt to draw out and/or to address the potential premises that you might reasoned with - given there is no evidence that you reasoned at all, the comment rather generously assumes that you did utilise some kind of reasoning in reaching the opinion you stated. Neither are logically flawed.... although the earlier might be factually flawed.

You have the right to believe it's "natural" or whatever, but make logical sane arguements.
You seem to be confused either about what happened or the common conventions of argumentation. You made an assertion, therefore the onus is on you to support that assertion. There is no onus on doubters to prove that the truth is contrary to your assertion, that would be as silly as suggesting that you ought to accept the reality of the invisible, untangible elephant sitting behind you if I say there is one and you cant prove that there is not. That's just silly. You want to posit that X is a disorder, then it's up to you to present logical sane arguments supporting that, not up to doubters to disprove the possiblity that might you be correct.

If you really think they were good responses, there's something wrogn with you.
If you really think they are 'reasons' then there is something wrong with you. One is a statement of opinion (exactly of the kind it was a reply to, and no less unsupported by logical argument), the other is a question...

Well, yes, radical right-wing Jews and Muslims are also anti-homosexual. To the point of capital punishment in the case of some of the Mullahs. But they aren't really much of a force in American politics, are they? Unless you count Ron Silver.

Religion is so evil. I wish it was gone, so that we could put the time people waste in church into studying Science. I don't mean doing experiments or anything, earth knows that I don't much at all about math and science, but by listenting to scientists and teachers, instead of priests and fundies. Science clearly shows that homosexuality is perfectly normal.

Can't say I agree with you on that one, but meh! :)

Do you favor tax cuts for the rich also?

The Neurodiversity movement classifies homosexuality as being largely a manner of outlook, much like left-handedness or autism. None of them need to be treated; they need to be respected.
"Neurodiversity?" :eek:

Do you favor tax cuts for the rich also?
Yes, but not just the rich. My personal opinion is that the income tax is an abomination and should be abolished.

Religion is so evil. I wish it was gone, so that we could put the time people waste in church into studying Science. I don't mean doing experiments or anything, earth knows that I don't much at all about math and science, but by listenting to scientists and teachers, instead of priests and fundies. Science clearly shows that homosexuality is perfectly normal.

I don't mean to sound fundie or anything, but if you forget about what they taught us in public school or what the scientific consensus is, it does seem that homosexuality isn't natural. But I trust the science, so forget I said this.

Meh.

Seeing homos as sick is 22 years out of date.

Meh on that.
Is it just me, or is the Pentagon under you-know-who becoming the ever so meh-able institution?

I've never seen meh run into the ground like that.

Yes, but not just the rich. My personal opinion is that the income tax is an abomination and should be abolished.

So you would consider votng for Bush even though he is homophobic and a closet fundie like Westboro Baptist?

I don't mean to sound fundie or anything, but if you forget about what they taught us in public school or what the scientific consensus is, it does seem that homosexuality isn't natural. But I trust the science, so forget I said this.
Sings: "When I think about all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can even think at all!" :D

So you would consider votng for Bush even though he is homophobic and a closet fundie like Westboro Baptist?
Only if he were running against the likes of Hillary or Kerry or Pelosi or ... well, you get the idea. :D

Sings: "When I think about all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can even think at all!" :D

The solar system only knows that I certainly didn't learn much academically, but my teachers did emphasize how to progress society. A lot of it my parents didn't agree with, but why would they, they are old and locked in their ways. I hope our generation can create a better world where people aren't greedy and hateful.

Yep. A great man he was. :D

I'd contend that. His running for the 1968 US Presidential Election, as I studied it, showed him to be a dangerous, fanatical right-winger. His calls for 'The Protestors to be Shot', for example, aren't exactly the hallmarks of a very democratic or non-fascist leader, and neither were the remarks he and his running mate, General LeMay made on the need to use nuclear weapons in the Vietnam conflict; a use that would surely have led to a nuclear exchange between the US & NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

The 2 replies I refered to said roughly:

"It is the same as left handedness"

and

"In that case, Straight is a disorder!"

Both of them are thoroughly logically fawed. It is the most retarded thing ever. You have the right to believe it's "natural" or whatever, but make logical sane arguements. If you really think they were good responses, there's something wrogn with you.How is the left-handedness bit flawed?

I've never seen meh run into the ground like that.
LMAO! :D

Only if he were running against the likes of Hillary or Kerry or Pelosi or ... well, you get the idea. :D

You seem Republican. While all the Republicans on TV are mean, the ones I know in person are usually really nice. Maybe you should run for office. ;)

The solar system only knows that I certainly didn't learn much academically, but my teachers did emphasize how to progress society. A lot of it my parents didn't agree with, but why would they, they are old and locked in their ways. I hope our generation can create a better world where people aren't greedy and hateful.
Good luck w'dat.

BTW ... I'm 63, so I guess you shouldn't be talking to me. :p

Sings: "When I think about all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can even think at all!" :D

Hehehe hell yeah, that's a great lyric. :D

How is the left-handedness bit flawed?

Just to play the devil's advocate, left handedness is not normal, but it doesn't violate the natural use of hands. Whereas you could make the case, based on common sense, that homosexuality does violate the natural purpose of reproduction.

Good luck w'dat.

BTW ... I'm 63, so I guess you shouldn't be talking to me. :p

And you know how to use the computer? LOLz.

You seem Republican. While all the Republicans on TV are mean, the ones I know in person are usually really nice. Maybe you should run for office. ;)
LOL! I'm registered indpendent, but I can't abide ideologues. I voted for Bush the second time only because I utterly despise Kerry.

I'll never run for office, for a variety of reasons, the main one being that ( making the HUGE presumption that I won ) most people would be horrified that they had elected someone who told the truth, didn't like ideologues ( including religious ones! ), and did what he thought was right rather than what he thought was "popular." :D

Just to play the devil's advocate, left handedness is not normal, but it doesn't violate the natural use of hands. Whereas you could make the case, based on common sense, that homosexuality does violate the natural purpose of reproduction.
Except that this argument is total bunk, because the overwhelming majority of human sexual contact does not result in procreation, and reproduction is only one of the many purposes of sex. Saying that homosexuality is wrong because it "misuses" genitals is exactly the same as saying left-handedness is wrong because you're using the "wrong hand" to write with.

And you know how to use the computer? LOLz.
Why is that so surprising? I've been online for about 16 years now, built my own Website after teaching myself HTML ( http://ParadigmAssociates.org ), and am very active on here and several other interactive Websites. :p

Except that this argument is total bunk, because the overwhelming majority of human sexual contact does not result in procreation, and reproduction is only one of the many purposes of sex. Saying that homosexuality is wrong because it "misuses" genitals is exactly the same as saying left-handedness is wrong because you're using the "wrong hand" to write with.
LOL! SIC 'em, Bottle! :D

Just to play the devil's advocate, left handedness is not normal, but it doesn't violate the natural use of hands. Whereas you could make the case, based on common sense, that homosexuality does violate the natural purpose of reproduction.Why should one hand be favorable over the other? Shouldn’t we all be using both our hands equally? Technically, being right handed is just as wrong as being left handed. Regardless of that, being left-handed is obviously not normal, as most people aren’t left-handed. Lefties have been retrained to be righties, and in olden times, were burned at the stake for being “abnormal.” Just like homosexuals. The comparison is valid either way. Thank goodness we’ve progressed to an age where being lefty is ok by now.

Just to play the devil's advocate, left handedness is not normal, but it doesn't violate the natural use of hands. Whereas you could make the case, based on common sense, that homosexuality does violate the natural purpose of reproduction.
Sense when is the only “use” for our genitles reproduction? What about urination, or masturbation?

LOL! SIC 'em, Bottle! :D
Look, I just happen to think sex is really freaking awesome, ok? And it makes me cry when people try to claim that the only purpose for sex is making babies. Not only is that factually untrue, it's also the most depressing thing I've ever heard.

Love your genitals, people! Love all your erogenous zones! Love the fact that, as the glorious primate that you are, you are built to use sex for many different purposes! Sex is not merely a mechanical process of fertilization for you, so enjoy the hell out of it!

Why is that so surprising? I've been online for about 16 years now, built my own Website after teaching myself HTML ( http://ParadigmAssociates.org ), and am very active on here and several other interactive Websites. :p

Back in your day, did you have to walk 15 miles through the ice and snow, uphill, to get to the internet?

Why is that so surprising? I've been online for about 16 years now, built my own Website after teaching myself HTML ( http://ParadigmAssociates.org ), and am very active on here and several other interactive Websites. :p
AHHH you are using the alexa tracker it BURNZES!

Sense when is the only “use” for our genitles reproduction? What about urination, or masturbation?

Or teabagging????:eek:

Look, I just happen to think sex is really freaking awesome, ok? And it makes me cry when people try to claim that the only purpose for sex is making babies. Not only is that factually untrue, it's also the most depressing thing I've ever heard.

Love your genitals, people! Love all your erogenous zones! Love the fact that, as the glorious primate that you are, you are built to use sex for many different purposes! Sex is not merely a mechanical process of fertilization for you, so enjoy the hell out of it!
Oh! I SO totally agree! :D

Sense when is the only “use” for our genitles reproduction? What about urination, or masturbation?
Or oral sex. Or anal sex. Or penis-in-vagina sex that is not intended to produce offspring. Or dressing up your genitalia in tiny costumes.

Seriously, I weep for anybody dull enough to only use their genitals for reproduction. If you've never dressed your genitals up as the original members of KISS and put on a musical puppet show for the neighbors, you've never really lived.

Or oral sex. Or anal sex. Or penis-in-vagina sex that is not intended to produce offspring. Or dressing up your genitalia in tiny costumes.

Seriously, I weep for anybody dull enough to only use their genitals for reproduction. If you've never dressed your genitals up as the original members of KISS and put on a musical puppet show for the neighbors, you've never really lived.


ROFLMFAO!!!!

Except that this argument is total bunk, because the overwhelming majority of human sexual contact does not result in procreation, and reproduction is only one of the many purposes of sex. Saying that homosexuality is wrong because it "misuses" genitals is exactly the same as saying left-handedness is wrong because you're using the "wrong hand" to write with.

Let's say you believe in all the fairy tales, for example, in God, then you would then obilged to follow a higher law that governs the universe, and that law would even reign supreme over all the nations of the world.

If you look over the earth, while there are some anomalies, the proper use of our reproductive systems is for procreation. This higher law would oblige us, out of respect for our Creator, to act in a way in accordance with this Law, even if that meant denying ourselves some satisfaction.

But that is the nature of man: we rebel against our Creator, but He waits patiently for our return. One thing I noticed is that a lot of (what Christians call) sins do have negative consequences even without considering heaven. If we follow in his Word, then we avoid sin, this brings us closer to God. After all, if God is the great Creator and Preserver of the universe, then to Him alone belongs the glory. Everything we do should be with the express purpose of showing the goodness of God's creation.

This is what a fundi would say.

Back in your day, did you have to walk 15 miles through the ice and snow, uphill, to get to the internet?
Yes! As a matter of fact it was uphill BOTH WAYS! :D

The internet consisted of 50,000 people with tin cans and strings, and sometimes it would get all tangled up and we had to wait for the techs to get it untangled. Dialup was a great leap forward, and when Tim Burners-Lee came up with The World Wide Web, we had to add colored string! Sigh. Oh the things we had to go through just to find a date! :D

Or oral sex. Or anal sex. Or penis-in-vagina sex that is not intended to produce offspring. Or dressing up your genitalia in tiny costumes.

Seriously, I weep for anybody dull enough to only use their genitals for reproduction. If you've never dressed your genitals up as the original members of KISS and put on a musical puppet show for the neighbors, you've never really lived.
LMAO! I'm into sharing, myself! :D

I'd like to point out that the percentage of gay animals in a certain species is similar to the percentage of gay humans. There goes any argument that its against nature. :)

I believe it has a purpose in a population, although all populations are driven towards multiplying (hence the urge for sex) gays do not interfere with this. A man could easily father 100 children in his life (to more than one woman obviously). With a woman only able on average to have 1 child at a time there is competition betwen men to be able to breed (humans are still animals and this is what we would've been like before culture).

However add some gay men into the mix and suddenly some men are getting on better with each other and the competition dies down. So i believe gay men exist for this reason, to reduce tension between other males. This would also explain why theres a higher percentage of gay men than women.

And for all those who now say it increases violence between males, i say you have been brainwashed by religion, even athiest people will have been taught its wrong by parents/friends who have ancestors who were religious.

I'd like to point out that the percentage of gay animals in a certain species is similar to the percentage of gay humans. There goes any argument that its against nature. :)
I believe it has a purpose in a population, although all populations are driven towards multiplying (hence the urge for sex) gays do not interfere with this. A man could easily father 100 children in his life (to more than one woman obviously). With a woman only able on average to have 1 child at a time there is competition betwen men to be able to breed (humans are still animals and this is what we would've been like before culture). However add some gay men into the mix and suddenly some men are getting on better with each other and the competition dies down. So i believe gay men exist for this reason, to reduce tension between other males. This would also explain why theres a higher percentage of gay men than women.
And for all those who now say it increases violence between males, i say you have been brainwashed by religion, even athiest people will have been taught its wrong by parents/friends who have ancestors who were religious.
This is an interesting take on the matter. I've been hearing this biological diversity/built-in population control concept bandied about recently, and I'm liking it. I'm a big believer in the power of nature to balance itself, so I tend to look at all variations as likely having a beneficial purpose.

Let's say you believe in all the fairy tales, for example, in God, then you would then obilged to follow a higher law that governs the universe, and that law would even reign supreme over all the nations of the world.

And while we're playing Make Believe, let's say I believe there's a magical leprechaun who lives in my sock drawer, and he told me that touching a man's wee-wee will cause me to turn into a frog.

Oh wait, but THAT would be silly...

If you look over the earth, while there are some anomalies, the proper use of our reproductive systems is for procreation.

Whether or not you believe in God/leprechauns, if you actually took a look at the REALITY of human life on Earth you would never be able to conclude that our sexual organs exist exclusively for reproduction. You wouldn't even be able to conclude that they exist primarily for reproduction, because the overwhelming majority of our activities with our genitals do not in any way result in reproduction.


This higher law would oblige us, out of respect for our Creator, to act in a way in accordance with this Law, even if that meant denying ourselves some satisfaction.

If you believe that your Creator doesn't want you to use your sex organs for anything other than reproduction, then you are going to have some serious problems when it comes time to use the bathroom.


But that is the nature of man: we rebel against our Creator, but He waits patiently for our return. One thing I noticed is that a lot of (what Christians call) sins do have negative consequences even without considering heaven. If we follow in his Word, then we avoid sin, this brings us closer to God. After all, if God is the great Creator and Preserver of the universe, then to Him alone belongs the glory. Everything we do should be with the express purpose of showing the goodness of God's creation.

Replace "God" with "leprechaun." That's about how much sense the above paragraph makes to me.


This is what a fundi would say.
If somebody chooses to believe that God doesn't like it when humans have non-procreative sex, then I don't see how they keep their head from exploding with the sheer impossibility of their position.

The human reproductive system is specifically built in such a way that most of our sexual contact will not result in reproduction. If God doesn't like non-procreative sex, why the crap did He go out of his way to make it physically impossible for all human sex to lead to procreation?

Possibly, but why are atheists and followers of non-christian religions admitted then ?
As cannon-fodder of course!

If you look over the earth, while there are some anomalies, the proper use of our reproductive systems is for procreation.

I'm sorry, but my body didn't come with a manual.

Yes! As a matter of fact it was uphill BOTH WAYS! :D

The internet consisted of 50,000 people with tin cans and strings, and sometimes it would get all tangled up and we had to wait for the techs to get it untangled. Dialup was a great leap forward, and when Tim Burners-Lee came up with The World Wide Web, we had to add colored string! Sigh. Oh the things we had to go through just to find a date! :D
Oh the joys of the Meta Network!

However add some gay men into the mix and suddenly some men are getting on better with each other and the competition dies down. So i believe gay men exist for this reason, to reduce tension between other males. This would also explain why theres a higher percentage of gay men than women.

Sadly, there are some critical flaws in your reasoning.

First off, there are not more gay men than gay women. Secondly, there is no scientific basis for the claim that homosexuality exists to reduce tensions among members of the group, or that homosexuality would be selected for because of a species-wide benefit. Indeed, selection has been repeatedly shown to NOT act on the species level; selection acts on the individual, not on the species as a whole.

This is an interesting take on the matter. I've been hearing this biological diversity/built-in population control concept bandied about recently, and I'm liking it. I'm a big believer in the power of nature to balance itself, so I tend to look at all variations as likely having a beneficial purpose.
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but from a scientific standpoint the "population control" angle is utter bunk.

Only if he were running against the likes of Hillary or Kerry or Pelosi or ... well, you get the idea. :D
Vote Nader!

Just to play the devil's advocate, left handedness is not normal, but it doesn't violate the natural use of hands. Whereas you could make the case, based on common sense, that homosexuality does violate the natural purpose of reproduction.
That might well be the case, but if it is, then it's simply yet another example of why good sense is superior to common sense.
Reproduction has never been proven to have a 'natural purpose', reproduction consists of processes and it functions in such a way as to cause particular effects; to a large extent one of (and perhaps even) the most significant/readily observed effects is the continuation of itself.

I'm sorry, but my body didn't come with a manual.
It's so much more fun figuring out how it works ourselves/with a partner, anyway, don't you think?

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but from a scientific standpoint the "population control" angle is utter bunk.
Indeed. Being gay doesn't make anyone sterile.

Edit: It does, however, make one immune to things such as unwanted pregnancies. When a gay man or a lesbian has a child, you can safely assume it was wanted.

It's so much more fun figuring out how it works ourselves/with a partner, anyway, don't you think?

Yes, which is what the Invisible Pink Unicorn demands anyway.

Yes, which is what the Invisible Pink Unicorn demands anyway.
So does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you been touched by His Noodly Appendage?

Indeed. Being gay doesn't make anyone sterile.

Edit: It does, however, make one immune to things such as unnatural pregnancies. When a gay man or a lesbian has a child, you can safely assume it was wanted.

First off, there are not more gay men than gay women.

I read otherwise on wikipedia.

Secondly, there is no scientific basis for the claim that homosexuality exists to reduce tensions among members of the group,


Its just something i thought up, homosexuality has to be one of the most understudied parts of human nature there is. Theres nothing proving me wrong, yet.

or that homosexuality would be selected for because of a species-wide benefit. Indeed, selection has been repeatedly shown to NOT act on the species level; selection acts on the individual, not on the species as a whole.

It is clearly something that happened a long way down the line for animals to have similar percentages, i think perhaps some mothers are more likely to have gay kids, i believe there was a study recently that showed mothers who had multiple gay sons shared a similar thing (i'm not sure what it is, i just know the study said there was something different about their insides, a hormone or something).

I know it has to benefit the individual, but i'm sure a long way down the line, back to when we were insects that such a trait would benefit a mother and help her survive and spread it.

EDIT: In the study it had nothing to do with gay daughters, so having a daughter would spread the trait.

I read otherwise on wikipedia.

*Forehead slap*

Please, pretty please, for the love of all that is good and true, do not rely on Wiki articles.

Also, do remember that you can't necessarily get definitive results from asking people, "So are you a fag?" In America, right now, men tend to be "out" in greater numbers than women, but many studies suggest that women are actually more likely to report having feelings of sexual attraction toward other women. It's a very complex picture.


Its just something i thought up, homosexuality has to be one of the most understudied parts of human nature there is. Theres nothing proving me wrong, yet.

Yes, there is. At least, there is ample evidence that the presence of homosexual males does not reduce tensions or competition between heterosexual males, and there is also ample evidence that natural selection simply doesn't work on a species level (in the manner that you are describing).


It is clearly something that happened a long way down the line for animals to have similar percentages, i think perhaps some mothers are more likely to have gay kids, i believe there was a study recently that showed mothers who had multiple gay sons shared a similar thing (i'm not sure what it is, i just know the study said there was something different about their insides, a hormone or something).

The link you are talking about, I believe, is a link between the mother's fertility and the sexual orientation of her offspring. That would actually run directly contrary to the "population control" theory, since the production of gay children was linked to increased fertility in the mother.


I know it has to benefit the individual, but i'm sure a long way down the line, back to when we were insects that such a trait would benefit a mother and help her survive and spread it.
That is a much more realistic theory, though I still don't think it is correct.

Its just something i thought up, homosexuality has to be one of the most understudied parts of human nature there is. Theres nothing proving me wrong, yet.The problem with that is that you need to provide ample evidence in favor of that statement first before it becomes relevant.

Indeed. Being gay doesn't make anyone sterile.

Edit: It does, however, make one immune to things such as unnatural pregnancies. When a gay man or a lesbian has a child, you can safely assume it was wanted.

I had never thought of this....an unwanted child would suffer far more than the rightists believe gay parents could harm.
Then you get the avoiding harm to marriage debate (which of course divorce doesn't do:rolleyes: )....

I had never thought of this....an unwanted child would suffer far more than the rightists believe gay parents could harm.

The fundies believe that a child is better off never being adopted than it is having loving gay parents. They are deeply, deeply sick people.

Let me continute to be fundy, because Alpha Centauri only knows that fundies aren't bright enough to use the internet and give their arguments:

Only man, made in the image of our Creator, is bound by the higher moral law, not animals.

The purpose of reproduction is for procreation, not gratification. Having casual sex, even with condoms, outside of the God-sanctioned permanent union of a man and a woman significantly increases the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy.

Marriages should be permanent and this partnership should have as its foremost goal the care and education of any children which result.

The very existance of the universe we live in, its very order and beauty, inevitably leads the idea of God. It requires a tremendous amount of faith to assume that it is random.

The closer we follow the higher moral law, the less we need to be governed by other men. If we truly believe in God's justice, we never have to worry about the judgment of men or governments.

The fundies believe that a child is better off never being adopted than it is having loving gay parents. They are deeply, deeply sick people.

They probably don't want to continue to validate a lifestyle that goes against the natural law. Sometimes you make laws based not on mathematical formulas, but based on your values.

If the gay couple broke up and committed themselves to living a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, then I'm sure they would be fine parents. The problem isn't with the person as a person, but with the behavior.

One thing about parenting is that you have to sacrifice your own pleasure so that you can give everything you can to the child.

I know it has to benefit the individual, but i'm sure a long way down the line, back to when we were insects that such a trait would benefit a mother and help her survive and spread it.

Actually if a trait increases the 'inclusive fitness' of a group, and that trait is heritable it potentially can become 'fixed' (as an allele) in the particular population that the group is a part of.

That might well be the case, but if it is, then it's simply yet another example of why good sense is superior to common sense.
Reproduction has never been proven to have a 'natural purpose', reproduction consists of processes and it functions in such a way as to cause particular effects; to a large extent one of (and perhaps even) the most significant/readily observed effects is the continuation of itself.

Perhaps these processes have a higher purpose. Perhaps humanity has a higher purpose.

Let me continute to be fundy, because Alpha Centauri only knows that fundies aren't bright enough to use the internet and give their arguments:

Only man, made in the image of our Creator, is bound by the higher moral law, not animals.

Ok, fine, if that's what they believe.


The purpose of reproduction is for procreation, not gratification.

To believe this theory, you would have to believe that God deliberately created humans with bodies that will NOT reproduce as a result of every sexual encounter, and gave female human beings a body part that serves no function other than sexual gratification, and then God turned around and said that all sex must be for procreation and not gratification.

I wouldn't worship that kind of crazy bugger. I'd be backing away slowly.


Having casual sex, even with condoms, outside of the God-sanctioned permanent union of a man and a woman significantly increases the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy.

Actually, no it doesn't. World wide, one of the fastest growing populations of new AIDS patients is married women who have had a grand total of 1 sexual partner in their lifetime. Married, monogamous heterosexual women have been identified as the most at-risk demographic for STD infection around the world.


Marriages should be permanent and this partnership should have as its foremost goal the care and education of any children which result.

Which is why God creates infertile humans...


The very existance of the universe we live in, its very order and beauty, inevitably leads the idea of God. It requires a tremendous amount of faith to assume that it is random.

No, it just takes a complete lack of logical reasoning to conclude that the absence of God = a random universe. But I guess these people have never heard of physics.


The closer we follow the higher moral law, the less we need to be governed by other men. If we truly believe in God's justice, we never have to worry about the judgment of men or governments.
Which is a really convenient way to justify being a dickhead, don't you think? "So what if I'm hurting my fellow humans? So what if all my fellow humans are asking me to quit being such a jackass? I'm only worried about pleasing GOD."

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but from a scientific standpoint the "population control" angle is utter bunk.
I don't know about that. Wide sexual variations occur in many species. In non-mammal species, spontaneous sex change occurs when a population is significantly unbalanced between the sexes. In other non-mammal species, parthenogenesis can occur in a male-less environment, even though the species otherwise reproduces sexually. (EDIT: I mention these only to show how wide a range of variation is possible.) I don't think that it can be successfully denied that homosexuality does occur in many mammal and bird species. Homosexual pair bonding and homosexual sex activity have been observed and recorded by zoologists many times.

I think the higher the degree of variation in a species, the more adaptable that species will be. I described it as a "beneficial purpose," and that might be inaccurate, if "purpose" implies a plan. There is no "plan." It's just that species in which you see more individual variation may have an adaptative advantage and, thus, a greater chance of survival over time. So having that much variation can be considered an evolutionary advantage.

So when we look at the occurence of homosexuality, what do we see? Well, we see mostly group-living creatures -- like humans -- among whose groups there is likely to be a small percentage of healthy adults who contribute fully to the survival of the group -- getting food, building shelters, fighting enemies, etc -- but who are less likely to produce new mouths to feed -- not zero likelihood, but a slightly lower likelihood than otherwise. You don't see a potential benefit to a group in that?

And of course, since there is no plan to evolution, I would expect the variation to be random, and that sexual orientation is a spectrum of different preferences expressed to different degrees within each individual, ranging from 100% hetero to 100% homo and all points in between.

I'm not saying that this definitely is the case. I'm just saying it is an interesting possibility and that I look forward to further studies about it. It would certainly put paid to any argument that homosexuality is unnatural, abnormal, or only a mattter of choice. So I admit that I am rooting for it a bit, but as of now there is not enough data to be conclusive.

Which is a really convenient way to justify being a dickhead, don't you think? "So what if I'm hurting my fellow humans? So what if all my fellow humans are asking me to quit being such a jackass? I'm only worried about pleasing GOD."

I'm not sure that would be the case. Christ, the most perfect Lawmaker, summarizes the Law as follows:

1) You are to love the Lord with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul.
2) You are to love your neighbor as yourself.

But loving your neighbor doesn't mean sanctioning sin. For example, your parents love you, but they don't let you get into trouble. Thier love sometimes results in our [temporary] unhappiness.

Only man, made in the image of our Creator, is bound by the higher moral law, not animals.

The purpose of reproduction is for procreation, not gratification. Having casual sex, even with condoms, outside of the God-sanctioned permanent union of a man and a woman significantly increases the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancy.

Nope. Wrong. This comes from your religious beliefs, and has exactly zero scientific credibility.


Marriages should be permanent and this partnership should have as its foremost goal the care and education of any children which result.

The very existance of the universe we live in, its very order and beauty, inevitably leads the idea of God. It requires a tremendous amount of faith to assume that it is random.

The closer we follow the higher moral law, the less we need to be governed by other men. If we truly believe in God's justice, we never have to worry about the judgment of men or governments.
Since the premise of your post is wrong, all the following is also wrong.

You might believe it is so: if so, then follow those so-called "godly rules" yourself, and don't be gay, it's all good. Don't try to push those rules on others, though.

Perhaps these processes have a higher purpose. Perhaps humanity has a higher purpose.
Yes and perhaps these processes dont have a higher purpose. Perhaps humanity doesnt have a higher purpose...perhaps 'ol King Kol really was a merry 'ol soul...:rolleyes:

But loving your neighbor doesn't mean sanctioning sin. For example, your parents love you, but they don't let you get into trouble. Thier love sometimes results in our [temporary] unhappiness.

Yes you are suposed to sanction sin, it says somewhere that if someone is stealing from you then you should give them all your stuff and if someone is beating you up you are supposed to turn the other cheek or something along those lines.

They probably don't want to continue to validate a lifestyle that goes against the natural law. Sometimes you make laws based not on mathematical formulas, but based on your values.

There is no such thing as a natural law. Laws are human constructions.


If the gay couple broke up and committed themselves to living a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, then I'm sure they would be fine parents. The problem isn't with the person as a person, but with the behavior.

Some gay couples are better parents than heterosexuals. One of my friends was an unwanted child, and both his (heterosexual) parents were horrible. He ended up in the care of social services, and jumped from foster home to foster home until he was 18. He would obviously have been far better off being adopted by two loving, caring parents, whatever their sexual orientation might have been.


One thing about parenting is that you have to sacrifice your own pleasure so that you can give everything you can to the child.
Not all parents are martyrs. It is uneccesary to sacrifice everything you have for your child. My parents were excellent parents and still had time for themselves and their own happiness.

*shrugs in the gallic way ( implying at least partial agreement*

'Don't ask, don't tell' was fine by my book.
I consider a man's choice in bedmates his own private matter,
and not a proper subject for inquests.

On a more personal level, I'm still seething with rage about the time some 12 years ago, when I was subpoenad to give evidence on the bedmates of one of my subordinates.
And mind you, he was a proper young officer in the field.

That Commision evidently expected my cooperation ( I never made a secret out of my own small-town religious beliefs ), and lost its collective temper while I was dancing about the issue ( As If! ). 'I have no recollection of that, Mr Chairman.' ( You know the drill. )

Finally, an aggresive young female lawyer in uniform ( who obviously had never ever been near a battlefield ) asked me pointblank if I could:
'think of any reason why Mr X was unfit to serve'.
I exploded back: 'Do you think I would recommend him 3 times for promotion if I did not think the world of him?'

Good for you, BogMarsh. It makes me feel good that a brother officer took this type of action to protect a subordinate from such a dubious inquest. Such actions are a waste of money and time.

While I was in, I made it my business to take my endorsements seriously. If a person was not good for the military (and the situation was not correctable via retraining or other remedial action), regardless of who they slept with I would not give them a good EPR or OER. That would usually be sufficient to encourage them to make another career choice.

But I valued and protected my subordinates who excelled and worked hard.

I would daresay as a field grade officer, I resented such inquests. Such things imply that I could not properly do my job and that rarely flies well with me.

You and I differ on a lot of things, but I must say that this makes me feel good.

As for the Pentagon classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, I am not really very surprised by it, disappointed yes, surprised no.

As you say, Bog. Meh.

Yes you are suposed to sanction sin, it says somewhere that if someone is stealing from you then you should give them all your stuff and if someone is beating you up you are supposed to turn the other cheek or something along those lines.

That doesn't say you should be complicit with evil. There is a difference between a morally neutral dispute between two people, and accepting sin into your own life.

Science does not dictate the the right actions of humans. Science is merely the study of the physical world. It makes no sense to apply science to the scenes of a movie, or to say I fell in love with you because of science, or to say that somehow science determines our law. Stealing doesn't violate "science," but we still have laws against it.

Human law is by right based on the higher law. Sometimes we have to subjugate our own pleasure for greater purposes.

What study do you have in Science? Courses, research, etc.

I'm just pretending to be fundy, I'm not actually fundy. I worship Science also.

Heh, they're also thinking of reintroducing muskets and giving medics leeches.

Actually, leeches are becoming more and more popular in medical science. Sometimes the oldest things work the best.

I'm just pretending to be fundy, I'm not actually fundy. I worship Science also.

You should make this more obvious, sig it or something, i was starting to not like you :(

You should make this more obvious, sig it or something, i was starting to not like you :(

Maslaland, don't hate me, I just wanted to offer the fundy view because very few of them know how to use computers.

Although, you know, geeks and dweebs like being separate from society, but they can also be Christian. Form a computer geek Christian group!

Computer geeks tend to be the most anti-fundy group I've seen.

http://www.thetruthforyouth.com

Heres a funny and easy to read over view of fundy beliefs (not meant to be funny though...). I find the one on evolution funniest but the relavent one here is the homosexuality one.

That doesn't say you should be complicit with evil. There is a difference between a morally neutral dispute between two people, and accepting sin into your own life.You believe in a God given free will, right?

In that case, abiding by the orders of your god, is a personal choice. It's not for you to decide.

Nobody proposes to force religious institutions & organisations, to perform weddings against their will and/or beliefs. That's for your church to decide. What people do propose, is that your damned church stops interfering with what others are allowed to do. It has no bearing on your life at all.Human law is by right based on the higher law.Prove it. Trust me, in modern democracies, you're wrong. Our laws aren't based on any religious dogma.Sometimes we have to subjugate our own pleasure for greater purposes.Yups. So stop taking perverse pleasure in ruining the lives of others. If they want to obey your invisible friend, they will. If not, then love the sinner & treat thy neighbour like you want him to treat you.

Who knows? In the not so distant future, you may need to rely on a bunch of sinning fags to keep your right to practice your religious beliefs.

So, I'm probably going to get called a "fundy" for bothering to type this up here, but what the heck.

Simply put, I think homosexual action is a sin. Of course, I think the same thing about perjury, stealing, murder, and so forth. And the reason's the same: my religion says they're bad. Now, I'm not going to do anything more than look at you funny - maybe not even that - if you say you're gay. It's really not my business, unless you happen to be one of my good friends, and even then... eh, who knows? To be corny, but accurate, your problems are between you and God, not my business at all.

Do I have "proof" for this opinion? Well, yes and no. Scientifically, there's no conclusive evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is particularly more harmful than other sexual activity. But on the other hand, my religion does claim to be right all the time, and it says it's bad. To my faith, that's proof. But since I can't expect you to share that faith, I can't condemn you for doing something I believe is wrong. Again, it's not so much my job.

Admittedly, I'm going to think the best thing you can do is convert and believe the same thing I do. But then, you probably think I should start listening to reason and stop believing. So on that level, there's not anything to start a fight about, really.

They probably don't want to continue to validate a lifestyle that goes against the natural law.

And yet homosexuality exists in the wild.

Sometimes you make laws based not on mathematical formulas, but based on your values.


Such as how to handle slaves and to make sure they are returned to their owners if they escape.


If the gay couple broke up and committed themselves to living a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, then I'm sure they would be fine parents. The problem isn't with the person as a person, but with the behavior.

Ever look at the amount of child abuse with hetro vs gay couples?


One thing about parenting is that you have to sacrifice your own pleasure so that you can give everything you can to the child.

Oh so you don't have any children.

Simply put, I think homosexual action is a sin. Of course, I think the same thing about perjury, stealing, murder, and so forth. And the reason's the same: my religion says they're bad.

But on the other hand, my religion does claim to be right all the time, and it says it's bad. To my faith, that's proof. But since I can't expect you to share that faith, I can't condemn you for doing something I believe is wrong.

Query: why is it enough proof for you ? As you correctly point out, all the support you have is that your religion says it is so, but it doesn't explain *why* it says so. For things like perjury, stealing and murder devising a consistent underlying reasoning to condemn them is reasonably easy - but I have yet to see one for homosexuality.

Is it basicly "the book is right so often, it probably will be right here too" ?

EDIT: condemn. Not condomn. Though Freud probably would have liked that typo.

So, I'm probably going to get called a "fundy" for bothering to type this up here, but what the heck.

Simply put, I think homosexual action is a sin. Of course, I think the same thing about perjury, stealing, murder, and so forth. And the reason's the same: my religion says they're bad. Now, I'm not going to do anything more than look at you funny - maybe not even that - if you say you're gay. It's really not my business, unless you happen to be one of my good friends, and even then... eh, who knows? To be corny, but accurate, your problems are between you and God, not my business at all.

Do I have "proof" for this opinion? Well, yes and no. Scientifically, there's no conclusive evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is particularly more harmful than other sexual activity. But on the other hand, my religion does claim to be right all the time, and it says it's bad. To my faith, that's proof. But since I can't expect you to share that faith, I can't condemn you for doing something I believe is wrong. Again, it's not so much my job.

Admittedly, I'm going to think the best thing you can do is convert and believe the same thing I do. But then, you probably think I should start listening to reason and stop believing. So on that level, there's not anything to start a fight about, really.
See, just look at that part in bold: I don't think you can be classified as a fundy, thanks to that little remark. In fact, if all fundies thought like that, we wouldn't be having a big fight over the issue, really.

The problem is that most fundies try to make it their business. They try to pretend it's their problem, and try to impose their beliefs upon others unwillingly, which you don't seem to condone.

If someone thinks being gay is a sin, then fine. As long as he doesn't go out of his way to be an ass about it and oppose equal rights, or spend all his time trying to tell me I'll burn in hell. Like you said, such a problem is between the individual and God: and if there really is a God, and he frowns on homosexuality, then I'll clear things out with him once I meet him. I don't have to justify myself to every fundy and his brother, though.

if there really is a God, and he frowns on homosexuality, then I'll clear things out with him once I meet him. I don't have to justify myself to every fundy and his brother, though.
Hear, hear. Well put, Ska.

Query: why is it enough proof for you ? As you correctly point out, all the support you have is that your religion says it is so, but it doesn't explain *why* it says so.

Yes it does, it says because its an abomination ;)

Jabu jabu azerbjwaaaaaaaa????

Yes it does, it says because its an abomination ;)
Doesn't give any reason why, though.

Murder, theft, etc. being evil and sinful are self-evident: there is a victim in each of these actions. So anyone commiting murder or theft is hurting someone else, and that's a pretty good rationale for whay it's a sin, since the religion is based on loving others and peace.

However, homosexuality leaves no victims. What two men in love with each other, or two women lovers do in their bedroom happens between consenting adults. None is left the worse for it. So why should it be an abomination? That question remains unanswered.

Oh i completely agree, just quoting what it says in the bible is all.

EDIT: also apparently it causes earthquakes and other natural disasters, which i think is a pathetic argument...

"Umm, hello, work? I'd like to call in sick today. Yeah, I'm feeling a bit homosexual. Yes, again. Yes, the third time this week. Yup, it's a very persistent and chronic affliction. Now, if you don't mind I'll go get some therapy at Hooters."

"Umm, hello, work? I'd like to call in sick today. Yeah, I'm feeling a bit homosexual. Yes, again. Yes, the third time this week. Yup, it's a very persistent and chronic affliction. Now, if you don't mind I'll go get some therapy at Hooters."
WTF?! :(



Third time this week....?!:eek:


You realise it's already Wednesday?:confused:


....Fass you slacker!:p

Query: why is it enough proof for you ? As you correctly point out, all the support you have is that your religion says it is so, but it doesn't explain *why* it says so. For things like perjury, stealing and murder devising a consistent underlying reasoning to condemn them is reasonably easy - but I have yet to see one for homosexuality.

Is it basicly "the book is right so often, it probably will be right here too"

Well, if you want to put it that way, I guess that's fair enough. Basically, Christianity (or at least that part of it which will call itself orthodox/conservative), believes the Book's always right. Which isn't really a debateable proposition. I guess you could quibble with some of the historical books, but archeology etc. is a sort of mucky science. In short, any sacred book claims to be above material science. You either believe it or you don't.

...So anyone commiting murder or theft is hurting someone else, and that's a pretty good rationale for whay it's a sin, since the religion is based on loving others and peace.

However, homosexuality leaves no victims. What two men in love with each other, or two women lovers do in their bedroom happens between consenting adults. None is left the worse for it. So why should it be an abomination? That question remains unanswered.

Well, erm, yes and no. Christianity has this funny concept (and yes, it is odd unless you grow up with it) of being able to do moral harm to oneself, thus the prohibitions against suicide, homosexuality, witchcraft, and so forth. To Christianity, they're sort of the moral equivalent of eating nothing but Big Macs and coffee - it seems cool, it sort of works, but you get fat and badly nourished. Only of course, when it's a moral issue, there's more at stake than just physical appearance. I'm not sure that's entirely going to make sense/satisfy, but it's the best I can do to explain a concept that's sort of second-nature to me.

(I could also dispute the "based on love and peace" thing, but considering the Church is still trying to figure that one out, I probably had better not.)

WTF?! :(

Third time this week....?!:eek:

You realise it's already Wednesday?:confused:

....Fass you slacker!:p

You only have to call in sick once a day, you know, but feel gay all the time, thankfully.

You only have to call in sick once a day, you know, but feel gay all the time, thankfully.

You realise we're going to have to dock your pay for this, right?

Well, erm, yes and no. Christianity has this funny concept (and yes, it is odd unless you grow up with it) of being able to do moral harm to oneself, thus the prohibitions against suicide, homosexuality, witchcraft, and so forth. To Christianity, they're sort of the moral equivalent of eating nothing but Big Macs and coffee - it seems cool, it sort of works, but you get fat and badly nourished. Only of course, when it's a moral issue, there's more at stake than just physical appearance. I'm not sure that's entirely going to make sense/satisfy, but it's the best I can do to explain a concept that's sort of second-nature to me.

What you say is very clear and reasonable. I do not believe it, but I respect your ability to actually provide decent reasoning for your statements.

What you say is very clear and reasonable. I do not believe it, but I respect your ability to actually provide decent reasoning for your statements.

Thank you! It's a pleasure to be able to conduct a discussion instead of engaging in a shouting match (although I tend to stay out of those). :)

You only have to call in sick once a day, you know, but feel gay all the time, thankfully.
Ahh, so the 'third time this week' refers to phoning-in to let your employer know you are 'too gay to work today', not to the actual occurence rate of the symptoms of the 'disorder'?

....that makes somewhat more sense than my original interpretation...

...and also doesnt cast your libido in such a dismally apathetic/barely existent light...:)

You realise we're going to have to dock your pay for this, right?

That's OK - I live in Sweden. :)

...and also doesnt cast your libido in such a dismally apathetic/barely existent light...:)

You've been here a while. That you would even utter those words must mean I've been remiss.

What you say is very clear and reasonable. I do not believe it, but I respect your ability to actually provide decent reasoning for your statements.
It certainly made more sense than anything I,ve ever heard so far on the subject.

But then again, I still dispute the notion that my gayness is somehow "detrimental" to my moral/spiritual health. I'm a very moral person, who holds his values dear, and try to hold myself to the highest possible standards without imposing those standards on others. I'm also very fulfilled, and spiritually sated by personnal philosohpy and reflexions on religions, their meanings, and the workings of the world.

Just because I like guys doesn't make me devoid of morality or spirituality. Far from it. In fact, the prejudice I faced because of my difference caused me to question many things I believed or thought I knew, and made me a better person in the process.

You've been here a while. That you would even utter those words must mean I've been remiss.
...which brings me back to my earlier post, specifically this bit --> Fass you slacker!...;)

...which brings me back to my earlier post, specifically this bit --> Fass you slacker!...;)

What can I say - my finals period just ended.

You've been here a while. That you would even utter those words must mean I've been remiss.
Should I grease him up for you, or will you be doing him dry?

I don't know about that. Wide sexual variations occur in many species. In non-mammal species, spontaneous sex change occurs when a population is significantly unbalanced between the sexes. In other non-mammal species, parthenogenesis can occur in a male-less environment, even though the species otherwise reproduces sexually. (EDIT: I mention these only to show how wide a range of variation is possible.) I don't think that it can be successfully denied that homosexuality does occur in many mammal and bird species. Homosexual pair bonding and homosexual sex activity have been observed and recorded by zoologists many times.

I think the higher the degree of variation in a species, the more adaptable that species will be. I described it as a "beneficial purpose," and that might be inaccurate, if "purpose" implies a plan. There is no "plan." It's just that species in which you see more individual variation may have an adaptative advantage and, thus, a greater chance of survival over time. So having that much variation can be considered an evolutionary advantage.

So when we look at the occurence of homosexuality, what do we see? Well, we see mostly group-living creatures -- like humans -- among whose groups there is likely to be a small percentage of healthy adults who contribute fully to the survival of the group -- getting food, building shelters, fighting enemies, etc -- but who are less likely to produce new mouths to feed -- not zero likelihood, but a slightly lower likelihood than otherwise. You don't see a potential benefit to a group in that?

Again, selection DOES NOT WORK on a group or species level. It doesn't. PERIOD.

Selection works on the INDIVIDUAL level. There are numerous potential advantages to an INDIVIDUAL organism that might be obtained via homosexual activity, and there are numerous ways in which the INDIVIDUAL'S reproductive fitness might be improved by homosexuality, but homosexuality is NOT going to be "selected for" simply because it happens to benefit the species as whole. Selection simply does not work that way.

An example of how homosexuality could be reproductively beneficial can be found among bonobo chimps. These chimps are our closest genetic "cousins," and in their societies the most common form of sexual contact is sex occuring between two females. These sexual encounters appear to help in maintaining the social structure, as well as helping with bonding. Females who are frequent "lovers" also tend to groom and feed each others' young more often, which increases the survival rates of their offspring. So "lesbians" are actually more reproductively successful than "heterosexual" females.

I think what people are getting stuck on is that reproductive fitness =/= making the most babies. Reproductive fitness is about producing offspring who thrive and make it to maturity. If you make 10 babies but only 2 of them survive to adulthood, your reproductive success is no better than a couple who made 2 babies but got them both to adulthood. It may actually be lower, since your own health and status may be compromised by having to expend the resources to produce 10 babies.

Hence, even if you were to assume (for the sake of argument) that "gay" animals produce fewer offspring, they may actually be MORE reproductively successful if they are somehow better able to get their offspring to thrive.


And of course, since there is no plan to evolution, I would expect the variation to be random, and that sexual orientation is a spectrum of different preferences expressed to different degrees within each individual, ranging from 100% hetero to 100% homo and all points in between.

That much we agree on.


I'm not saying that this definitely is the case. I'm just saying it is an interesting possibility and that I look forward to further studies about it. It would certainly put paid to any argument that homosexuality is unnatural, abnormal, or only a mattter of choice.

Arguments that homosexuality is unnatural, abnormal, or a matter of choice would be totally unaffected by the data you are talking about.

Homosexuality is natural, period. That is not in debate. It is simple fact.

Homosexuality may or may not be "abnormal," depending on how you define your norm. Whether or not homosexuality is natural or choice or whatever has no impact on whether or not is it "normal," because "normal" can be defined any number of ways.

Homosexuality is no more or less governed by choice than heterosexuality, and again, this is not in debate. It is simple fact. The only people who dispute these points are people who haven't done their homework.

So I admit that I am rooting for it a bit, but as of now there is not enough data to be conclusive.
There is more than enough data to conclude that homosexuality is NOT the result of a selection-based species-level population control mechanism. That hypothesis has been pretty definitively refuted by piles and piles of data.

There is also more than enough data to conclude that homosexuality is natural, and that it is often a reproductively successful solution for an organism.

Should I grease him up for you, or will you be doing him dry?

Who said he wouldn't be doing me?

Who said he wouldn't be doing me?
Well, I figured you like to top.

But then again, I still dispute the notion that my gayness is somehow "detrimental" to my moral/spiritual health. I'm a very moral person, who holds his values dear, and try to hold myself to the highest possible standards without imposing those standards on others. I'm also very fulfilled, and spiritually sated by personnal philosohpy and reflexions on religions, their meanings, and the workings of the world.

...And this is where I just shrug and leave it be, because, well, I've made what I think is right perfectly clear. Repeating myself probably isn't going to help, and obviously I have no way of knowing how someone else feels about his own spiritual and moral welfare.

Well, I figured you like to top.

You figured half-right.

You figured half-right.
Nothing better than to be the ham slice in a nice man-sandwich, eh Fass? :p

You figured half-right.
Ah, so you like to share the wealth...

Thank you! It's a pleasure to be able to conduct a discussion instead of engaging in a shouting match (although I tend to stay out of those). :)
SHUT UP!! UR A CRAZY HOMOPHOBE AND U H8 TEH GAYZ!!!!!

Sorry, I just wanted to make everybody feel at home. I would be a little scared if we were to have a gay thread that didn't somehow involve poorly-spelt ramblings and rantings.

:P

SHUT UP!! UR A CRAZY HOMOPHOBE AND U H8 TEH GAYZ!!!!!

Sorry, I just wanted to make everybody feel at home. I would be a little scared if we were to have a gay thread that didn't somehow involve poorly-spelt ramblings and rantings.

:P

Yeah, you're the kind of person who would screw me and not have the common courtesy to give me a reacharound.

Nothing better than to be the ham slice in a nice man-sandwich, eh Fass? :p

While ham is not the luncheon meat I would have chosen, it is an amazing experience for versatiles such as myself, indeed, and a reminder of why gay sex is the superior sex. :)

Yeah, you're the kind of person who would screw me and not have the common courtesy to give me a reacharound.
Okay, and now I'm trying to figure out (anatomically) how I could screw you from that angle...hmm...

While ham is not the luncheon meat I would have chosen, it is an amazing experience for versatiles such as myself, indeed, and a reminder of why gay sex is the superior sex. :)
What luncheon meat do you prefer, then?

And, I really have to try that someday. *sigh*

"Neurodiversity?" :eek:

Yep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity

What luncheon meat do you prefer, then?

Oh, pastrami, but seeing since it's red meat, only on special occasions. Otherwise, I prefer fish.

And, I really have to try that someday. *sigh*

I have nothing but good things to say about it. It really is the best of both worlds at once.

Let's say, for a moment, that the U.S. is invaded by....I don't know....Sweden. Bloodthirsty Swedes are pouring across our borders, looting and pillaging as only the Swedes can do. In this scenario, the U.S. needs ever soldier it can get...right? Would the Pentagon, in this case, really refuse to draft people to defend U.S. soil if they were gay? I doubt it. They'd probably be drafting junior high school students and the elderly along with them. As one famous general said when the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was introduced "A soldier doesn't need to be straight. They just need to shoot straight". This kind of homophobia is SO September 10th.

Should I grease him up for you, or will you be doing him dry?
Huh?!
One of us is confused...:confused:
Who said he wouldn't be doing me?
Perhaps the confused person is me...I seem to have lost track,...is the 'he' you are both referring to an actual person or has the conversation taken a less literal turn...?

Again, selection DOES NOT WORK on a group or species level. It doesn't. PERIOD.

I dont think that is correct. Unless you mean it doesnt work on either group level or on a species level, then maybe, but if you mean it works on neither a group or a species level, then I dont disagree on the grounds that
1. it seems highly improbable,

and

2. even if it were true 'to date' it isnt necessary 'absolutely true' (in other words if we could prove that "it has never yet been the case that..." doesnt mean we would be proving that "it cannot ever be the case"),

and

3. even if it had never yet been the case and could not ever be the case, I cannot see how we (people) could know that were so given our current state of knowledge/understanding.

I dont know of any reason to believe that 'kin-selection' and 'inclusive fitness' are not possible factors in the process of evolution, and I'm aware of reasons to believe they certainly could be and very probably have been/are.

Okay, and now I'm trying to figure out (anatomically) how I could screw you from that angle...hmm...
I'm no grammar expert so I'm not able to tell you whether I have exactly 2 words for you or one hyphenated-conjoined word, none the less be it two words or one, I offer you the following strap-on...

Perhaps the confused person is me...I seem to have lost track,...is the 'he' you are both referring to an actual person or has the conversation taken a less literal turn...?

There are no girls on the intarwebs. Only men pretending to be girls.

Bring
Up
Eut's
Post.

Did these fuckers even bother to read the DSM-IV? Homosexuality was REMOVED, officially, by the psychological community in 1973.

If they can't trust the proffessionals...

C'mon, what the hell!?

Again, selection DOES NOT WORK on a group or species level. It doesn't. PERIOD.

Selection works on the INDIVIDUAL level. There are numerous potential advantages to an INDIVIDUAL organism that might be obtained via homosexual activity, and there are numerous ways in which the INDIVIDUAL'S reproductive fitness might be improved by homosexuality, but homosexuality is NOT going to be "selected for" simply because it happens to benefit the species as whole. Selection simply does not work that way.

Actually it can - provided the rest of the group consists of the homosexuals siblings/close relatives that share a large part of his/her genetic code.

I dont think that is correct. Unless you mean it doesnt work on either group level or on a species level, then maybe, but if you mean it works on neither a group or a species level, then I dont disagree on the grounds that
1. it seems highly improbable,

Natural selection works on the individual. It does NOT opperate on the species as a whole.

In other words, a trait that reduces individual fitness will be selected OUT of the population, even if the population as a whole would benefit from a particular individual having that trait.


2. even if it were true 'to date' it isnt necessary 'absolutely true' (in other words if we could prove that "it has never yet been the case that..." doesnt mean we would be proving that "it cannot ever be the case"),

There is absolutely no reason for us to believe that natural selection can work on the species level. Indeed, all existing evidence indicates that it does not and cannot work on the species level.


3. even if it had never yet been the case and could not ever be the case, I cannot see how we (people) could know that were so given our current state of knowledge/understanding.

It's actually just plain logical, and all the existing data support it.

"Altruistic" trait are selected out of a population. That's pretty much part and parcel of the fundamental theory of selection and evolution. A trait that reduces fitness will not thrive as well as a trait that increases fitness, and thus individuals expressing beneficial traits will be more successful and their traits will come to dominate the population. Obviously there are other factors included (such as natural disasters, environmental changes, etc etc etc), so outcomes can be skewed by other forces, but SELECTION simply does not work on the species as a whole. It works on individual organisms, and the species as a whole is a reflection of these individual changes.



I dont know of any reason to believe that 'kin-selection' and 'inclusive fitness' are not possible factors in the process of evolution, and I'm aware of reasons to believe they certainly could be and very probably have been/are.

Neither of those is relavent to what I am talking about. Traits that increase individual fitness while ALSO increasing group fitness can quite easily be selected for. Hell, that's why we're social primates in the first place.

However, the "population control" model of homosexuality simply is bunk because it states that homosexuality is selected for because it helps to limit the population to sustainable levels. Selection does not work that way, period.

Actually it can - provided the rest of the group consists of the homosexuals siblings/close relatives that share a large part of his/her genetic code.
Nope.

Honestly, I think people are simply misunderstanding what "selection" is. Selection will not favor traits that reduce the fitness of the organisms that have them, even if those traits happen to be beneficial to other members of the group or species. This is because animals that carry the hampering trait will not be reproductively successful (or not as reproductively successful as other animals that lack the trait), and thus they will not get as many of their genes into the next generation, and thus selection will REDUCE the presence of that trait.

That is why it's bunk to argue that homosexuality is selected for BECAUSE it reduces individual reproductive fitness (the "population control" argument).

I now know that mothers of homosexuals are on average more fertile, although this advantage won't help the mother survive it does mean there will be more with the trait out there. Now i'm not saying every child of this mother would be homosexual, in the same way the percentage of a child being left handed between 2 left handed people only goes up to 39%. Also the "straight" offspring of the mother will have more chance of surviving to reproductive age because of the homosexual helpers and thus the straight offspring will spread the trait they got from their mother.

Does this seem like a possible theory?

Did these fuckers even bother to read the DSM-IV? Homosexuality was REMOVED, officially, by the psychological community in 1973.

If they can't trust the proffessionals...

C'mon, what the hell!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...

No, the American government trusts no science they havnt commisioned to find the answer they want. They have a long and healthy tradition of completely ignoring sceince that gets in the way of good old fact.

Honestly, I think people are simply misunderstanding what "selection" is. Selection will not favor traits that reduce the fitness of the organisms that have them, even if those traits happen to be beneficial to other members of the group or species. This is because animals that carry the hampering trait will not be reproductively successful (or not as reproductively successful as other animals that lack the trait), and thus they will not get as many of their genes into the next generation, and thus selection will REDUCE the presence of that trait.

Again: not if the latent potential for the trait is also present in the individuals siblings. You may not reproduce yourself, but something which is extremely close to your genetic pattern will still be spread to the next generation. Potentially in greater abundance even if you have a large family.

Biologists claim that this explains some of the altruistic behaviour found in nature; so why not homosexuality ?

I now know that mothers of homosexuals are on average more fertile, although this advantage won't help the mother survive it does mean there will be more with the trait out there. Now i'm not saying every child of this mother would be homosexual, in the same way the percentage of a child being left handed between 2 left handed people only goes up to 39%. Also the "straight" offspring of the mother will have more chance of surviving to reproductive age because of the homosexual helpers and thus the straight offspring will spread the trait they got from their mother.

Does this seem like a possible theory?

Or maybe it's the other way around - mothers with more children are more likely to have on who decides he or she is a homosexual?

The Neurodiversity movement classifies homosexuality as being largely a manner of outlook, much like left-handedness or autism. None of them need to be treated; they need to be respected.

Some of us with autistic spectrum disorders would disagree.

Only if he were running against the likes of Hillary or Kerry or Pelosi or ... well, you get the idea. :D

Right. You'd only vote for evil and psychotic if it was running against reasonable but not evil and psychotic.

Or maybe it's the other way around - mothers with more children are more likely to have on who decides he or she is a homosexual?

I thought people were over the choice theory? who in the right mind would chose to be gay and be dis-owned by their parents, discriminated against every day by kids that don't understand what gay even is, and not being able to biologically reproduce with someone they would want to?

As far as I can see, the Department of Defence didn't buy into the change that the APA did which was done because of protests by homosexuals. Basically, there was no science involved just political pressure and left-wing ideals.

As far as I can see, the Department of Defence didn't buy into the change that the APA did which was done because of protests by homosexuals. Basically, there was no science involved just political pressure and left-wing ideals.

Even if this is right at least since then the vast majority of scientistsdon't think its a disorder anymore. In england there was no such political pressure to take homosexuality off the disorders list, it was discussed thoroughly by leading scientists who at the very least concluded it can't be a mental disorder foer the simple reason it does not impair or change any other aspect of homosexuals lives.

Heh, they're also thinking of reintroducing muskets and giving medics leeches.

Medical leeches are being used again because of the enzymes the leech produces is medically beneficial, they also sometimes use maggots because they can clean a wound by eating the dead material.

I think the next step would be to reintroduce phrenology and get rid of psychology.

Again: not if the latent potential for the trait is also present in the individuals siblings. You may not reproduce yourself, but something which is extremely close to your genetic pattern will still be spread to the next generation. Potentially in greater abundance even if you have a large family.

If you are talking about recessive traits, or heterozygotes who pass down a trait, yes that is an explanation for why a potentially harmful or non-beneficial trait might survive through generations. However, individuals who express the trait in full (so to speak) would still be less reproductively successful, which would kind of put a cap on the spread of the trait.

All of which is irrelevant, of course, since homosexuality has been shown in plenty of cases to increase reproductive fitness.


Biologists claim that this explains some of the altruistic behaviour found in nature; so why not homosexuality ?
Altruism doesn't exist in nature, at least not in the "pure" sense. What may be selected for is cases where helping others helps you; that's how you get social animals, group hunters, etc etc. But selection doesn't favor animals that sacrifice their own fitness for that of others. Every time we've thought we found a "real" example of altruism, it turned out to not actually be altruism at all.

Ants are a great example. Social insects were actually one of the stumbling blocks for Darwin, and for a while some people thought they were "proof" that true altruism can be selected for.

Here you've got a colony of individuals who don't breed at all. What the hell. You've got one queen who breeds up a storm, but then you've got all her daughters who aren't breeding at all, and who are helping to rear somebody else's offspring. Looks a lot like altruism, huh?

Well, as it turns out, worker ants are actually more related to their sister workers than they would be to their own offspring. (This has to do with the fact that male ants are haploid while females are diploid, but I won't bore you all with that.) So it's actually more beneficial for a worker ant to help rear her little sisters than it would be for her to go make a nest of her own.

At any rate, my point is not that "negative" traits cannot be inheretted, or that homosexuality must necessarily always increase reproductive fitness, or that helping others can never benefit the individual. My point was that it is simply false to argue that homosexuality is selected for BECAUSE it is altruistic. For one thing, there's a lot of evidence that it isn't altruistic, and for another thing, purely altruistic traits aren't selected for. It is possible that homosexuality is both selected for and beneficial to a group or species, but to connect the two via the "population control" hypothesis is to misunderstand how selection works.