E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
David Lewis / AP file
Sgt. Brandon Morgan, right, is embraced by his partner Dalan Wells, in a helicopter hangar at a Marine base in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, upon returning from a six-month deployment to Afghanistan in this photo taken in February 2012.
Updated at 5:40 p.m. ET: The repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 2011 has not had a negative impact on force readiness, recruitment or retention, contrary to predictions that it would, according to a new study published Monday.
The policy, implemented in 1993 while then President Bill Clinton was pushing for openness in the military, was repealed on Sept. 20 last year. Before its enactment and the repeal, service members had said having openly gay troops would harm the military.
But the study by the Palm Center, which conducts research on sexual minorities in the military, determined those concerns were unfounded. The research by nine scholars, some professors at military academies, began six months after the policy (known as DADT) ended and wrapped up near the one-year mark.
The scholars said they interviewed opponents and advocates of the repeal, as well as active duty service members who are gay, and conducted on-site field observations of four military units, among other research. They also reached out to 553 of the nearly 1,200 generals and admirals who signed a 2009 letter saying the repeal would undermine the military and eventually got interviews with 13 officers.
“Our conclusion, based on all of the evidence available to us, is that DADT repeal has had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale,” according to the study. “Although we identified a few downsides that followed from the policy change, we identified upsides as well, and in no case did negative consequences outweigh benefits. If anything, DADT repeal appears to have enhanced the military’s ability to pursue its mission.”
Their research also showed that the repeal hadn’t been responsible for any new wave of violence or physical abuse among service members and appears to have enabled some gay troops to resolve disputes around harassment in ways that were not possible before.
Related: Four Marines accused of beating man in possible gay hate crime
However, there were two “verifiable resignations” of military chaplains due to the repeal, which also triggered a drop in individual morale for some service members who were opposed to it, the study said.
Implementation of the repeal was "proceeding smoothly" across the Department of Defense, said a spokeswoman, Eileen M. Lainez.
"We attribute this success to our comprehensive pre-repeal training programs, continued close monitoring and enforcement of standards by our military leaders, and service members' adherence to core values that include discipline and respect," she said in an e-mail to NBC News. "Defense department leadership and the services remain engaged in implementation, and a formal monitoring process ensures continual assessment."
The Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy group specializing in the military and social issues, has previously questioned success of the repeal.
“From the standpoint of a small minority of LGBT personnel, repeal certainly was a ‘success’ on September 21, the first day after repeal implementation,” the group said in a May 16 blog on its website. “It is too soon, however, to draw conclusions about the consequences of LGBT law (formerly DADT) and related policies for most people in the military. The poor economy will continue to mask potential recruiting and retention problems for years to come.”
The group did not immediately reply to a request for comment by NBC News on the Palm Center study.
Since the repeal, the Defense Department has held a gay pride event and allowed service members to march in pride parades in uniform, according to reports.
During a May 10 briefing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the repeal was “going very well” and was not impacting morale, unit cohesion or readiness.
“And very frankly, my view is that the military has kind of moved beyond it,” he said. “It's become part and parcel of what they've accepted within the military.”
The Palm Center is part of the Williams Institute, an independent think tank conducting research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, at the University of California Los Angeles, School of Law.
More content from NBCNews.com:
Leave a Comment:
why do people think this is such a big deal?
gay people exist, and they aren't going away no matter how much you may want them to for whatever BS reason you make up, whether you think its 'yucky", or if you think your imaginary friend says its bad.
For some reason, people think soldiers are more worried about whether the person beside them is gay or not when there are BULLETS raining down on them.
Yeah, I don't get it either.
With a lot of people saying "teh gayz will destroy our military," this needed to be said to show that nothing would change as far as "unit cohesion" or "unit effectiveness." It's basically a non-issue save for those who were hoping for the worst.
"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Seems kind appropriate for this situation also.
Let's try to remember that there have ALWAYS been gays in the military. All through history, from the Spartans to the USMC. They have fought in every war through the history of warfare. Every nation, every army. The only difference now is that they can actually be openly honest about it. All that crap about the damage to morale and discipline, was just that, a bunch of crap from a bunch of antique homophobes.
Gosh darn Sarge, You mean those gays didn't destroy the military AND America like them Conservatives said they would? Shazaam!
<done in my best Gomer Pyle voice>
I guess the GOP's "gospel" ain't the "gospel truth" after all?
Who'da thunk it?
When the bullets fly, the only concern you have for the one at your back is whether they'll defend it or not.
There are no gays, straights, atheists, religious, minority, or majority in the foxholes. Only servicemembers.
I would not have expected them to say any differently. Whether this had a negative effect or not, there is no way that a report would come out saying it caused problems. No senior officer that was interviewed would risk hurting his career by not taking the politically correct position on the issue. The only way to truly find out if the repeal is having any impact would be to have a truly anonymous survey of current and recently detached military personnel to get their take on it. Any survey that is conducted so that those giving the responses are identified is not going to give you the real picture because people in the military understand that taking the party line is the only way to avoid potentially damaging your career. I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the conclusions in this report, only that the report itself was never going to say any different, regardless of the true situation. If they really want to find out the impact they need to do their survey anonymously.
As for allowing military members to march in gay pride parades in uniform, it is completely wrong. Military members are expressly forbidden from wearing their uniforms to participate in political events and this was a clear violation of this policy. If they are going to allow service members to wear uniforms in gay pride parades then to avoid a double standard they are going to have to allow service members to march in uniform in any other parades or to any other political event they want. There is very good reason for not allowing service members to wear uniforms to these types of events and allowing this in the name of political correctness was a huge mistake. This is likely going to lead to some major issues for the military when they try and discipline service members for wearing their uniforms to other less politically acceptable events.
semper fi allswell
Now they (the anti gay in the military folks) hide in the woodwork, looking, waiting for another way to compel their sexuality, morality & will on others .... BUT BE ASSURED .... the bigots are still there .... WAITING ...
JS in SD,
"The only way to truly find out if the repeal is having any impact would be to have a truly anonymous survey of current and recently detached military personnel to get their take on it. Any survey that is conducted so that those giving the responses are identified is not going to give you the real picture because people in the military understand that taking the party line is the only way to avoid potentially damaging your career."
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say there. I doubt that the names of those interviewed were published along with their responses. That isn't the way surveys are conducted in my experience.
@ Mickey-1983943
An interesting item to note is which studies JS in SD decides are valid and which ones aren't. Track some of his other posts...it's very entertaining.
The selection bias in strong with this one ^_^
/The only people that I think should be closeted are racists and bigots
Your entire post is ill-informed nonsense since you obviously didn't read the survey.
This wasn't a survey of popular opinion but rather an attempt to determine if there were any actual problems resulting from the repeal of DADT. As such, the interviews were heavily weighted towards those officers who publicly lobbied against repeal. And they included both current and recently retired officers, but also interviewed enlisted service members. They found no adverse impact at all.
The survey methodology starts on pg 7:
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/One%20Year%20Out_0.pdf
Also, I think they were talking about bigots like you when they said this:
JS, you are dead right.
I always am glad to hear something is going well in our trouble plagued armed forces. However, I can put little credence in this survey by an organization of and for gays, done so soon after the policy change.
Having an all volunteer military which is on average older and more professional does eliminate the most sensitive issue: young draftees being possibly subjected to harassment or coercion by homosexuals among the training cadre. But what if the draft had to be reinstituted?
I also have questions about just how "open" openly gay gay service members are at this early stage. Will there be the sort of problems encountered now when young men and women share living and working space--allegations of harassment, even rape? What regulations should be in place as to fraternization, problems with std's?
Will the armed forces recognize gay marriages? What if a service member wants to bring a same-sex spouse back to the USA from some third world country? Will the Army of Navy set up a Bride's School such as exist now to orient foreign brides-to-be on life and customs in America?
Then the are the issues raised by you about whether respondents are answering these questions with total candor, and even how the survey questions are phrased.
Seriously? No..Really?!,
"An interesting item to note is which studies JS in SD decides are valid and which ones aren't. Track some of his other posts...it's very entertaining."
I have read many of JS in SD's posts. I know he is a rather conservative person. He makes many intelligent posts, and I find myself often agreeing with him, but, frankly, sometimes his posts just puzzle me as in this case.
Once DOMA is found unconstitutional by SCOTUS (before next June), it'll work the exact same way it works for any other married person in the military - if you're married under state law, that marriage will be recognized by the feds.
There is an issue about a study done by individuals who have a specific agenda. I haven't read the study, so I won't comment on methodology.
Nungman, gay marriages are not recognized since DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is still the law of the land. (Too bad). As far as fraternization, harrassment and rape: the issues are already covered under existing regulations. All of the above are against regs. Period. Months before the repeal, we (DoD civilians as well as military) were all brief about what the repeal covers and how various situations will be handled. We all kinda shrugged our shoulders and went on treating soldiers.
I actually got so tired of long posts, rants in some instances, not to mention a somewhat condescending tone in many of the comments of JS in SD that I finally had to go with the "ignore this author". Much better.
THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST SICK AND DISGUSTING PICTURES I HAVE EVER MOTHER-FREAKING SEEN! This should be a real good recruiting poster for all heterosexual males to think hard and long before joining this sick disgusting circus they call the armed forces. Absolutely sick!!! The new homo brigade, great! Thanks Obama, you piece of crap!
Chance, this will bring unintended consequences up the wa-zoo (literally!).
We already have the case of Pcf Bradley Manning. He did not by all accounts hide his homosexuality and his experiences in the Army aroused such alienation and hostility toward the Army and his country that he committed treason at every opportunity.
ROCCO, you sure do have a strong reaction to two guys kissing. Whats wrong, do you feel your sexuality threatened or turned on?
Here is a hint, most of us straight guys don't give a crap if two men kiss... now two girls kissing will get a *rise* out of me.
Nungman,
"He did not by all accounts hide his homosexuality and his experiences in the Army aroused such alienation and hostility toward the Army and his country that he committed treason at every opportunity."
Where is your evidence that there was any connection between Manning's homosexuality and his uploading of classified information to WikiLeaks? The fact that he is gay and the fact that he uploaded that information are most likely two unrelated facts.
looks like rocco is secretly titillated, he just can't admit it.
Another poll by a leftest organization which finds no adverse effect to their ideology; why am I not surprised? Suicides are at an all time high in the military and reenlistment's are falling into the danger zone, but this has nothing to do with forcing people to work side by side with unrepentant sexual deviants.
It is just a coincidence the moral fell to all time lows!
Serving with gay individuals has nothing to do with that. The constant rotations back to hell and being away from their loved ones is the cause. Try seeing friends blown to bits right in front of you or little children killed by roadside bombs and you have kids the same age. You think stuff like that would be a major reason for suicides and falling re-enlistments? How about being sent back to that same hellhole multiple times? You think that might just cause a few problems? My nephew is a Marine-he has been sent to Iraq 3 times and now is back in Afganistan, AGAIN! Five tours in hell. You know what-he and the rest really don't care if those they are fighting along side of are straight or gay-they are all soldiers. You obviously, are just one of those fine (well, the word I really mean does start with that letter) religious nutters that love to judge people from their safe little holes. Funny how your kind so conveniently forgets all about the whole "Judge not, lest ye be judged." part of the bible.
I know! What's next - are they going to let black folks serve alongside our patriotic white boys?
What's America coming to when we can't treat the people we hate as 2nd-class citizens?
oh gee, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with being sent back to a hellacious war zone time and time again, can't it? it must be those "unrepentant sexual deviants" that are causing soldiers to suicide..
(dripping sarcasm off)
absolutely stupid comment by randyek
het randy, did YOU ever serve in a war zone multiple times? or are you just a stupid armchair quarterback?
RandyE, It is because the military is so in need of troops that the ban on homosexuals was lifted, but by stages so the electorate would not howl too loudly. It also was an inescapable fact that many of the soldiers possessing vital skills for this new, political warfare, like foreign languages and appreciation of foreign mores, turned out to be gay. We still get in our military all the morons and gangbangers we need.
D-3, one of the criticisms of our effort in Vietnam was the one-year tour of duty [13 months in the Marine Corps] for our servicemen. The rap was: "We weren't in Vietnam nine years. We were there for one year--nine times!" The implication was that we would bring the soldiers home just at the point where they had learned to be jungle-wise.
Having reversed that policy--and eliminated the Draft--the military is now criticized for giving the troops too much experience. No doubt we are getting many psychiatric casualties--too many. The solution probably lies in treating the returning veterans better right here at home.
Nonsense. At least 78% of the public supported the repeal of DADT. Congress was far behind the public on this issue. The views of bigots like you are in the minority, and a very small minority at that.
And if Congress hadn't repealed DADT the courts would have done it for them, since several courts had ruled it blatantly unconstitutional.
Nungman - actually at this point the military is trying to decrease its size. Enlistment and reenlistment are at all time lows because of multiple war-zone deployments and the fact that at this point in time, the military is only taking the best of the best. Also, we always knew who was gay and who was straight in our units, the repeal of DADT just allowed them to show up to formal military events with their same-sex partners!
Gotta agree with SGT E here.
We've ALWAYS known who the homosexuals were, both male and female, we also know who the switch batters are too. There was never a "morale" problem with their existence only the very real fear that special treatment would be handed out for promotions / awards and special protections. Didn't want to get into a situation where counseling / disciplining a soldier turned into them accusing their NCO or CDR of being "anti-homosexual" and all the mess those sorts of accusations tend to involve. Thankfully that didn't happen and it was a smooth transition with a heavy emphasis on the "no special treatment" part. No promotion quota's, positions or protections given to those who list "homosexual" as their prescribed orientation.
Overall I'm pleased with how the transition happened and glad our current PoTUS listened to his military advisers and proceeded slowly with a focus on training.
"No negative impact on the repeal of DADT"...
Duh. That's all.
EngEsg - You are right on the money on that one. Let me put into a comparison and contrast situation. You know, like in English 101 class. I would compare it to telling a Muslim that his Qur'an is a lie and Mohamed is gay. Now what do you think would happen to that person if he was in Saudi Arabia and said that? That's right, you would be beheaded without hesitation from the Sharia Courts. Where in the United States we are permitted to vent with words and not actions. You see, there are millions of individuals, Muslim included in America, who really take offense to pictures like that. I mean, really, really, really take offense to that! But ABC News which is a tool for the far lefties did it for shock value. They need to be more careful with the "in your face" thing, because not all of us are as restrained as I am when it comes to this. I prefer words to action, got it?
Iseeconfusedpeople - Keep your degenerate thoughts to yourself. And by the way, check out the mirror in your bathroom, I am told that there is a degenerate hiding out in the mirror!
I see the national gay organizations have their corps of posters out in force--including at least one gifted satirist and a few gifted liars.
I would like to see a survey where nearly 4/5 of the American public supports homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces. I'd bet half of those wanting to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell want to return to a total ban on gays.
So, otherguy, the problem now is discrimination in favor of homosexuals? And there's even an official form where servicemen write down their sexual preference? Hilarious! Swiftian. Another "Modest Proposal".
How many "military events" have you attended, Sgt. E, where a man could actually go "stag" (unaccompanied), "drag" (bringing a date) or fag (well..., you know)? As for taking "the best of the best", last I heard, recruiters still were lying like a sidewalk to get people in and winding up with Bradley Mannings or that sad and sick trooper who shot his battalion commander then himself on the parade ground at Ft. Bragg.
Bob-429579: Not hardly. Gays have been serving in the military of other countries for decades. We're just barely catching up.
Two people who clearly love each other, expressing joy at being reunited after a long separation. Yeah...sick.
You know...part of the reason you are so "disgusted" is because it's unusual. You aren't accustomed to seeing two men express affection openly. You might live in a fairly bigoted area of the country where gay men are more circumspect out of concerns for their safety. Or perhaps you don't get out much, or don't pay much attention to your surroundings. Either way, there is nothing wrong with the picture....it's just two consenting adults showing some affection. Your reaction however, shows that you lack the emotional maturity to accept that we really aren't all exactly the same. Which make it your problem, not theirs.
Although we can't really give Obama all the credit, we (the vast majority of Americans who supported the repeal of this hateful bit of bigotry) are certainly happy that he finally accomplished something Clinton tried to do nearly 20 years ago. Better late than never.
So what? I really, really really take offense to people who childishly call other people "sick" and expect the rest of the world to support and protect their bigotries, rather than taking some personal responsibility for their own dysfunctions. We can all find something to be really offended about. Big deal.
Far lefties? Hello? Do you really think the 78% or so of Americans who supported repealing DADT are all "far lefties"? No point in even holding elections, if that's the case. I think you're right about the shock value though....and I applaud them for it. The more images like this that people see, the less shocking they will find it.
It appears you are suggesting that images of gay couples should be kept secret or physical harm might ensue. We're pretty fond of things like our first amendment rights to free expression in this country. If there were to be any violence as a result of this, then we would punish the perpetrator of the violence...not require people to give up their rights just to avoid pissing off idiots.
The time for protecting bigots from ever having to see anything they might not like is over. Time for the big girl panties now. If it bothers you too much, you do have the freedom to look away, to close the browser or change the channel or otherwise take some responsibility for yourself and quit expecting everyone else to do it for you.
If they live in america and pay taxes then then they should be entitled to equal rights. We still have freedom of speech here. Everybody has a right to thier opinion. As adults we should respect each others differences and not put others down simply because we dont agree with someones lifestyle. As long as it does not harm another individual it should not be a problem.
Freedom of speech does not apply in the military. We have already seen that case. As far as rights goes that does not apply either if you think so read the Feres Doctrine and quit spouting propganda.
Let them Be ACURSED.
They are ungodly, unnatural and unwanted. If God is against them ,how is it that you're for them.
Let them be ACURSED!
Because my Deity-of-choice is not against them. yous might; mine is not.
Take a lesson from your Bible--judge not, lest ye also be judged.
Amanda, the correct quote of this often misquoted passage is "Judge not, that ye not be judged".
But God had already judged as to homosexual acts. On that subject the Old Testament is quite unambiguous:
(King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13
This reiterates the absolute ban on sex between men earlier stated Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
The term "abomination" is defined as that which makes God turn his face away. That's just what I did when i saw that picture of two macho looking men French kissing each other.
God has already judged sexual depravity to be an "abomination"; we're just point out this well known fact.
And who might this Deity be? If you have no official doctrine to point to you have no case; if your doctrine is not consistent with the history and traditions of these United States you have no case; if you are spouting off out of disdain for the authentic civil right of faith then you are a religious bigot.
Nungman,
"(King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13
This reiterates the absolute ban on sex between men earlier stated Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination"."
You take those verses from the Old Testament as being the law of God. I take them as being the law of the ancient nation of Israel reflecting their own social mores which, unfortunately, were bigoted against homosexuality just as our own laws were until just recently. The fact that the Israelites attributed their laws to God is not surprising. It was common practice in the ancient Middle East for nations to attribute their laws to the gods. It gave them greater force in the minds of the people. But that's an old superstition that many people have outgrown these days. We now know that laws are made by men; not by God or the gods.
Nungman, Randy EK, et al.
Eating pork, shellfish, lobster, eating meat 3 days old, and trimming beards are also considered abominations in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18-20). These are considered "toevah," that is, ritually unclean for the Jews of Biblical times.
Do you consider these things to be abominations also? Or do do you cherry pick from millenia old dogmas to further your bigoted worldview.?
Come on folks; do you really want me to break out the nine verses I have on record that speaks in opposition to your depravity; half in the old testament and half in the new ranging from Revelations, Timothy, Mathew, Corinthians, and Leviticus?
The fulfilment of the prophecy of the Christ effectively did away with many of the previous limitations; with many of said limitations having to do with rules for worship at and access to the Temple of Solomon. It really comes as no surprise that you would be basing your whole position in opposition to on the misinterpretation of scripture; after-all, you have proved yourselves incapable of discerning the intent of your own biology - as governed by the laws of nature.
Not in the translation I read. And therein lies a problem--not all translations of the Bible have all the same stuff, and even different editions if the same translation change. I went to Catholic school through my childhood and I never once saw the books of Ruth and Esther until I picked up a copy in a bookstore years later.
In 329 AD a group of guys (the Council of Nicaea)got together all 8000 scrolls of christian teachings that were presently taught, picked out the ones they liked, put that together and called it 'The Bible' and the 'Word Of God'. Thee ones they didn't like were set aside as 'The Forbidden Books' and when the Vatican was founded in 1929, thee Forbidden Books were squirreled away in the Vatican's archives, never to be seen again.
If all of these teachings are the Word of God, why are they 'Forbidden' for you?
Does it say anything about two girls? Why are two girls ok but not two guys? Why does God have a double standard?
In the desert of the southwest US there's a species of lizard called the whiptail lizard. Centuries ago there were both male and female of the species. As climate changed and the Southwest got hotter, the eggs lid started to hatch out all females (ask any herpetologist-warmer temps hatch females, cooler temps hatch males) until all the members of this species ended up being female. There are no males. And they survive as a species just fine by doing it with each other.
God caused climate to change, resulting in these all being girls. Would he consider them an abomination even though they are how He created them? Would they be committing a 'sin' even though they have no higher bring function to enable them deliberately choose to sin?
The Great Mother. 'All acts of love and pleasure are My gifts.'
Practitioners of my belief system were around way before yours was; we were worshipping the Mother when humankind was still drawing on cave walls. Almost every established belief system from then on out has tried to eradicate us, from the Greco-Roman polytheists all the way on up to you Christians (the Inquisition) so no, we don't have texts because practitioners of your belief system destroyed them.
We have a set of precepts that have survived millennia, having been passed down from generation to generation, mostly among those who worship the Mother in secret just as you Christians did in the early centuries of your religion.
The history and traditions of these United States includes freedom of religion, the freedom that every person has to practice whatever religion we choose.
So you agree that the ability to practice one's religion is an authentic civil right? Thank you, that's what I was getting at.
My belief system has sects for the lesbians (the Dianics) and the gays (the Minoan brotherhood) and any of our priests and priestesses can marry if the involved parties express a desire to celebrate the Gifts of the Mother solely with each other. By refusing to acknowledge their marriages, the government is denying practitioners of our faith our Constitutional first amendment right to practice our religion.
RandyEK:
"you have proved yourselves incapable of discerning the intent of your own biology - as governed by the laws of nature."
Please explain to me the biological intent of kissing then? Whether it is a kiss between the same or the opposite sex, it serves no biological function. The biological intent of the mouth is respiration, comsumption and vocalization. So, if intent is the issue, how can a kiss be anything but deviant behavior?
You are still cherry picking.
@Amanda,
And what is the definition of freedom referred to in the founding documents; the source of our freedom is the Judea/Christian God which dictates the intent and responsibilities of said freedom.
You claim a faith with no written doctrine; which means it does not exist.
@Stompydog,
The intent of your reproductive organ is to reproduce; not masturbate against same gender companions.
Only crazy people do that!
RandyEK:
I understand what the "biological intent" of the penis and the vagina is. I did not bring up this arguement. You did. You are also evading my question. If intent is the issue for you, explain how you reconcile that with kissing. That behavior is not the biological intent of the mouth. So, perforce, kissing would have to be classified as "deviant" behavior, by your the logic of your arguement.
Your arguement is flawed. It willfully overlooks behaviors you consider acceptable, and attacks behaviors you deem "deviant." All based on millenia old dogmas that have little relevance in the present world.
@Stompydog,
Where did I say anything about the acceptability of kissing...?
I personally find public displays of sexuality to be repulsive, dis-respective of others, and highly offensive. The debate is not one of personal ideology, but that of common decency.
Apples to oranges comparison at its finest.
We'll just start here.
I'd love to be paid to defend equality.
Oh wait, I'm in the military, I already am.
So by that logic, if your god isn't against them, how is it you're not for them? In case you didn't know, the Christian god never condemns homosexuality in the Bible; the problem you have is you're reading mistranslations and falsifications. Go read the original texts and languages sometime, sweetie.
First off, those were Jewish social laws, not god-given. Secondly, there are five words that have been erroneously translated to "abomination". In this case, toeba actually means "taboo", which means "against the norm". Since the Jews of the time believed it was every man's duty to marry and beget children, sex was seen as solely for this purpose. Since you can't procreate through homosexual sex, it was made taboo. They didn't comprehend it.
Do you really want me to break out the can of whoop-ass that is the original language texts of your verses, which completely refutes your mistranslated trash?
False, the Declaration of Independence is not a "founding document" of this nation. It is a letter written to a religious figurehead and designed to appeal to his religious sentiments.
So you're psychologically repressed. We know. Did you know even animals masturbate and have homosexual sex? Are you going to claim that's not "natural" (hint, natural = existing in nature without human influence)?
I never said you said anything about kissing. I was asking you a clarifying question about your arguement of "biological intent". I also did not specify public kissing. I am asking: Do you believe that any form of kissing is acceptable, and if so, how do you reconcile that with your arguement that any behavior outside of biological intent and function is deviant? You cannot pick and choose behaviors that you find acceptable and those you do not and be credible in your arguement.
To experiment with ones sexuality is normal; to make a career out of it is perverted.
For the rest of your "no it isn't" and "so what?" responses I reefer you back to the admonishments you received from your parents when you tried that same stunt when you were five.
Randy said;
the source of our freedom is the brainchild of a group of Europeans who fled Europe to found a country in which everyone would be able to worship whatever Deity they chose. There is no mention of God in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers referred to a Creator in the Declaration of independence, but never specified who they believed that creator to be.
You Christians don't get to destroy our written texts and then claim our religion doesn't exist because there are no written documents. We're Witches/Wiccans and Druids and we worship the Mother Goddess and have been around for far longer than you have.
Your 'Easter' and "Christmas' are our Beltane and Yule; you took those feast days from us. You took our 'Day of the Dead' and turned it into your 'All Hallows' Eve', then cheapened and commercialized a festival (originally meant to honor loved ones who have passed) into a garish, costumed celebration of childish greed.
Our belief system exists. Your own Bible talks about us. Your religion launched an all-out campaign to wipe ours off the face of the earth. You try asking your Pope if Druids and witches exist. He'll tell you of course we do, that your kind is supposed to kill all of my kind wherever you meet us 'suffer ye not a witch to live' is what I remember from the Bible, which is clearly erroneous because He made me same as he made you and you believe God doesn't make mistakes.
That being said, it doesn't matter if you think my belief system exists; what matters is the government of the country we live in acknowledges that paganism exists and is a practicable belief system, and per that acknowledgement thereby violates our right to practice our religion as we so choose.
Logic failure. Unusual and abnormal are constantly changing commonality-based concepts.
You are an utter idiot. This is a blatantly false statement, as faith does not require anything physical to exist.
Seriously, leave before you hurt yourself.
And I'll refer you back to 1.46, I misspelled some words so maybe you couldn't understand it;
In the desert of the southwest US there's a species of lizard called the whiptail lizard. Centuries ago there were both male and female of the species. As climate changed and the Southwest got hotter, the eggs laid started to hatch out all females (ask any herpetologist--warmer temps hatch females, cooler temps hatch males) until all the members of this species ended up being female. There are no males. And they survive as a species just fine by 'doing it' with each other.
God caused climate to change, resulting in these all being girls. Would he consider them an abomination even though they are how He created them? Would they be committing a 'sin' even though they have no higher brain function to enable them deliberately choose to sin? Would they be considered abnormal seeing as how there are no males and the only option to continue the species is to procreate with other girls? Where's the difference between habit and instinct?
And another illustration;
Two male penguins in a Canadian zoo decided to bond for life (penguins are one of the few species in the world who mate for life, humans don't even do that) despite the zoo making sure that there were plenty of members of the same species of either gender in the colony. Eventually the two penguins even 'adopted' an orphaned penguin chick and took turns feeding it, eventually raising it to adulthood.
None of the other penguins had a problem with it. To all of them it was normal and natural.
You know, as a US Marine, I've probably fired every weapon system that's out there.
And not one of them had a 'sexual persuasion' safety that had to be engaged before it fired.
The great thing about the military is we focus on what people DO, and not what they ARE.
Do your job, protect the man or woman to your right and left, and they'll do the same.
If you can't do that - get the @!$%# out.
Simple.
Student of Life,
"not one of them had a 'sexual persuasion' safety that had to be engaged before it fired."
We'll just have to fix that, won't we? We can't have our weapons being fired by gays, can we? That would upset God's order of things. :)
Maybe, but it wouldn't work - because bullets don't even fly straight. :)
They arc.
And "smart" bullets fly in even wider spirals! ;)
Insert obvious conclusion here. :P
Semper Fi, SoL. Thanks for your service from an AD Airman.
Randy, and many others ... have committed the very first 'sin' .... they have created god in their own image ...
If someone for religious reasons, reasons of public health or any other reason does not approve of sodomy that does not mean he is a bigot. This is a misuse of language.
Amanda, we have separation of Church and State in this great country which means you can worship the Great Pumpkin if you want.
Nungman,
"If someone for religious reasons, reasons of public health or any other reason does not approve of sodomy that does not mean he is a bigot. This is a misuse of language."
I think that would depend on how stubbornly he clings to his views in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
My Webster's Dictionary defines "bigot" as 1. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. 2. a narrow-minded person.
Believing that homosexuality is wrong does not in itself make you a bigot, but if you insist on clinging to that opinion in the face of any and all evidences and arguments that refute it, then I think it is fair to call you a bigot, although no one likes being called a bigot because it is considered an insult. But if the shoe fits, wear it.
That depends. Do you treat homosexuals differently, or want different laws for them because of your...uh...disapproval?
That would make you a bigot.
If so...do you also want the same laws and treatment for any heterosexuals who engage in sodomy?
If not, then you are bigoted against homosexuality, not sodomy.
Or do you just refuse to engage in oral or anal sex yourself, and let other people follow their own beliefs without thinking of them or treating them any differently?
If so...then you aren't a bigot.
Call it what you like, but I would not turn my face away if NBCnews had instead published a picture of two hot chicks kissing. If unclothed, all the better! Unfortunately, such women tend more to look like Janet Napolitano in real life.
Anal penetration is pretty nasty no matter who is doing it. It's gotta be particularly dangerous for women not to say painful. The former TV actress Amanda Blake died of AIDS, presumably from engaging in such activity with a much younger husband.
Stompy! The three day old meat thing applies only to animals offered for sacrifice on the altar.
While violation of dietary laws and trimming the beard are proscribed the penalty for these is not death but only being "cut off from one's people". For sodomite acts and for incest ("uncovering thy daughter's nakedness") both parties must die as these are classed equally as "abomination".
NotKidding - Here is a better solution to what you suggested. I do not want to see degenerates slobbering all over each other in public; nor does 90 percent of the population. Especially, when one is appearing in Marine uniform and performing the part of being the bitch. Just because our President sold out his religion beliefs ("marriage is between a man and a woman.") and the African American Community, that do not make any more acceptable in public. Or are you one of the 3 percentile Muppets that are under the misguided belief that it is excepted by the majority of the population. Why I am asking you that question is amusing in itself. Expect more public backlash because it is coming. What shocks you is my bluntness about the picture. I guess not all of us roll over for the homosexual community. And if you want to minimize my comment knock yourselves off. LMFAO!
Over 50% of the population approves of homosexuality and a separate study shows over 50% approve of same sex marriage. Your statement = lie.
Zero evidence supports your claims again. Lie #2.
The only degenerate I'm seeing is the one who has to shove their head up the ass of everyone around them by intruding on their life (IE, you).
rocco
First off...I'm a straight grandparent who actually believes in the guarantee of equality that our nation promises. I don't particularly care if you lack the emotional maturity to accept the fact that we are not all identical, but still equal (or should be, and soon will be) but that is your problem...not mine, not the gay community's and not society's.
The absolute arrogance and ego that you display...demanding that others never do anything in public that you might find offensive...shows the mentality of a very spoiled three year old. Actual adults understand that the world is a diverse place and that not everything we see is to our liking. If you see something between consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone, and it offends you, the adult response is to simply look away...not pitch a fit, fling insults, and demand the rest of the world accommodate your ignorance.
It's called taking some personal responsibility for your own @!$%#, instead of demanding that others suffer deprivations and loss of rights just so that you never have to identify, let alone deal with, your own emotional dysfunctions.
So, back to quoting Leviticus are we? Well, time to pull out the other parts THAT NEVER GET FOLLOWED BY THE SANCTIMONIOUS BASTARDS QUOTING IT!
Ahem:
Leviticus 11:10, But of the various creatures that crawl or swim in the water, whether in the sea or in the rivers, all those that lack either fins or scales are loathsome for you and you shall treat them as loathsome. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall loathe.
That means don't eat shrimp, clams, lobster, scallops...
Leviticus 11:26, All hoofed animals that are not cloven-footed or do not chew the cud are unclean for you.
That means pigs - no ham, bacon, sausage...
Leviticus 19:19, do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread.
Mules - bad, crop rotation - bad, permanent-press fabrics - bad
Leviticus 19:27, Do not clip your hair at the temples nor trim the edges of your beard; Do not lacerate your bodies for the dead, and do not tattoo yourselves.
Haircut and clean-shave - Verboten, tattoos - an abomination
So, to all you clean-shaven, short-haired, cotton-poly blend wearing, bacon-wrapped scallop eating, labradoodle-owning, corn and soybean planting... I think you get the point.
Don't expect them to accept the parts of Leviticus that they don't like, Thomas.
Not that any of it matters, because it was all part of the social and cleanliness code, not a command by their god.
skrekk 1.26
Exactly! The whole DADT 'controversy' was BS as was the desegregation of the US military in the late 50's. A resounding 'DUH' was the result as was that concerning 'women on combat ships'. Problems there resulted from the ramifications and repercussions of that asinine policy. 'Amazing' how problems seem to vanish when the playing field is level with no special treatment for the ladies.
A couple years ago my mother asked me what I thought about 'gays in the military'. My reply was; "Can they do the job"? Meaning one's color, religion or lack thereof, gender, sexual orientation, hair color, hair style, body type, left or right handed or ambidextrous was irrelevant and immaterial.
If someone has a problem with any of the (short) listed attributes-its your personal problem. Deal with it or get the puck out. The cowardly bigots won't be missed and the units will function better without them.
A couple of years ago a USAF Colonel had a letter published in the Air Force Times indicating if DADT was repealed something like 10% of the force would leave service.
I wrote a reply indicating the service would be better off without the bigots-although I said it politely and addressed his main point. I gave the times permission to print my letter when they asked if they could. Don't know if they used it.
Stoney,
"A couple of years ago a USAF Colonel had a letter published in the Air Force Times indicating if DADT was repealed something like 10% of the force would leave service."
As a retired Air Force officer myself, I might add that it would perhaps have been a good idea if that USAF Colonel had been one of the 10% of the force he expected to leave the service.
Oh, I know it, Allswell. They quote it, and then when you bring up these points, suddenly it's all "oh, that's the Old Testament, and we don't have to follow that anymore. Except for the parts I quoted. That's still valid." As if Jeebus was up on the cross saying, "Any parts of the O.T. you don't like, don't worry about following them. But the parts you like, make sure you beat them over the heads of others."
awww, I hurt poor little rocco's feelings.
there he is getting turned on by looking at guys kissing.
me? hey whatever floats your boat, guys kissing neither upsets me nor turns me on, but rocco sure likes it, that why he screams so loud, he's in denial. LOL
Hey, Randy, the source of our rights is not any Judeo-Christian God, but our very existence -- which is not due to any "god".
Neither your God nor the bible are relevant to our laws and government; we are a secular nation.
My Dad (Nam and Korea) told me a long time ago one's sexual orientation doesn't really mean a whole lot out on the front lines. All that matters when you're out there is whether your brother-in-arms (or sister) is watching your six, and from this article, apparently they are.
exactly, I don't care what people do with their genitals (I'm straight), I care what they do when what they do really counts.
Of course there isn't any problems. There have been gays serving this country for it's entire history. Anyone who has served knew who the gays in their units were. When you are in a foxhole or on patrol you really didn't care what the sexual orientation, political views, religionb, etc. were of your fellow troops. All that mattered was they did their job.
Other countries have allowed openly gay service members for years.
They tried to tell us it wasn't a big deal. But, who listens to "furriners"?
@ RealAmericansFirst
LOL, at first I read your last sentence as
Had to re-read, still cracking up anyway.
Ahhh those crazy furries
Thank you Mr. President!
Or maybe he's watching your rear, Amanda, and watching, and wishing....
(laughing) If someone is staring at another servicemember's ass while bullets are flying, boy have they ever flunked Basic...
That dude has gotta be a troll, nobody can be that clueless. Imminent danger tends to active the fight or flight part of the brain upon which sexual orientation and political views tend to plummet to the bottom of the "list of sh1t I'm worried about".
Though I do wish people would stop using foxhole remarks, we've haven't fought from those in awhile. Hasty's are one thing but we really don't dig armpit deep holes in the ground anymore.
Maybe you should call yourself The Other Way.
If soldiers and sailors were in combat 24/7 it might not matter hetero or homo. And sure, there always have been a few GI's in every company, sailors in every section, of whom it is only too obvious why they enlisted. But there are, occasionally, aggressive homosexuals who are a danger to younger enlisted men if they are maneuvered to the wrong situation.
The Army tried mightily to cover it up but there was a homosexual scandal among GI's stationed in the remote, womanless Aleutian Islands during 1943 and 44. The late Gore Vidal used it as background for his novel "Williwaw". As he depicted it, the homosexual acts all were consensual--certainly his were!--however it was alleged at the time by other servicemen and especially their mothers back home that the strong preyed on the weak with gang rapes as happen in a prison setting.
Amanda - Your father was not totally honest with you on that one! He didn't have openly gay men serving with him. If they had, they would have received a Chapter 15 Discharge. Now, he may have suspected someone was gay, but that someone would never dare let it be known to the straights that he is gay. Big difference in what he is telling you. You see, back in the day if a man was caught staring at another guy undressed with googly eyes, he would be lucky to make it to the hospital emergency room. That is how it was back then. And in a combat situation, it may get worse for the individual. And there was no sister in arms fighting side by side in the foxholes that I know of with weapons during Vietnam or Korea Conflicts.
And if you think there is not a morale problem give it time. Already there has been attack on gays and morale has definitely been hurt. They were having a massive problems with getting recruits because of the fighting in Afghanistan. By pushing the envelope (like in the picture above) the made the situation worse. Everyone knows it is a loss cause but the brass at the top won't dare admit it to the politicians, for fear of losing their careers. Lets face it, we pull out and the Taliban take it all back. All that valuable blood and treasure we have lost and going to lose will have been for nothing. Irregardless, whether they were straight or gay, we can never get them back. Whatever the Defense Department told the public about repealing the old policy it was freaking lie! They are ordered to shut their mouths and obey that is how it is in the military. That fact has already been leaking out slowly.
One thing to think about: Even when DADT was in place, it wasn't always used/implemented in the way it was supposed to. It depended on the situation, and the people involved.
At my 18 year point (back in 2001), for personal reasons, I told the command at the submarine I was stationed on that I was gay, and under DADT requested to be discharged.
As per the DADT policy, I was immediately (I mean within an hour) kicked off my submarine, and sent to legal to be processed for discharge. And so I started the discharge process.
About a week into this process, at the direction of SUBPAC, I had a series of interviews (Command Masterchiefs, a Captain in charge of Manning for Pacific Fleet, and the Chief of Staff for SUBPAC (that would be the Chief of Staff for the Commanding Officer of Submarine Forces, Pacific Fleet). In the end, I was offered the option of continuing the discharge or being transferred to a new submarine and finishing out my time till retirement
Ultimately, all the paperwork that had been started for my discharge was "disappeared" and I was transferred off of my old submarine (with PCS (permanent change of station) orders) and to a new submarine to finish out my time to retirement (2 years). (As a side note, everyone on my old submarine knew why I was no longer there (there are no secrets on submarines) and the CO, XO and COB (Chief of the Boat/Command Master Chief) of my new boat knew why I was transferred there).
I was told by the Chief of Staff that I was not the first person to go through this and I would not be the last.
The "policy" was enforced, or not, based on a lot of factors. People who hadn't been in very long were fully processed and discharged. Many more senior people, whom they had a vested interest in, were quiety transferred somewhere else and allowed to finish out their time (me, till retirement, some, till their next reenlistment came up at which point they were let out).
Even under the policy, the "needs" of the military were taken into account where this policy was concerned) and was not a cut and dried policy.
But there are, occasionally, aggressive heterosexuals who are a danger to younger enlisted females if they are maneuvered to the wrong situation.
It's not a problem exclusive to homosexuals--there are far more instances of rape on women than gays.
The problem is exclusive to ANYONE who doesn't understand the words 'keep your hands to yourself' and doesn't understand the concept of 'discipline'!
I wasn't there, so I wouldn't know. As Dad is no longer around for me to discuss things with him (I REALLY miss him) I honestly wouldn't know, but his general view on gays was acceptance and tolerance, and he was the first one to point out to me that people are people, no matter their color, race or orientation, the first time I came back from school (Catholic private school) and told Dad that Father McFadden said gays were all going to hell. Dad was a devout Irish Catholic but this was one of the things he didn't agree with.
And while there wren't any women fighting in Nam or Korea, there were plenty of nurses, and innocent civilians that our military were trying to protect from hostile forces (apparently that's how Dad and Mom met, Dad saved her life.) Mom didn't talk about it much since apparently the war was the reason why she couldn't have kids and why they adopted me internationally years later) but Dad says they weren't really worried about gender or race when they were being fired at, it was all about doing whatever you had to to make sure you made it out and protected the civilians you were trying to save.
The reference to 'sisters-in-arms' is in deference to today's conflicts.
Miranda Leitsinger, you do not deserve to have a career as a reporter because you write what you want without doing any true research. The only place where you can get the real picture is talking with in service military personel and they will not talk to anyone for fear of reprisal, unless of course they are homosexuals then they speak out in the open because they know nothing can be done about it. I know of several young men that have said when their enlistment is up they are leaving the service for this very reason. I also know several young men who have said they will not join the military because of this reason. You do not know what you are talking about and you are spinning your story to fit your own beliefs.
The results stated in this article were the results from a blind survey put out by the military itself. If you want to blame someone, you cant blame the reporter for just rehashing what the military's survey itself says...blame the military.
Good, we don't want them. We need people who can treat their fellow servicemembers as servicemembers first, all other labels last.
Aim High.
Earth to Amanda...Earth to Amanda: "Aggressive heterosexuals"? Normal young men are somewhat aggressive, those whose business is war especially. That is only natural. What is unnatural is shoving women in places where they don't belong because the military draft is believed to be politically unpopular. [It isn't. What is unpopular in this peace loving nation is wars of choice.]
I believe the survey was conducted by, in effect, the Gay Studies department at UCLA--not exactly an unbiased source.
Then you have no complaints about these so-called "aggressive homosexuals", because its only natural.
They are afraid of gays because of those charming bible stories they learned as children. You know the one where the roving band of homosexual rapists terrorize a small town? Never in any place, at any time, has anyone ever heard of a roving band of homosexual rapists, except in that one story....but reality doesn't stand a chance against imaginary sex and violence like that. Burned into the brains of generations of impressionable children...as if it were factual.
Now they are just afraid of gays, but they don't really know why and it comes out as hate and anger...as all fear does.
Naturally queer? No, queerly natural. It's natural to be queer. Then why do they call it queer? How queer that some think it's natural. I once knew this comedy magician who billed himself as "The Original Unnatural Act".
Here's a story that went around the Jewish community maybe forty years ago:
College student calls up his indulgent father..
Father: How ya doin', son? Such a pleasure I should hear from you!
Son: Dad, I'm having...I'm having a problem. It's--
Father: What's da matter? Ya flunkin' out of Harvard? Don't vorry! I'll send ya to Yale.
Son: No, Dad. My grades are fine. It's--
Father: So, what is it? Ya cracked up da Ferrari? It's OK. I'll buy ya a Corvette.
Son: No, Dad. The car is fine. It's...well...I think I'm becoming...a homosexual.
(Long pause)
Father: Try it for two veeks. If ya like it, I'll buy ya Boystown.
Except now, billionaires with queer sons, or who are queer themselves, don't buy Boystown. They buy State legislators, or Governors.
You do realize queer was an insult that the homosexuality community turned on its head to piss off the insulters, right?
Considering homosexuality is completely natural, you have no argument.
It certainly isn't found among mammals.
Some of the ancient Greek city-states featured ritual pedophilia but even there it was never the sole form of sexual expression for any group in that society. The men also married (with women), fathered children.
Other societies around that time, most notably the Jewish, abhorred it. Their unequivocal disapproval was adopted by that offshoot sect: the Christians. The Romans also regarded homosexuality as depravity. [See the commentator Suetonius' account of the life of Emperor Nero.]
You have heard that adolescent and younger boys have adopted "gay" as a term for anything bad, stupid, or uncool, right?
Its documented in over 1500 species, including many mammals (primates feature largely).
So? Seriously, what does that have to do with anything?
Of course. Words will always be adapted outside their original intended meaning. You're talking about the same group of people (age group) that thought "fly" and "dope" meant "cool". And that dork means anything other than "penis".
Hijacking words is a game two can play at, is the point. My favorite has always been "fairy". Let them turn that on its head!
That bushwa about lesbian lizards has been around for ages but I have never heard of any primates being exclusively homosexual. Observers see what they want to see in animal research. Someone once told me about chimps "showing the buttocks" as a gesture of submission.
Already been done. Or did you think that homosexual men dress up in pixie wings and glitter just because they like it? Some may, but most do it to mock bigots.
Almost no species is exclusively homosexual. In the same vein, these observed species are not exclusively heterosexual.
Can you prove the observers did not see homosexual sex occurring?
Pardon me, sir. I believe your wings are showing.
A partial list of animals who display homosexual behavior:
Mammals
Birds
Fish
Reptiles
Amphibians
Insects and other invertebrates
Yes, yes, we know you aren't very mature, now do you intend to deal with the statements made?
Can't deal with any "statement" that the stag beetle, Cuban lizard [viva Fidel!] and various species of fish have gay sex inasmuch as these are oviparous animals which don't have heterosexual behavior, either. Clearly we have a different definition of "behavior".
As I suspected, these homopos under multiple screen names are all one person.
And still you cannot help but resort to personal attacks when you have nothing to stand on.
Can you "deal" with the number of birds and mammals on the list (which isn't even the full list)?
Can you "deal" with the fact that your position gets more and more unstable the more you post defending ti?
I really don't understand how someone can't know that homosexual orientation is as normal as heterosexual...both are normally seen in every culture, in every area, in every time. One just isn't as common as the other....like being left handed isn't as common as being right handed...but no less normal.
Homosexual behavior is normal among hundreds of species. Those who mate for life (like penguins) have been known to mate with same sex partners. Anyone claiming it isn't normal is just advertising their own lack of knowledge and understanding...and making themselves look uneducated, bigoted and not terribly bright.
Which is usually also why they resort to child-like insults, tantrums, and misrepresentations.
NotKidding,
"I really don't understand how someone can't know that homosexual orientation is as normal as heterosexual..."
Can't know? I think you meant to say "won't know". I think Nungman is determined not to know it no matter what.
Show me clear evidence of a queer orca. I never saw one though I have been right among the resident pods multiple times in the Johnstone Strait. As for fish, reptiles, insects, it's so absurd there's nothing to say. These creatures don't have sex for pleasure, don't mate at all if it's fish, so you can hissy fit from now to doomsday. Queer is queer.
because you didn't see it, then it didn't happen and those people that spend their lives studying and watching them are "just making it up to push an agenda", right?
(shakes head slowly at the stupidity)
Sorry bub, they don't make that list unless they've had the evidence peer reviewed in the scientific community.
You're wrong! Enjoy the revelation.
You mean queer reviewed, don't you?
Gays may have convinced themselves this stuff is true. More likely they hope it's true. I don't see any cites to scientific journals documenting homosexual stag beetles. [They don't go "stag" all the time.]
If it means all these gay males will stop making shrinks rich in an attempt to "cure" their homosexuality as has been going on since Freud put up his shingle in old Vienna, let them believe it.
Nungman,
"If it means all these gay males will stop making shrinks rich in an attempt to "cure" their homosexuality as has been going on since Freud put up his shingle in old Vienna, let them believe it."
I guess you haven't heard the news. Shrinks no longer try to "cure" homosexuality. They woke up to the realization a long time ago that there is nothing to "cure" because homosexuals are not sick to begin with. When will you wake up to reality?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
Medical insurance won't pay for it but homosexuals rich enough to fund it themselves or through private "sponsorship" still try to acquire some mental skill--trick, really--so as to call themselves straight or at least function as heterosexual long enough to father a child in the natural way.
Among males in analysis homosexuals seeking a cure remain the largest group. Is this curing the well?
You demand citations as proof of our claims -- so now you can cite some proof for your own bull@!$%#.
Oh, that's right: no such proof exists. Except in the encyclopedia of your ass.
Well...aren't you just the little energizer bunny of laughable remarks?
This is all the proof needed that this is just puerile trolling. No amount of rational discourse will have any effect on someone so wedded to their own ignorance.
You really are a child, aren't you?
Sorry bud, science and evidence disagree with your idiocy.
And of course, the "gay cure" was proven completely wrong.
Try and support your idiocy with evidence sometime, eh child?
How odd that all this beastly buggery was observed only after the rise of the modern gay lib movement though for centuries before, all over the world scientists have studied the mating habits of the higher animals, and of fish and fowl the better to breed them for food.
The reason of course is that these "observations" are subjective and arrived at by inductive (backwards) reasoning. To start with the conclusion, then gather "evidence" to support it does not yield a valid answer. They are anecdotal, like a magazine article, and lack scientific rigor.
Two male penguins--out of many thousands at a location--bond apparently for life. This means they're gay? Or perhaps one has a defect in its sensory organs--sight, smell, touch--and can't distinguish sex. We'll know for sure when penguins write love poetry. ["To my beloved Chilly Willy..." by Charles Chinstrap]
I hardly think that lengthy book allegedly cataloging all that gay behavior in animals was what convinced the Texas court to strike down the sodomy laws. These were found unconstitutional in many States on the grounds of privacy--decisions i agree with for the same reason I would oppose laws on rape within the marriage. The police power of state has no business in people's bedrooms.
But a military barracks or a warship is not a private home, coming back on topic. As Gen. Colin Powell so convincingly stated in opposing Don't Ask Don't Tell in the nineties, "We tell you who you're going to sleep with". The military is a hierarchy not a democracy. You can't just move out if someone's bedroom behavior makes you uncomfortable. You can't even go sleep on the couch.
1920s is the "modern gay lib movement"? Still pulling data from the vast crevasses of your ass?
Single non-repeatable instances don't constitute a scientific normality; the data that shows animal sexuality is repeatable. Try again.
An individual barracks room is private, actually, at least when it is not under GO1. A warship is under GO1 most of the time. Your statements are severely lacking in background knowledge.
It was not observed "only after the rise of the modern gay lib movement;" scientists have been studying the sexual behavior of animals for a number of years.
And you still have no proof of anything you say.
You should have stopped at "I hardly think..." because it's clear that that is the truth.
WRONG. The only case that was brought to the Supreme Court was the case in Texas, and when the court struck down that law, the ruling was broadly written so that similar laws in EVERY state were invalidated.
Time for you to go to civics class, as well as history classes.
The fact remains that--at least for the record--the majority in the Lawrence decision based its opinion on the right to privacy first enunciated in Griswold v Connecticut or in one instance on a right to due process (Justice O'Connor), not on any supposition that homosexual acts are "normal" despite the amicus brief by a national gay group that it do so.
The lower court in Texas as I stated did not deem homosexual acts "normal" despite reversing the convictions on Constitutional grounds.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy also made the decision a narrow one, correctly anticipating that such groups would try to use it to promote same sex marriage or homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces :
When was this widespread homosexuality among mammals, birds, insects and fish first recorded in the scientific literature?
And you still think your bigotry will survive the Supreme Court, the ultimate authority on Constitutionality?
Wow, just wow.
It was studied actively as far back as the 1920s. Weren't you listening? Many of the researchers held off for fear of being made outcasts in the same vein as Galileo vs the Church. In the end, reality wins over bigoted death-grips on outdated stupidity.
Right. A Great Truth known to a few illuminati but suppressed by the Forces of Darkness. Sounds like a story that could run for years off-Broadway!
No court, the US Supreme Court not excepted, ever has ruled that homosexuality is normal. The right to privacy was Constitutional grounds for striking down the laws on "deviate sexual intercourse".
And now there are graver, nmore pressing news to follow, sorry to note.
Seriously man, I'm pretty sure what you're smoking is illegal in all 50 states.
Of course not. Normal is a subjective identifier that serves zero purpose in this discussion, or any discussion. It is defined by the majority. But guess what? We're a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Its not "majority rules", there's allowable "tyranny of the majority".
Normal don't mean @!$%#.
Courts make determinations of "legal" not determinations of "normal"....the AMA, APA, etc have that honor...and they have all ruled that homosexuality IS normal.
They've also discussed putting YOUR abnormal condition into the latest edition of the DSM...
Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.
The USA is not a pure democracy. We have the Separation of Powers in three branches of government including an independent judiciary not under the control of the Executive or the Congress. The price we pay for this is that advocates of an unpopular cause, like redefining marriage to same sex unions, can go judge shopping to find an interventionist judge whose ruling can ignore, even thwart the will of the majority for a time.
There are courts of appeal on up to the Supreme Court, however and ultimately Constitutional amendments to enshrine the will of the States.
In the Lawrence case, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund did file an amicus brief in essence attempting to show that homosexuality is normal. The resulting Opinions made no reference to such a proposition, neither the Majority nor the two Dissents.
Is incest normal? Can you shag your daughter if she goes along with it? Can you have carnal knowledge of a cadaver? These things all are illegal. Accordingly, the state may regulate, even forbid certain private behavior.
It's your story that knowledge of homosexuality in lower animals was somehow suppressed for three quarters of a century.
It was the late Norman Mailer who said it best: "When you want it from behind, all you can do is run".
Run, feygele. Run.
There already is a term for my "condition". It's called Lack of Political Correctness, or "LPC".
Grim fanatics like you, Not, were on staff at the notorious Serbsky Institute in the old Soviet Union. Persons who failed to endorse the (Communist) Party Line were diagnosed as "politically insane" and locked up there. I suppose they'd have to lock up ninety percent of the population today!
The highly politicized American Psychiatric Institute is no body to dictate what is normal and what is a sickness. Must be half its members are twisted, Hannibal Lecter types themselves. And that's just the women!
Still you use the erroneous terminology of "normal". I see you are incapable of learning.
The knowledge has existed for a long time, even if it was only recently published and receiving attention. It was suppressed by the homophobic fools such as yourself who seek to wallow in their own ignorance.
Bury your head, child, bury away.
I'm sorry to break your little fantasy world, but neither are you, kiddo. Homosexuality is completely natural and causes no harm. The only justification you have for your bigotry is your own insecurity.
It's not a democracy at all. It's a constitutional republic.
Seriously? You honestly don't know how this country is governed? The will of the majority is MEANINGLESS. Even in our voting for president, it is not the majority who decides, but the electoral college....specifically because the founders knew the majority could not be trusted to make sound decisions. We have a constitution that guards against majority rule. We have a Bill of Rights that is designed specifically to protect individuals and minorities from the tyranny of mob rule.
So it doesn't matter what "the majority" wants, if a law is unconstitutional, it must be struck down at challenge. Even if all the judges want the law. Which is why WBC can legally picket military funerals and you can't have separate laws for blacks, women or gays.
Of course not. That's not their purvue. They are only required to rule on the legality of the "homosexual conduct" laws.....and they were ruled unconstitutional because they treated homosexuals differently than they treated heterosexuals who engaged in the same actions.
Here we go....you left off bestiality, polygamy and sex with inanimate objects. Saving those for later? Whenever someone cannot discuss the subject of gay rights without bringing in a lot of unrelated crap to bolster their position, it's clear they've lost their argument. Sticking to the actual subject....normal, natural human sexuality encompasses a range of orientations from heterosexual to homosexual. That's just the plain truth.
The state may prohibit any behavior that causes harm or isn't consensual. Homosexual sex between consenting adults, just like heterosexual sex between consenting adults, causes no harm and isn't any business of the state...or of you.
In the past researchers who had a mindset closer to yours would be reluctant to disclose that what they had already decided was "abnormal" was actually natural and normal in the animal kingdom. If it was discussed at all (and it was) it was referred to in derogatory terms, reflecting the cultural biases of the researchers....not the obvious fact that homosexuality is a natural and normal expression in most, if not all, sexual species.
http://www.echonyc.com/~stone/Features/BioExEx3.html
Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, who studies homosexual behavior in Japanese macaques, is editing a new book on homosexual behavior in animals, to be published by Cambridge University Press. This kind of behavior among animals has been observed by scientists as far back as the 1700's, but Mr. Vasey said one reason there had been few books on the topic was that ''people don't want to do the research because they don't want to have suspicions raised about their sexuality.''
Actually, the opposite is true. You are trying to be politically "correct"...you just have very different politics than the mainstream. The fact that you are clinging so desperately to your prejudices and bigotry in the face of overwhelming factual evidence that you are completely wrong...shows that your opinions are based entirely on what you wish was correct...and not what actually is.
They are exactly the right body to dictate that. EVERY organization dealing with mental health has said that homosexuality is normal. So are they all biased? Every scientist, every researcher, every scholar, every expert is wrong...after decades of study and research...but you are right....because you THINK you are?
Impressive ego...too bad your intellect can't keep up.
Psychiatry/Clinical Psychology is a relatively new medical discipline with a historically high proportion of women and homosexuals in it. I try without success to imagine raucous demonstrations or speeches by members remaining anonymous at meetings of the Rheumatologists Association. Before 1973, homosexuality was classified as a form of mental illness. Now the move is on to label those who disapprove of homosexual conduct as mentally ill. This would be Thoughtcrime as in the novel 1984.
Speaking of Orwell, he didn't much care for the homosexuals, either. Called them "pansies". Today, gay friendliness is found mostly on the political Left. It was not always so. The traditional Left regarded homosexuality as an expression of power by a wealthy elite--Oscar Wilde's repeated sexual exploitation of working class boys, then claiming at his trial he was "civilizing the community".
Howard Fast that grateful recipient of the Stalin Prize depicted the Roman aristocrat Crassus as a predatory homosexual, sexual inversion standing in as a metaphor for perverted morality in his novel Spartacus. This view was picked up by Trotskyite movie director Stanley Kubrick in the highly successful 1960 film version with Laurence Olivier as Crassus having the hots for a slave boy played by the much younger Tony Curtis.
Views of homosexuality clearly owe far more to shifting political currents that to any new discoveries in science. Be on your guard. The wind could shift again.
Sodomy harmless? Not in an age of hepatitis C and B and the only disease that is incurable and communicable Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. It is deadly dangerous to let some man put his penis where it doesn't belong.
Since the State sodomy laws that were struck down by the Supreme Court in Lawrence--those few still on the books--applied to mixed couples, even married couples, the Court's decision could hardly have been all about equal rights for gays. Like Clarence Thomas in his separate Dissent, I don't approve of sodomy but making it illegal is not the answer [He felt the Texas legislature should on its own repeal the law.].
Just curious, when was the last time the Electoral College went rogue and defied the popular vote?
There is a constant, low level agitation to abolish the College and go to a national popular vote. It is opposed by small States like Vermont (3 electoral votes) which foresee that were it not for those three votes they never would see a Presidential candidate in their State.
Considering none of those issues are relegated solely to sodomic activities, you're pissing in the wind that's blowing in your face again.
I'd say it owes more to human beings learning to grow up and not be raging idiots.
better loosen up that tinfoil hat, it is clearly cutting off the circulation to your brain
I believe the ironic tone of that statement was clear enough, even if it's over your head like a circus tent.
When science and politics get mixed up the result is bad politics and worse science.
Nungman:
"When science and politics get mixed up the result is bad politics and worse science."
You made a common mistake in this sentence. You said "Science" when you should have said "Religion."
religion and politics has long been proven to be a toxic mixture for all freedom and reason
Unfortunately for ones such as him, the two are inseparable.
In other breaking news...it's cold in Nome in January.
So what happens when your foxhole brother decides that he is in love with you? Do you get to beat him up?
@ Slimyone
Depends if you're both into that sort of rough trade I guess. As long as you both keep the ultimate goal of defending our nation in your hearts and minds, I don't care what you and your foxhole bro do with your fists.
Slimyone,
No, what you do is say that you are not interested, and if he persists, tell a superior.
@arnold-1634182 I know that and you know that but that is the problem with gays in the military. The kid from the farm in Iowa doesn't have any idea how to do that. We have to teach our kids how to interact with these open gays.
Wow, Iowa farm boys sound pretty inept. Then again gay marriage is legal in Iowa...
Actually Slimyone, you are talking about an entirely different issue that has nothing to do with gays in the military. Anyone, gay or straight, or otherwise, that continues, (after having been told no), to "hit" on another person is a sexual harasser. Sadly, this is a more general problem that the military has yet to adequately address.
So there are no gays in iowa ? hhmm is that why the iowa farm boys dont know how to handle gays. Me thinks not. Gay people are everywhere. always have been always will be. Get over it, we got serious problems in this country that need to be adressed gay people are not a problem
First off, I commissioned from Iowa. Your ignorance is staggering.
Secondly, the lesson is really @!$%#ing simple: treat them like fellow human beings; @!$%# the labels.
You would think that this would be a non issue - less government in our personal lives = Good.
The right-wing makes an exception where the bedroom is involved. They're absolutely obsessed with sex. I don't know how many times they've brought up the subject of sex with animals on the msnbc forums. Their thought processes are really quite frightening.
In a bad way, I might add. They appear to be sexually repressed, they're ashamed of sex, and they feel a need to make everyone else do things their way.
@ Barry-NJ
There's a lot of areas that the GOP is adamantly pro-Big Government intrusion
Considering the degree to which they work feverishly towards a paranoid police-state blending with a corporate plutocracy, it amazes me that the Republican platform is pro gun-ownership.
But I guess if they can already perform the mental gymnastics necessary to reconcile the antithetical goals of both a non-intrusive government that also prohibits you from same-sex marriage, taking drugs not first mass-marketed by big pharma, or claim to consider the constitution a fixed, literal document (read: opposite of the "living, breathing" document of the DNC-platform) and yet be perfectly contented with warrantless wiretaps, extreme rendition and state-takings from US citizens, and or indefinite detainment and waterboarding of POW's, I guess gun-control is a relatively minor hypocrisy.
/smells like bacon
Omigod......shocker....the entire military DID NOT IMPLODE because gay people can serve openly. Gasp! I nearly fell out of my chair! Of course if LGBT individuals can actually MARRY though, the earth will tilt off of its axis and go plunging headfirst into the sun. I know because God told me so.
ROFL !! eeeekkk !! the sky is falling !!!
ROFL !!!
Hey Go— - Was it God that told you or was it the 'Pat Robertson' type who can magically deduce what God is thinking?
Haha, Former Marine, it just so happens that God loves me....He loves me SO MUCH that He planted thousands of fossils in the ground just to test my faith! And just in case I didn't glean the true messages of hate and bigotry from the Bible as He intended, he spoke to me again through film! It's called Obama 2016....totally changed my life.
well God does sound like a tricky fellow to plant all those fossils ! oh my... LOL
Do you think the Myan calander had it right! This is earth shattering~Maybe we'll all be tossed into space Dec. 22 because of this. Egads!
ERMAGERD!
Whyr milliterr nert ger under ferm der hermers?!
Whyr???
GO is obviously speaking (or typing) with a thoroughly sarcastic tongue in cheek...
And, by that time, gays in the military will be an accepted fact of life and recruits will be too young to remember it being any other way.
Because the military does offer some respite from our economic woes, there will be a greater proportion of our young looking to join.
Since most recruiting officer are older NCOs, and possibly of the previous generation, there may be some "gaydars" working to weed out those who may appear to be gay. That would be sad.
Gays serving in the Armed Forces..
Dam the destruction of yet another pixie stick in the Republican platform...
Funny, one of your tards implemented the policy.
Clinton, yes..... but only because of strident Republican opposition to anything more.... liberating. On your comment, Duh, methinks the Clinton quote about "a lot of brass" applies....
"the Department of Defense issued a 1982 policy (DOD Directive 1332.14) stating that homosexuality was clearly incompatible with military service." Then in 1993, during Clinton's administration, the total ban was LIFTED. Instead of being able to interrogate a service member about their sexual orientation, then discharge them, the DODT regulation was adopted. This was a step forward, a positive step that led to gays being able to serve in the military. Ugh, troll.
Obama only repealed it to pander to the gay community for votes
This is the kind of comment that happens when a person has no historical context.
DADT was implemented by said "tard" as a compromise for pushes by conservatives to dishonorably discharge gay soldiers from the armed forces. In other words, we (the military) are not allowed to ask you what your sexual orientation is BUT if you speak up about it all bets are off.
But since you brought it up, let me ask you this: how fair would that sound to you if whatever group you belong to were the one being relegated to second-class-citizen status?
it even more funny how it takes someone with no apparent clue of reality AND only the will to insult others to make comments like yours.
People don't remember that DADT was supposed to be an improvement over the previous policy, which was that simply being gay made you unfit for duty. If they even suspected that you were gay they could launch an investigation and throw you out of the service. The idea of DADT was just that: The service member wasn't supposed to openly discuss their sexual preferences and the CO's weren't supposed to launch investigations based on hear-say. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way.
This is hardly surprising.
Lo and behold, letting people be who they are, love who they love, no impact to the rest of society.
If anything since they don't have to hide who they are anymore, they can concentrate on the tasks at hand.
We have way too many problems in the world let alone the military to worry about someone's personal choice. People are hungry, homeless, unemployed, dealing with health problems,lack of healthcare, real life problems, etc...let these people live their lives! Life is too short to spend your time being concerned about someone's sexuality. It's time for this country to move on and leave discrimination of any type in the garbage where it belongs!
Actually, it is not a "personal choice."
The rest of your post is enlightened though.
Corona excuse my preference of words. I do not understand what it means to be a "gay man or a lesbian woman" as to whether it is a choice or one is born gay or lesbian but I accept it because that is their life. I did not mean any harm because I do not discriminate against anyone. I am an African American woman, have served 20 years in the US Navy and I know what discrimination first hand feels like. So again, no disrespect was intended...have a good day!
From another servicemember, thanks for your service and your words. It is true that there are far more important things to focus on than someone else's sexuality.
Being homosexual is about as much of a choice as you choosing to be heterosexual.
/Marcus Bachmann may in fact be choosing to be heterosexual, however ^_^
Seriously? No...Really?!
Bull Crap
@ straighttothepoint
I don't know, Marcus seems pretty gay to me
But maybe my gaydar needs an overhaul
No, I think your "gaydar" is working perfectly! Mine puts a laser right on to Reince Prebius! Now that is a gay man who is "choosing" to live a hetero life.
Tim Scott - 1st congressional rep here in SC. Another, "dost protest too much" kind of republican. ugh.
So were you born heterosexual or did you chose it?
... we have observed many people growing up and throughout our adult life ... most were obviously heterosexual and probably never considered an alternative ... not a choice. There were others who were probably homosexual or lesbian from an early age and some knew it ... some did not. In some cases it was fairly obvious and in others no one could have ever suspected ... (For the unenlightened, some gay men are very 'manly, athletic' men ... some lesbians are very 'feminine' ... but like everyone .. each person is unique and not easily labeled, as no one ever should be).
In the 1960's and 1970's, no one in their right mind in the 'bible belt' South openly 'chose' to be gay .. it was an anathema to the society at large ... and from this alone, we deduced that the only 'choice' involved was to admit who one was ....
Each of us .. each human being is two parts ... that with which we are born, and that which we choose .. both matter ... some things we are born with ... it is our opinion that sexual preference is one of these things. Most people who look at the matter rationally, rather than vomiting up some canned opinion they were given by a fundamentalist minister (an almost universally unreliable source of information on any subject, whatsoever) ... seem to share a similar opinion.
The only 'choice', therefore is whether one chooses to be honest with themselves about who they are and what they want ... and how much of their nature they choose to share with others .... for example ... many here today seem eager to share that that they rash, small minded, superstitious and of low intelligence ... nature may have made them this way ... but sharing it with the rest of us was their ... choice ...
From the Department Of Duh. I really, really love that pic, too. It just makes me feel so happy!
Oh yeah, it makes me 'happy' too. But then again I'm not exactly 'normal'!
Old people seem to care too much about sexual orientation.
And possibly young people seem to not care enough about anything, which is why they as a group produce so many duds who can't seem to succeed at much of anything except taking handouts.
A stupid statement, huh Regulator? Yes, it is, but no more stupid than yours.
MY issue is with using the word marriage to define their bond.
gay civil unions
whatever
gay marriage
NEVER!
I have been gay my whole life and always wanted to be able to acknowledge my relationship to others, but the term MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. Civil unions, that include the same benefits is more appropriate.
I love people like you. People who can't accept this change and demand that 'the institution of marriaqe must not be changed to allow this' When the fact is that the definition of the institution of marriage belongs to no one and has changed in a myriad of ways over the centuries.
Which version do you prefer to keep?
the one where men forcibly dragged women home by thier hair? (prehistoric days)
Or the one where marriage was merely a property arraignment between two men over the ownership of one's daughter?
Or the one that allowed the rich and royalty to merely pay thier local Catholic bishop some money to 'dissolve the marriage' by an annulment that defied the rules of the catholic church?
Or the one that said that two races shall not be allowed to marry?
Or the one that said Divorce wasn't legal?
or the one that said divorced people can't remarry anyone except the person they divorced?
Or the one that said that people from two different religions couldn't marry?
Or any one of the thousands of other 'definitions' that existed?
Pick one and justify why other people can't pick thier own definition of marriage.
Jake - I do have to say you're a first.
I've seen Republicans on here claiming to be Democrats.
But you're the first right-winger I've ever seen claiming to be gay.
You get a gold star!
Marriage as a solely civil institute predates most organized religions and their participation.
@ allswell -
that's absurd! Are you trying to say that gov't predates religion here? Because a civil institute is one recognized by gov't and if I'm not mistaken, and I know that I am not, gov'ts evovled FROM religion. The first "laws" that ever were came from tenets by Holy men and tribal similars so try again...
@JennS
Actually, according to historians, originally "marriage" was a private, binding contract between clans/families to form an alliance, thereby increasing the clan's chances for survival in war against rival clans. A "dowry" was given by each clan to "seal the deal". Marriage was contractual, considered a passing of "property" between clans as a symbol of intention to honor the agreement being made. Property took many forms: cattle, land, children, whatever was considered to be of great value at the time. In the United Kingdom, a requirement for a public announcement in a Christian parish (banns of marriage) was not introduced by the Roman Catholic Church until 1215. This set the precident for marriage as is recognized by the Christian community. So religion adopted the term of marriage, it did not create it.
No Jenn
You're not right. Governments didn't evolve from religion. Every civilization has had the concept of marriage. It has always been a contract used to ensure property transfer and political ties. In western civilazation the Catholic church took the 'marriage contract' and turned it into 'holy matrimony'. It solidified their control of the masses. The Church married you, the Church says if you can marry, divorce, that's a lot of very powerful contol.
But even today, any church can perform a 'holy matrimony' service but it's not a marriage unless you have the legal license issued by the government.
Just go read more about other societies. Don't just learn about western societies starting 2000 years ago. The Bible is a good book but it's not the only book.
I was married by a marriage commisioner. There was no church, no prayer, no religion period. Yet my marriage is recognized in all 50 states, by the military, by the IRS, by international law, etc. No religious group is coming to me saying that I'm not married. They're not preventing my wife from having access to me in a medical emergency, nor are they denying benefits should I ever pass away. My heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with religion. Why should religion have anything to do with a homosexual marriage? No religion has the right to force their ideology on another person. Even though our ancestors were Christian or believed in God, they came to the New World to seek relief from religious persecution enacted by the government. Our government today is seeking to allow that same expression of religious freedom to know the light of day, but Conservatives have conveniently forgotton what it means if it doesn't suit THEIR ideology.
So you're like a black person who lobbies for whites-only drinking fountains?
Jake, if civil unions carried the same privileges as marriage, I too wouldn't care what you call it.
Kristofer: you make excellent points.
you've never heard of the "Log Cabin Republicans"?
of course the Republican party is trying to make life very hard for the LCRs.
First off, civil does not mean "government". It means "society". Tribal groups are still their own societies.
Second off:
You're mistaken. Evidence shows that religions evolved from the formation of complex societies that had an increased interdependence requirement (those who were independent, primarily hunter-gather, show a decreased trend of developing gods).
The earliest recorded laws are the Hammurabi Code, which was entirely secular (without religion).
Careful allswell, you're using logic and facts in an ideological discussion with people who believe the world is only 5000 years old, that dinosaurs and men walked side by side, and that an omnipotent being is responsible for forming us out of clay and allowing us to reproduce by incesteous coupling that resulted in lifespans of hundreds of years (seriously, no genetic defects?).
I once asked an Aunt if god created the heavens and the earth, who created god? She answered, "He created himself". There can be no reasoning with those who have been bitten by the faith bug. In their eyes, god is the ultimate trump card and nanna-nanna-boo-boo your a stupid head who's gonna burn in hell if you don't believe so.
I wonder how many of the complaints are covered up due to higher-ups not wanting to rock the boat?
Do they separate queers from the straights, or is it a free-for-all?
Maybe they should but all men and women together for training now, since sexuality does not matter?
@ Anonumous001 (maybe you meant "anonymous" instead?)
"I wonder how many of the complaints are covered up due to higher-ups not wanting to rock the boat?"
Answer: "They also reached out to 553 of the nearly 1,200 generals and admirals who signed a 2009 letter saying the repeal would undermine the military and eventually got interviews with 13 officers."
"Maybe they should but (put?) all men and women together for training now, since sexuality does not matter?"
Answer: Training is already co-ed, which may be why you have so many cases of rapes and abuses in the military. Although these are probably not "legitimate rapes", right?
well, since the only ones that would be complaining are the self-righteous, idiotic, brainless jerks with their own heads stuck up their arses...
I actually meant "Anonumous" and it was not a typo but intentional.
As far as queers with straights, I had a son in the Air Force and a daughter in the Marines who both said that ther are gays galore, but that they generally don't cause problems. However, both said that they were "approached" and my son said that they gays would hang near the common showers for too long in those locations where they had shared facilities.
What is the answer, to put them all in their own private rooms to keep the depravity at bay?
And, they do not allow co-ed bay dorms based on what my kids told me.
Anonumous001 - Maybe someone could teach you how to spell?
Were your kids ever "approached" by members of the opposite sex?
OMG!
Anonumous001 - you can start by no longer using the term 'queers'. They are 'gay'. You show just how biased or uninformed you are when you use that instead of just writing 'gays'.
How often do straight men in the military inappropriately approach military women? ALL THE TIME.
How often do straight men in the military inappropriately approach civilian women? ALL THE TIME.
It's got less to do with gay's and thier 'depravity' as you call it and more to do with uncontrolled idiots who can't figure out what's appropriate or not. let's fix that problem for ALL service members and guess what? You'll fix the so called 'gays hanging around near the showers' problem.
And by the way - the same UCMJ rules apply to gays as they do to straights, so ANYONE exhibiting inappropriate sexualized behavior in or near common showering/bathroom facilities should be getting reported.
I do enjoy the irony of a person using a depiction of Jesus arguing FOR discrimination
Yes, exactly what I was thinking! Not to mention that he refers to gay people as "queers". Hypocrisy at it best!
I don't know, if these people are what's conventional I don't mind being 'queer', 'abnormal', or 'freak'. I'm having a hard time deciding which one I like best. Which one would you say is the farthest from the 'normal' 'christian' viewpoint of bigotry, hate, and ignorance? Whichever is that's what I am.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. The right wing's consistent strategy of making us fearful did not work in this case. They are good at it though; fear of gays, of Muslims, of immigrants, of the poor, of black people. Hang on your guns because the government is coming for them. Voter ID laws because of a non existent problem. It is a right wing staple but that is the only way the crazy right wing keeps power. They are great at making people angry and voting for them (well, actually against the others) but when it comes to governing, they are bankrupt.
What! Most military people didn't go insane or turn into brain eating zombies when gay people could serve openly among them? This can't be right!
No, you've got your propaganda mixed up. Allowing gays to marry or be in the military will turn the sexually-malleable within the GOP towards (further) gay-antics.
Long-standing straight marriages amongst the devoutly religious politicians will be over in minutes as they decide rather to pursue relationships with their pool boys and male interns
Devoutly religious soldiers and chaplains will turn into athiestic-hedonists and enjoy forbidden fruits ^_^
Instead, let them enjoy their wide-stance men's room tap-dance at airports, their kinky sex clubs in Hollywood and their TOTALLY NOT GAY impromptu trips for doggy accoutrements
Hey! What's wrong with kinky sex clubs?
@ BJ-3577476
Ain't nothing wrong with kinky sex clubs (boy I would love to know where to put the hyphen on that..."kinky-sex clubs?", "kinky sex-clubs?", "kinky-sex-clubs"...seems to change meaning each time)
The GOP is displaying the signs of a delusional, bipolar-schizophrenic with an acute case of narcissism
The hypocrisy is the real threat. They want to be able to lead these secret lives with kinky sex dungeons and discreet airport mensroom rendezvous but take it away from everyone else. People like Larry Craig and Mark Sanford took the "holier than thou" platform to placate to the numbskulls in the social conservative mental-ward while they demonized people like former President Clinton over his affair with his intern(s).
People like them want to take our rights away, they feel that government needs to intervene in personal lives...likely because they feel that they can't stop themselves and need to place significant roadblocks in their way, and thus everyone else because of the personal shame they feel.
In other news the sale of petroleum jelly has skyrocketed on military bases.
That and AA batteries
Hey, that's economic stimulation. :-)
Now if we could just the the GOP to pass the jobs bill.
Real: Maybe we should send the GOP some petroleum jelly and AA batteries????
Yes, and someone is going to put sand in the vaseline come November.
Nor would there be any negative impact of allowing gays to get married. It's all right wing hype.
MY issue is with using the word marriage to define their bond.
gay civil unions
whatever
gay marriage
NEVER!
I have been gay my whole life and always wanted to be able to acknowledge my relationship to others, but the term MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. Civil unions, that include the same benefits is more appropriate.
Thank you Jake - I agree. And maybe while they are at it, all "marriages" should be taken out of legal terms, period - gay straight or otherwise! Marraige is a RELIGOUS union and should be left to the churches and out of the gov't ! ALL of us should have a civil union or legal partnership.
(not really on topic but hey - it needs to be said :-)
come on folks - what's your problem with using the word marriage?
There's been a thousand (at least) definitions to what marriage is since Christ's time and probably thousands more before his time.
And religion does not own the word marriage anymore than Government owns the word 'God'.
Jenn--Historically, the first written record of "marriage" is in the Code of Hammurabi (c. 3500 years ago). That was a code of civil, not religious, laws. Marriage may be a religious rite, but it is not legal unless blessed by the state. Recall that you can get married with or without clergy and, if you choose to get married by clergy, that person states, "By the powers invested in me by the state of ______, I now pronounce you husband and wife." In other words, the clergyperson is acting as the agent of the state. Finally, you can't get married without a marriage license issued by the government.
Perhaps to your belief system.
My belief system has sects for the lesbians (Dianics) and for the gays (the Minoan Brotherhood). Our priests and priestesses can marry both according to the wishes of the parties involved--two Dianics or two Minoans can choose to celebrate the Goddess's gift of pleasure only with each other--but then when they go to file that marriage with the government, the government refuses to acknowledge it.
That is a direct violation of our right to practice our religion as we so choose.
The churches actually inserted themselves into marriage in the first place, subverting it from the solely civil ceremony it was.
As a person who lives in a state where marriage - yes, marriage, not civil unions or any other term - is legal between same sex couples, I assure you it does not cause the sky to fall nor cause any harm to "traditional" straight marriages such as my own. Even if "they", gasp, use the same word.
Actually, Jenn, it's a secular civil term, used by local, state and federal governments.
Maybe your church should change the name IT uses if it is that important for your church to differentiate, rather than expect others to change to bow to your will.
Actually, I DON'T care whether they bow to my "will" or not. I am simply suggesting, as an openly gay person here already pointed out, that it would be better if it was just called a "legal union" for any cansulting adults who wish to be know forevermore as partners. This would remove any and all objections the religous groups have and will give everyone what they want.
And say it's a "secular civil term" all you want people, "marriage has been, for many MANY generations a tradition of religion that has been acknowledged by by the gov't for the purposes of taxation and property ownership - they didn't START the idea of two people becoming one, people did. And until more recent times, most people joined based on tenents of their faith; not based on the gov't....
I say again, take the religous component out of it altogether and make the Gov't no longer even borderline religous....
And BTW, I'm an atheist so I am NOT arguing on behalf of a religion - quite the opposite, I say let the religions have their "word", it matters not to anyone who has half a brain, which is why the gov't should rename what is, to more that 75% of the world population, a word (marriage) that refers to a religous union, it and get religion OUT of gov't.
Jake Darnell, don't comment spam. Once is enough.
Jenn ... "marriage" doesn't belong to churches and there's no reason that they should claim a monopoly on it. In fact, they already a have term that is specific to religion ... Holy Matrimony. Why should they get to claim exclusive ownership of two words/phrases?
But, I'm willing to compromise. If the marriage isn't performed in a church, we'll call it "secular marriage."
This gay marriage thing is a red herring. Gays don't want to get married.
Jenn, if you believe marriage should be wholly a religious term, do you also object to the thousands and thousands of marriages that are conducted every year by judges, justices of the peace, and other non-religious people whom the state has given the pwer to marry couples?
Marriages outside of a religious setting or religious officiant are commonplace, yet no one ever thinks they are somehow hurting the idea of religious marriage.
I should also add that if people are not considered officially married by the U.S. government, it has the potential to create havoc when they travel or live abroad. If the country they are in does not recognize "civil union", they may lose the rights to, say, visit a spouse in the hospital or make decisions for an ill spouse who cannot make decisions for himself or hold joint property or any other host of benefits that are granted married couples by way of countries reciprically recognizing marriages by other countries.
As I said before, my marriage is not in the least bit hurt or threatened by gays marrying - nor is my marriage, which was performed in a religious setting by a clergyperson, the slightest bit threatened or lessened by the many, many couples who marry without having religion play any part at all.
You're half right. Marriage is a civil term origianlly dealing with issues of property and assets. But is not religious in origin, nor is it religious now in the civil sense. Marriage is civil and legal contract. Religion is just ceremonial with no legal weight. The religious aspect is matrimony.
Religion does not own the "word," much less marriage itself. religion didn't even become involved with marriage until the 1500's.
Irrelevant and an agrumentum ad populum. In this country, marriage is a civil institution which confers federal benefits and rights. So religion is irrelevant to it!
Marriage probably predates even that.
Then why do they clamor for marriage rights and have already married where gay mariage is legalized?
Jenn appears to be one of those interesting people upon whom facts have absolutely no impact. She's made up her mind, even though what she's saying is unequivocally, provably, demonstrably wrong, and all the actual facts in the world won't sway her. It's seriously fascinating to behold.
Really? Tell me, what are the religious parts of a wedding ceremony performed in a gaudily decorated wedding chapel in Las Vegas officated by someone dressed up as Elvis Presley with two "witnesses" who never saw the couple till 15 minutes before the ceremony????
Tradition doesn't make fact. The fact is, marriage as a secular civil institute pre-dates the forcible inclusion of religion into the matter (around the Dark Ages for Europe).
And if marriage somehow were a religious institution, wouldn't a denial of same-sex marriage be an infringement of religious freedom for the enlightened denominations?
In other words why should the government adopt the views of a bigoted cult like the Mormons or Southern Baptists rather than an enlightened denomination like the Episcopalians? To do so in a manner which restricts religious liberty rather than expands it would be a clear Establishment violation.
ROTFLMAO... An LBGT group which has been lobbying for over a decade to repeal DADT produces their own study stating there are no negative effects.
Sorry but whether or not that is true this is not a group without bias in their study. Sort of like the KKK producing a study on civil rights and Jim Crow.
Where did they get the Editor for MSNBC?
OK .. then. We'll wait for a group to do a credible study that says that dropping DADT has hurt the military. But, I wouldn't hold my breath. Just as with the opponents of marriage equality, the anti-gay military crowd is unable to put forth substantiated proof of its arguments, just fear-mongering.
I don't think it hurts the military just the solders. Are they going to give classes on how to react when you get unwanted advances. Girls learn it from the time they hit puberty but guys (especially young unsophisticated boys) have no idea how to properly rebuff and unwanted suitor. Now when he socks the guy that gets fresh with him is he going to be courtmarshalled because of a situation that the army put him in?
Ummmmmm.......more like the NAACP did the study, and now you're whining that the study wasn't done by the KKK.
But in this study the group advocating in favor of civil rights specifically interviewed the dumb bigots to see if there were any problems with DADT repeal.
So it's ok that men make unwanted advances on women... because they won't fight back?! What is wrong with you?!?
Women also make advances towards men (this is the 21st century, after all). But, according to this logic, those poor guys don't know how to politely say "no, thanks" and they'll hit her, too? Is that the army's fault, as well?
This does not surprise me. It was the same way back when women were allowed into certain specialties within the military.
Same thing with racial integration of the army in the 1950s, except that it took a number of years before the bigots dropped their hysteria.
Precisely!
I'm sure glad there are organizations like "Williams Institute, an independent think tank conducting research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy at the University of California at Los Angeles, School of Law". Oh Yeah, I'm glad!
So the four Marines who went to a gay bar to beat up somebody, anybody gay, well, they have no problem with gays in the military? Recent story. Point is, gays are not always welcome in the military. These are macho guys and not a chance in hell they will every accept a gay next to them. But the press will not discuss it so it must not be real.
Uh, those four Marines were all over the press, or how did you know about it? I read about it on this website to start with:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13681331-four-marines-accused-of-beating-man-in-possible-gay-hate-crime?lite
USA Today, CBS, the Daily Beast all covered it, so what you are complaining about?
And btw, how macho can these Marines be if it took four of them to beat up one guy? I'm not impressed.
Point is, some of those "macho guys" are homosexuals as well, and most of those "macho guys" have already accepted homosexuals beside them, behind them, and caring for them (my friend was a homosexual field medic; the Marine unit he deployed with knew his orientation and didn't give a @!$%# as long as he did his job; he's still friends with most of them).
Not everyone in the military accepts blacks, jews and asians. Yet, we don't ban those groups because of it.
Does anyone really believe that this study was actually conducted? It is nothing more than a study that supposedly supports the Democratic ways! Stated another way, It allows the Democrats to actually take responsibility for something they actually did! HA, HA, LOL! It won't be funny when we have to pay all the health care costs for the LGBTs life style, and have reduced health care for the rest of us in the majority!
Gary--If you don't like the results of a study, deny that the study ever existed. Do you also deny that men have walked on the moon? And what could you possibly mean about health care costs for the LGBT lifestyle? Can you cite any study whatsoever that supports the notion that LGBTs have higher health care costs than others? Oh, that's right. You don't believe in studies.
Our wonderful government SHOULD have REINSTATED all those let go over the policy. Don't just PANDER to the gay vote by doing away with it. Many fine men and women lost their careers over it.
MY issue is with using the word marriage to define their bond.
gay civil unions
whatever
gay marriage
NEVER!
I have been gay my whole life and always wanted to be able to acknowledge my relationship to others, but the term MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. Civil unions, that include the same benefits is more appropriate.
Given previous comments of yours, such as:
I find it hard to believe you are actually gay. If you are, I feel very sorry for you, because you seem to be self-hating in your comments. You might want to get some help.
Jake, you are comment spamming.
Marriage is a legal and civil contract. you don't own the word "marriage."
Civil unions is not marriage nor is it considered the same as marriage and is also a case of separate, but equal, which is unconstitutional.
Just use the terms natrural union and unnatural union.
Or people could use the right terms...
When the Government does it = Marriage
When Religion does it = Holy Matrimony
DNFTT.
I actually meant "Anonumous" and it was not a typo but intentional.
As far as queers with straights, I had a son in the Air Force and a daughter in the Marines who both said that ther are gays galore, but that they generally don't cause problems. However, both said that they were "approached" and my son said that they gays would hang near the common showers for too long in those locations where they had shared facilities.
What is the answer, to put them all in their own private rooms to keep the depravity at bay?
And, they do not allow co-ed bay dorms based on what my kids told me.
That photo is gay! It would be wrong regardless of genders, because one member is in a uniform.
Don't be ridiculous.
Military PDA rules are relaxed during these situations by policy.
While I'm a strong supporter of our current policy....
I look at the picture and want to say.... "Gee guys, get a room will ya?"
And that brings up another subject--double standards.
Why does this photo of two gays wrapped around each other evoke such a strong reaction, but if it were two Victoria's Secret Angels hugging each other or blowing kisses at each other, it's considered ok and might even end up as a pinup on someone's wall?
I asked my hubby that and he couldn't tell me--he looked at me like I'd grown a second head and said "It just does!"
Over the past 10 years, we've seen photographs of soldiers coming home from far too many war zone deployments who were kissing their wives or girlfriends. Do you consider that wrong, too?
Yep. That picture is really high in "yuck" factor.
@Amanda-2017567 the problem with homosexuals is a problem with gays. Lesbians have never been offensive. The number 1 fantasy of men is 2 women together. Two men together is no body's fantasy.
You know how I know you don't have the internet?
^_^