PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality & Morality - Conflict of Terms!?



Pages : [1] 2

mel44
01-28-2009, 03:46 AM
January 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Oregon politician Sam Adams became a symbol of the successful advancement of the homosexual agenda in May of 2008 when he was elected mayor of Portland, Oregon in a landslide victory – making Portland the largest American city to elect an openly homosexual mayor.

Now, however, Adam’s status as one of the most prominent and admired homosexual politicians may have come to an abrupt end, as he has admitted to repeatedly lying about his relationship with an 18-year-old intern.

Adams made the admission in a statement released Monday and a press conference on Tuesday, after evidence proving that his relationship with the young man was sexual in nature was presented to him by representatives of the Willamette Week, a local newspaper.

While rumors about Adams and the former intern, Beau Breedlove, have swirled about since the lead-up to the mayoral race in 2007, both Adams and Breedlove have publicly and repeatedly denied that their relationship was sexual. Instead they have characterized the relationship as one of “mentor” and “mentored.”

Besides the large gap in age between the two (Adams is now 45) and the fact that the relationship was homosexual in nature, the accusations are even more controversial due to the fact that when Adams and Breedlove met, the young man was only 17, making him a minor.

Adams, however, continues to deny that he had sexual relations with Breedlove prior to his 18th birthday, which took place in June of 2005. The sexual relationship, he claims, began several weeks after Breedlove’s birthday.

In an official statement, Adams apologized for lying and for instructing Breedlove to lie. “In the past, I have characterized my relationship with Beau Breedlove as purely non-sexual,” he said. “That is not true. Beau Breedlove and I had a sexual relationship for a few months in the summer of 2005 after he turned 18 years of age.”

Adams said that he should have been honest from the beginning, and said that the reason he was not honest is that he “was afraid that people would believe untrue rumors, being circulated by an undeclared mayoral opponent, that I had broken a law involving sexual relations with a minor.”

However, he admitted, “this is not a good excuse.”

“I apologize to Beau for asking him to lie for me. I apologize to my colleagues for my poor handling of this matter. I apologize to the people of Portland for my dishonesty. I should have been truthful from the beginning.”

Adams, as “one of the leaders of the gay community,” said that he also wanted to apologize to them “for embarrassing them.”

According to OPB news, the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office has confirmed that an independent investigation will be launched into the affair. The investigation will seek to find if the mayor did indeed break the law by engaging in sexual relations with a minor.

Calls for Adams’ resignation began shortly after the news of the scandal broke. Portland’s police union was one of the groups that issued such a call. "The police mantra has always been, if you lie, cheat or steal while on duty or during the course of your duties you should be terminated,” explained Police union president Scott Westerman. “How is this any different? I think he should resign.”

Besides the police union, the Oregonian and the Portland Tribune newspapers have both demanded that Adams step down. In an editorial the Portland Tribune explained, “Adams engaged in incredibly inappropriate actions and then lied about them for 17 months. In doing so, Adams created an irreparable breach in trust with the people who elected him.”

While the mayor has so far said that he does not intend to resign, he has admitted, "If it were no longer in the city's best interests that I stay, yes, I would resign."

mel44
01-28-2009, 03:49 AM
Continued validation that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction that reaches far and wide. No matter how hard you try to validate its normalcy. DADT should not be repealed giving the armed services opportunity to screen for issues that can create damage in our young soldiers.

OIFCOMBATVETNYC
01-28-2009, 04:02 AM
Very interesting article. Good segue to DADT. I came in a time when they did ask you if you were a homosexual and when I was asked (that was my screening process; couple of questions on a sheet of paper; no backdoor checks at all, and put my john hancock to the document); I just said no as did millions of others who served during my time and before, so just wondering how inquiring will cause damage to future soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. If it will be repealed, I figure there wouldnt be a screening process at all or am I missing something here? I know DADT was to appease equal rights for all to serve and eliminate blatant discrimination but if you came out, discovered by an "immoral" act, then there were repercussions. Now if they can be open and serve; well oh well. I dont agree with many things that became policy, so be it. Just pick up a weapon and watch my back while I watch yours. That is all I care about. Just dont sasche while we breaking down doors.

Anyway, there are other threads that debate this sensitive topic.

Also very similar to the Sean Penn movie in which he was nominated

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/27/sean.penn/

mel44
01-28-2009, 05:36 AM
The different scopes of interpretation on homosexuality are, morality (sense of right and wrong), religion (sin), and mental health. DADT also includes good order.
I wanted to discuss mental health.

The argument has been going for many years is it nurture or nature? Were you born there or did you acquire it.
Neither side can be proved so it remains in debate.

I am a huge promoter of REBT (Rational Emotive Behavioral therapy) and Behavior Modification.
We have different forms of addiction. Psychological and physical are the predominant classification. Physical addictions are the addictions that in Lyman's terms means our body has assimilated the substance as part of our body and its function and leaves the body responding to the absence of the substance as if it were going to die. Now some substance such as alcohol or barbiturates can go to the extreme as to cause grand maul seizures and you could die.
The other is the psychological dependence. This is where I believe homosexuality falls. It is an addiction. Anything that is mood altering has the potential for abuse and addiction. Substance, gambling, spending, sex, physical abuse all have the potential to become addicted to. Anything that can alter your mood through the experience.

I believe through many different experiences homosexual desires can be birthed. When acted upon they produce increased desire and an attempt to normalize the behavior.

As with drug abuse there are those that their mental make- up is such that they don’t experience as dramatic dysfunction as others.
AS with drug abuse it likes to incorporate a following. It has to continue to find the extremes to reproduce the euphoric effects.
The normalizing homosexual behavior in my opinion is no different than the legalizing some drugs. The drug in itself is not that damaging but it leads to a lifestyle of harder, more addictive type drugs.

Homosexuality can and does incorporate pedophilia in some cases.

My concern with the acceptance of gay activity in the military by the repealing of the DADT is not so much the unwanted glance in the shower but the incorporating of young men and women into a lifestyle that once experienced may not be a choice but an obligation to justify behavior.
In my mind if people “came out” as drug addicts. Then every young person that experienced drug use would be far more prone to identify with the addiction then the experience. It’s the danger is see in this condition.

Because you have fulfilled your homosexual desires and it feels good does not make it DNA driven. That means it’s psychologically driven. Any mood altering experience repeatedly acted on becomes habit and desire.

This goes for any sexual relationship. Many of them are psychologically damaging. The number one issue causing problems with recruits is relationship issues.

CrustySMSgt
01-28-2009, 05:56 AM
Continued validation that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction that reaches far and wide. No matter how hard you try to validate its normalcy. DADT should not be repealed giving the armed services opportunity to screen for issues that can create damage in our young soldiers.

WTF does one have to do with the other? Seems there have been a whole lot of recent incidents involving heterosexual indiscressions... so how does this story make a case that one precludes the other? :confused:

mel44
01-28-2009, 06:17 AM
WTF does one have to do with the other? Seems there have been a whole lot of recent incidents involving heterosexual indiscressions... so how does this story make a case that one precludes the other? :confused:

ok elabortate a little -

Measure Man
01-28-2009, 06:21 AM
ok elabortate a little -

I think his point is that he could easily post examples of heterosexual indiscretions...and it wouldn't prove the dysfunction of being heterosexual any more than you posting a homosexual indiscretion proves the dysfunction of being homosexual.

mel44
01-28-2009, 06:28 AM
WTF does one have to do with the other? Seems there have been a whole lot of recent incidents involving heterosexual indiscressions... so how does this story make a case that one precludes the other? :confused:

I agree! The hetro sexual incidents are as damaging and that is where the correlation should be seen. It continues to be a prejudice issue and a equality demand. Its neither. It is no different than older adults have indulged in little kids or teenagers. Rapist get their experience from the control and the violence.

Now let me validate. There are many older people that may have a tendency to desire teenagers but don't act on it just like some people have a desire to use opiates but don't act on it. urges that are not acted on Will eventually go away. Cease to be urges.

The reason for the posting the article is to demonstrate that even high ranking, public figures can not control addiction. it eventually gets out of control and leads to indulging in spite of negative consequences. Just like chemical addiction, sexual addiction, gambling addiction, spending addiction.

If introduced to young soldiers that do not have their sexuality set by experience and/or family values, they will be vulnerable to the seduction of the experience and the lifestyle that is not healthy.

OIFCOMBATVETNYC
01-28-2009, 06:33 AM
WTF does one have to do with the other? Seems there have been a whole lot of recent incidents involving heterosexual indiscressions... so how does this story make a case that one precludes the other? :confused:


Exactly. Homosexuals were sneaking in before DADT and its not like we going to have flaming new wardrobe and its raining men playing over the barracks radio.

One doesnt go with the other. The military debate was the moral fabric and didnt care if you were born a homosexual or learned it at the blue oyster club. There are heterosexuals that are sexual deviants, addicts, pedophiles, etc, etc. that exist in our military communities.

I was introduced to all kinds of stuff in the South Bronx but made the proper choices nevertheless. At least in a controlled environment such as the military; the weak minded have better guidance and caring after than anything else. I lived in the dorms in college and was exposed to a whole bunch of immoral stuff. Point is that the younger generation is exposed to homosexuality in many facets of life and if initally exposed to it in a military environment; I dont think its going to cause a major problem. Its like the white soldiers who saw a black for the first time joining the service. Can that experience alone cause a debate on racism, prejudice upbringing and all other ludicrous ideas?

Governor Eliot Spitzer on his prostitute addiction? So I dont get it. President Clinton and the BJ. Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas with the pubic hair on the coke can. High ranking officials showing lapses of judgements when it came to sex, infidelity or common sense. But they were heterosexuals. All the closet gays actors in the 50s coming out. Rock Hudson dying of aids. New news article, old story.

Anyway, I am curious on the replacement to the M4 lol

Your_Name_Here
01-28-2009, 11:28 AM
Continued validation that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction that reaches far and wide. No matter how hard you try to validate its normalcy. DADT should not be repealed giving the armed services opportunity to screen for issues that can create damage in our young soldiers.

If--IF--there was any sexual activity involving a minor, then A) there would definitely be something the Mayor "needed" to hide and B) upon discovery of said activity, he would need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Having said that...

Um, NO--this didn't validate sh!t. May be that because he knew the backlash public figures seem to get over gay relationships, this would bring him a lot of trouble. Gay relationships between consenting adults should be nothing to hide, and it is sad that he felt the need to cover it up, which is what brought this story about--NOT any perceived dysfunction.

And your Chicken-Little-like fears for what "might" happen if/when DADT is lifted are indeed hysterical. I'm just not sure if that's in a good way or bad way.:cool:

mel44
01-28-2009, 11:40 AM
If--IF--there was any sexual activity involving a minor, then A) there would definitely be something the Mayor "needed" to hide and B) upon discovery of said activity, he would need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Having said that...

Um, NO--this didn't validate sh!t. May be that because he knew the backlash public figures seem to get over gay relationships, this would bring him a lot of trouble. Gay relationships between consenting adults should be nothing to hide, and it is sad that he felt the need to cover it up, which is what brought this story about--NOT any perceived dysfunction.

And your Chicken-Little-like fears for what "might" happen if/when DADT is lifted are indeed hysterical. I'm just not sure if that's in a good way or bad way.:cool:

In your world maybe but in the mental health world a 45 year old man having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy, asking him to be dishonest in the attempt to hide the act, demonstrates criminal behavior and activity. I worked the area of Minneapolis that the "of age" boys worked for drugs and a place to live. I've seen the devastation of the so called homosexual lifestyle. These weren't nasty, dirty old men, that solicited these boys. The were business men in 3 piece suits. 17,18 these are kids but again the desire for sexual euphoria, when dysfunctional, is much like drug use. It is constant and progressive. The need to reach the euphoric high seems to always lead to young, inexperienced boys.

Measure Man
01-28-2009, 11:50 AM
:rolleyes:
In your world maybe but in the mental health world a 45 year old man having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy, asking him to be dishonest in the attempt to hide the act, demonstrates criminal behavior and activity. I worked the area of Minneapolis that the "of age" boys worked for drugs and a place to live. I've seen the devastation of the so called homosexual lifestyle. These weren't nasty, dirty old men, that solicited these boys. The were business men in 3 piece suits. 17,18 these are kids but again the desire for sexual euphoria, when dysfunctional, is much like drug use. It is constant and progressive. The need to reach the euphoric high seems to always lead to young, inexperienced boys.

Yeah, good thing this country doesn't have any issues with older men going after younger girls.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your_Name_Here
01-28-2009, 11:58 AM
In your world maybe but in the mental health world a 45 year old man having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy, asking him to be dishonest in the attempt to hide the act, demonstrates criminal behavior and activity. I worked the area of Minneapolis that the "of age" boys worked for drugs and a place to live. I've seen the devastation of the so called homosexual lifestyle. These weren't nasty, dirty old men, that solicited these boys. The were business men in 3 piece suits. 17,18 these are kids but again the desire for sexual euphoria, when dysfunctional, is much like drug use. It is constant and progressive. The need to reach the euphoric high seems to always lead to young, inexperienced boys.

So you KNOW something happened between those two, and it happened when he was underage?:rolleyes: Didn't they BOTH contend sex didn't happen until he was "of age?" We ARE still talking about the Mayor of Portland, OR, RIGHT? That's the only person I'm talking about--YOU posted the story, remember? And oh yeah--he owned up to the attempt to cover up the relationship; WTH else do you want?

What you are describing are boys using homosexuality as a means to an end--nothing more. Desperation can make you do a LOT of things you might not otherwise. You are seeing devastation caused by other stuff, perhaps (you mentioned drugs)--you WANT that devastation to be due to homosexuality--you want it to be so bad you can TASTE IT!!! Only one little detail: It just ain't so.

Your_Name_Here
01-28-2009, 12:08 PM
Very interesting article. Good segue to DADT. I came in a time when they did ask you if you were a homosexual and when I was asked (that was my screening process; couple of questions on a sheet of paper; no backdoor checks at all, and put my john hancock to the document); I just said no as did millions of others who served during my time and before, so just wondering how inquiring will cause damage to future soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. If it will be repealed, I figure there wouldnt be a screening process at all or am I missing something here? I know DADT was to appease equal rights for all to serve and eliminate blatant discrimination but if you came out, discovered by an "immoral" act, then there were repercussions. Now if they can be open and serve; well oh well. I dont agree with many things that became policy, so be it. Just pick up a weapon and watch my back while I watch yours. That is all I care about. Just dont sasche while we breaking down doors.

Anyway, there are other threads that debate this sensitive topic.

Also very similar to the Sean Penn movie in which he was nominated

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/27/sean.penn/

I can picture this, and it would be hilarious!!!:D

True story: Back in the day, my buddies and I would all go back and forth teasing that so-and-so was a member of "Clinton's AF," due to the then-new DADT. Anyone pointing a finger at me though, was corrected on the spot: I joined when Bush-41 was in office, and I too had to answer those same questions during my recruitment phase. Ahhh, memories! lol

mel44
01-28-2009, 12:26 PM
Here's the facts:
1. The man was a representation of the first elected official, voted in, openly gay. He stood for something.
his character and moral values were very important in the public eye.

Assessment classification for dysfunction- Continued use despite negative consequences


2. He began a relationship with the boy at the age of 17. Knowing the risk he took with his position and his
life.
Assessment Classification - Criminal behavior, criminal action - continued use despite legal
consequences

3. Not only lied but engaged another in attempt to cover act
Assessment classification - denial and covering behavior

4. admitted first to partial behavior
Assessment classification - minimizing behavior and participation

5. Engaged in relationship in work environment with subordinate
Assessment classification - use in inappropriate times or places

The final assessment is this person has sexual dysfunction to some degree. - I don't want any devastation. I believe it is a sexual dysfunction. I believe left to itself it will have an effect on the men and women in the military. This man was a predator. As a middle aged man that would seduce a 17, 18 year old girl into the same situation.

Measure Man
01-28-2009, 12:40 PM
This man was a predator. As a middle aged man that would seduce a 17, 18 year old girl into the same situation.

Whew...you finally got to the point.

And I agree that we don't want predators in the military...

Do you really doubt that for every Portland mayor story, there is another story of a heterosexual predator...and another one of a homosexual couple who lived a long monogamous life together of great accomplishment, distinction, and service to the community?

mel44
01-28-2009, 12:55 PM
Whew...you finally got to the point.

And I agree that we don't want predators in the military...

Do you really doubt that for every Portland mayor story, there is another story of a heterosexual predator...and another one of a homosexual couple who lived a long monogamous life together of great accomplishment, distinction, and service to the community?

Have you got one?

Measure Man
01-28-2009, 01:02 PM
Have you got one?

Just Google it.

Here's one to get you started.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art39699.html

ringjamesa
01-28-2009, 01:06 PM
Why is this here when there is a whole section on DADT?

Your_Name_Here
01-28-2009, 01:10 PM
Why is this here when there is a whole section on DADT?

This started out as the story going on w/the Mayor of Portland, OR; it then snowballed into other things, as threads invariably do. AND--someone tried to tie this story together w/DADT, as if they were related.:rolleyes:

mel44
01-28-2009, 01:11 PM
Just Google it.

Here's one to get you started.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art39699.html

It is a good story but do you know one? I mean go to church with or live next door to? Someone that is not just a picture on the web.

mel44
01-28-2009, 01:14 PM
Why is this here when there is a whole section on DADT?

If you dont want to discuss it there are all kinds of threads you can participate in. I do see it directly related just more in my area than the moral one sorry if you dont agree.

CVal
01-28-2009, 01:18 PM
Have you got one?

I have friends at work who are in long-term, homosexual monogamous relationships.

Measure Man
01-28-2009, 01:18 PM
It is a good story but do you know one? I mean go to church with or live next door to? Someone that is not just a picture on the web.

OH..okay, I thought you meant do i know a story. (as if you know the Portland mayor?)

A good friend of mine from HS is gay and in a long term committed relationship. I last spoke to him about 2 years ago.

He has a Master's Degree in Business...and now runs a children's camp in Europe. Honestly though, I don't personally know a lot of gays...since, hey, I'm overseas, most of the people I meet are military...and they can't be openly gay anyway.

What about your neighbors? Weren't they a stable, accomplished gay couple?

mel44
01-28-2009, 01:30 PM
OH..okay, I thought you meant do i know a story. (as if you know the Portland mayor?)

A good friend of mine from HS is gay and in a long term committed relationship. I last spoke to him about 2 years ago.

He has a Master's Degree in Business...and now runs a children's camp in Europe. Honestly though, I don't personally know a lot of gays...since, hey, I'm overseas, most of the people I meet are military...and they can't be openly gay anyway.

What about your neighbors? Weren't they a stable, accomplished gay couple?

Yep they are. they are young though. I personally don't know any long term successful couples to make an evaluation from. thats why I asked. I am always open to new data. I don't know this guy but the facts are there. I can't ever find anyone that is long term but you can't really use the super stars because their relationships are usually short anyways.

I am not sure what I believe in that arena simply because I have never met any nor treated any. My stance remains it is a dysfunction. Many people live and maintain a lifestyle in dysfunction. Many people use drugs and abuse alcohol and maintain a normal lifestyle so I believe it is possible. My concern is for those that don't. The DADT keeps this to a minimum. The ones that function well have no need to bring sex into the workplace. They have no need to care what people on the job think or do. So why repeal it?

I can't post anymore right now on this thread but I did enjoy debating with you :)

TJMAC77SP
01-28-2009, 03:35 PM
Mel44,

I am a bit concerned that as a self-proclaimed mental health professional you would equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I believe that as a whole, the medical community has rejected this stance. As they have rejected the stance that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction. I would be interested in hearing from other mental health professionals what they think of your use of addiction assessment guidelines to diagnose a homosexual.

mel44
01-28-2009, 03:43 PM
Mel44,

I am a bit concerned that as a self-proclaimed mental health professional you would equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I believe that as a whole, the medical community has rejected this stance. As they have rejected the stance that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction. I would be interested in hearing from other mental health professionals what they think of your use of addiction assessment guidelines to diagnose a homosexual.

Sure TJ - the AMA removed it a few years back. The debate is, they are to left wing and support politically correctness. I don't know that I completely disagree. We all have our own criteria for diagnosing and assessment tools. I used the substance abuse MMPI criteria. The Sassi works about the same way. The issue when diagnosing homosexual is it in itself is not necessarily the issue and can be classified under sexual dysfunction. Everything we do is based on theory. There is no test to scientifically test for mental health issues. It really is based on the theory you believe and the application of that theory.

CVal
01-28-2009, 03:44 PM
Mel44,

I am a bit concerned that as a self-proclaimed mental health professional you would equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I believe that as a whole, the medical community has rejected this stance. As they have rejected the stance that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction. I would be interested in hearing from other mental health professionals what they think of your use of addiction assessment guidelines to diagnose a homosexual.

I agree, TJ. I'm also concerned because, if I understand her correctly, Mel doesn't know any homosexual people. I find that very interesting. She's either not paying attention, or she lives in a very sheltered environment.

She did later admit that heteros can also be pedophiles, but the earlier post in which she equated pedophilia with homosexuality was troubling to me.

This has been an interesting discussion, and I'm glad it has not degenerated into a frenzy of name calling.

mel44
01-28-2009, 03:51 PM
I agree, TJ. I'm also concerned because, if I understand her correctly, Mel doesn't know any homosexual people. I find that very interesting. She's either not paying attention, or she lives in a very sheltered environment.

She did later admit that heteros can also be pedophiles, but the earlier post in which she equated pedophilia with homosexuality was troubling to me.

This has been an interesting discussion, and I'm glad it has not degenerated into a frenzy of name calling.

No CVAL I said I didn't know any in any long term relationships. i know many and have some in my family. Where is your dividing line for pedophilia? Is there a certain age of child that is not ranked as a child. i have a 17 year old. She is a baby no where near able to fight the advances of a experienced 45 year old adult, especially one she was learning from and being taught under.

i like the mental health debates they are based more on evidence and theory than personal views. I have noticed in my career when people believe something but don't know why they believe it they tend to get into personal comments since they have no evidence to argue with. It's why i posted it - I want to learn and gain a broader understanding

mel44
01-28-2009, 03:57 PM
I also want to add that one of the 12 core functions within my scope of practice is referral. I would never treat anyone that I found myself to be in moral or ethical conflict with. I would refer them to a therapist that is acclimated to their specific area of life as the do me when they find themselves in conflict with personal beliefs. For example, I have a friend in the field that was raped as a child. she has a very difficult time treating sex offenders. I take those clients for her. Just good therapeutic business.

TJMAC77SP
01-28-2009, 04:02 PM
Sure TJ - the AMA removed it a few years back. The debate is, they are to left wing and support politically correctness. I don't know that I completely disagree. We all have our own criteria for diagnosing and assessment tools. I used the substance abuse MMPI criteria. The Sassi works about the same way. The issue when diagnosing homosexual is it in itself is not necessarily the issue and can be classified under sexual dysfunction. Everything we do is based on theory. There is no test to scientifically test for mental health issues. It really is based on the theory you believe and the application of that theory.

I understand the dilemma of personal and professional beliefs intertwining. I imagine it is a struggle to keep them separate.

I have met and known many gay people (male and female) who are completely ‘normal’ in all aspects of their life. Their sexual attraction just happens to be towards the same sex. Leaving all other aspects out of the equation (such as pedophilia, which I believe to be a completely separate issue and unrelated to one basic sexuality) then I can’t see how it can be thought of as dysfunctional.

During an ethics class in college I once called homosexuality deviant behavior. After the uproar died down I explained that my meaning was in looking at the definition of deviant. I looked upon it as behavior not accepted as social norm. This is time and place specific. For example in a different time and place such behavior is or was accepted as normal.

I believe this to be a subjective opinion and I think that is where you are straying. If I am reading you right, you have a moral objection to homosexuality. This is perfectly acceptable, be it for religious or other reasons. The same can be said for one’s position on abortion or the death penalty. You are entitled to your opinion on moral issues.

In any case, all my rambling aside, this has been (for the most part - As we all know Bush and the Republican Party is to blame for all that is bad in our society.) a good discussion.

CVal
01-28-2009, 04:14 PM
No CVAL I said I didn't know any in any long term relationships. i know many and have some in my family. Where is your dividing line for pedophilia? Is there a certain age of child that is not ranked as a child. i have a 17 year old. She is a baby no where near able to fight the advances of a experienced 45 year old adult, especially one she was learning from and being taught under.

i like the mental health debates they are based more on evidence and theory than personal views. I have noticed in my career when people believe something but don't know why they believe it they tend to get into personal comments since they have no evidence to argue with. It's why i posted it - I want to learn and gain a broader understanding

I'm sorry, I did misunderstand. I have a friend who has been in a homosexual relationship for over 25 years ~ a few years longer than I have been married. She was also a wonderful mentor to my daughter throughout her high school years. I credit my friend with helping to guide my daughter through these tumultuous years and to helping instill a good work ethic in her.

I do continue to be disturbed by the post equating homosexuality and pedophilia. They are separate issues, just as heterosexuality and pedophilia are separate issues.

mel44
01-28-2009, 04:24 PM
I understand the dilemma of personal and professional beliefs intertwining. I imagine it is a struggle to keep them separate.

I have met and known many gay people (male and female) who are completely ‘normal’ in all aspects of their life. Their sexual attraction just happens to be towards the same sex. Leaving all other aspects out of the equation (such as pedophilia, which I believe to be a completely separate issue and unrelated to one basic sexuality) then I can’t see how it can be thought of as dysfunctional.

During an ethics class in college I once called homosexuality deviant behavior. After the uproar died down I explained that my meaning was in looking at the definition of deviant. I looked upon it as behavior not accepted as social norm. This is time and place specific. For example in a different time and place such behavior is or was accepted as normal.

I believe this to be a subjective opinion and I think that is where you are straying. If I am reading you right, you have a moral objection to homosexuality. This is perfectly acceptable, be it for religious or other reasons. The same can be said for one’s position on abortion or the death penalty. You are entitled to your opinion on moral issues.

In any case, all my rambling aside, this has been (for the most part - As we all know Bush and the Republican Party is to blame for all that is bad in our society.) a good discussion.

Yes you have to, at some point, connect morals to the equation. But don't confuse morals with religious beliefs. Morals come from beliefs. Morals are the right and wrong of a person and/or society.

Where behavior comes in we have to look at the driving force or the mood altering experience in this case. Taking drugs is not a lack of morals. Tylenol is a drug. Engaging in a mood altering experience combined with the legalities and the direct impact of the experience defines if it is moral or not moral for you. For instance certain people do not drink caffeine. I drink it by the gallons. For them it is wrong for me it is perfectly ok. What defines the dysfunction is the impact it makes on the individual. Is the act of homosexuality a deviant act? No not in itself. Can it lead to deviant acts? Yes I believe it can.

Let e be clear. I do not believe homosexuals are evil or godless. I don't believe Homosexuality is an illness. I believe it is a symptom of an addiction that could result in greater damage and is in need of treatment.

Remember though I have seen many, most are sick when they get to me. I have met few drinkers that don' problem drink on a regular basis yet the function very well in society.

The issue I have with the openness of gays serving is the socially correctness that has pushed this issue so far left that we don't look at the realities of the deviants that also fit into this class of people.

OIFCOMBATVETNYC
01-28-2009, 04:40 PM
Interesting article I guess now moral waivers are coming more into play in recruiting. I didnt know this.

http://usmilitary.about.com/b/2008/04/07/one-in-eight-army-recruits-require-moral-waiver.htm

One in Eight Army Recruits Require Moral Waiver
Monday April 7, 2008
According to a story in the Army Times, one out of eight new Army recruits require a waiver to enlist, a rate which is more than double what it was during Fiscal Year 2004. In 2004, 4,6 percent required a moral waiver for criminal history or other past misconduct. During last fiscal year, the rate had jumped to 11 percent. So far, during Fiscal Year 2008, which began on Oct. 1, 13 percent of new recruits have required a moral waiver.

According to the article, most waivers involve misdemeanors. The Army has granted 4,676 conduct waivers among the 36,047 recruited from October through late February.

mel44
01-28-2009, 04:54 PM
I'm sorry, I did misunderstand. I have a friend who has been in a homosexual relationship for over 25 years ~ a few years longer than I have been married. She was also a wonderful mentor to my daughter throughout her high school years. I credit my friend with helping to guide my daughter through these tumultuous years and to helping instill a good work ethic in her.

I do continue to be disturbed by the post equating homosexuality and pedophilia. They are separate issues, just as heterosexuality and pedophilia are separate issues.

I understand the concern. Sex is sex and drugs are drugs. Both are mood altering and are driven by the experience. Not everyone that takes a mood altering drug is going to develop a dependency on them or move on to harder drugs.

There are many very intelligent, loving, godly people that have serious gambling, spending, sexual or drug addictions. The addiction does not define the person, it is a dysfunction of the person. Now there are no generalization here so I am not saying ALL, I am saying that many predators go unnoticed because they are "nice people". It doesn't mean they don't struggle with sexual dysfunction. where do we put that defining line of what is moral and what is not. Or what is dysfunction and what is not.

ringjamesa
01-28-2009, 05:26 PM
Not only did the allegedly left leaning AMA remove homosexuality from their list of personality disorders, the allegedly right leaning DoD did the same thing allbeit quite a while after the AMA. So...wouldn't that lend some credence to the statement that homosexuality is not a personality disorder?

mel44
01-28-2009, 06:39 PM
Not only did the allegedly left leaning AMA remove homosexuality from their list of personality disorders, the allegedly right leaning DoD did the same thing allbeit quite a while after the AMA. So...wouldn't that lend some credence to the statement that homosexuality is not a personality disorder?

Yes I agree. Completely ignoring a professional society is ignorance in itself. Merit should be given to the opinion. I don't believe it is really a personality disorder. I tend to stay a little more surface level and sty within the parameters of behavior disorder. There are several other circumstances to look at such as body chemistry. Is there hormonal issues or genetic disorders? these factors always have to be looked at.

TJMAC77SP
01-28-2009, 06:56 PM
Yes you have to, at some point, connect morals to the equation. But don't confuse morals with religious beliefs. Morals come from beliefs. Morals are the right and wrong of a person and/or society.

Where behavior comes in we have to look at the driving force or the mood altering experience in this case. Taking drugs is not a lack of morals. Tylenol is a drug. Engaging in a mood altering experience combined with the legalities and the direct impact of the experience defines if it is moral or not moral for you. For instance certain people do not drink caffeine. I drink it by the gallons. For them it is wrong for me it is perfectly ok. What defines the dysfunction is the impact it makes on the individual. Is the act of homosexuality a deviant act? No not in itself. Can it lead to deviant acts? Yes I believe it can.

Let e be clear. I do not believe homosexuals are evil or godless. I don't believe Homosexuality is an illness. I believe it is a symptom of an addiction that could result in greater damage and is in need of treatment.

Remember though I have seen many, most are sick when they get to me. I have met few drinkers that don' problem drink on a regular basis yet the function very well in society.

The issue I have with the openness of gays serving is the socially correctness that has pushed this issue so far left that we don't look at the realities of the deviants that also fit into this class of people.

I don't want to beat this to death but a couple of points need clarification.

I cited religious beliefs as one of many sources of one’s moral beliefs.

Secondly, isn’t addiction considered an illness? If so, then if homosexuals do indeed suffer from an addiction aren’t they indeed ill? (your words, not mine)

mel44
01-28-2009, 07:07 PM
I don't want to beat this to death but a couple of points need clarification.

I cited religious beliefs as one of many sources of one’s moral beliefs.

Secondly, isn’t addiction considered an illness? If so, then if homosexuals do indeed suffer from an addiction aren’t they indeed ill? (your words, not mine)

Yes religious beliefs can be a source of information to base morals on. The point I was making is a persons moral beliefs that homosexual behavior is wrong does not have to be religion as the source of those beliefs.
Example:
Some may believe drunk driving is immoral. This is based on their value in human life and the DUI death rate, not on their religious beliefs that drinking is wrong.

NO addiction is not an illness. this can be somewhat confusing when the lay community hears AA describe alcoholism as a disease.
Clarification - Alcoholism is not a diagnosis
- Addiction to alcohol is not a disease nor is there a gene that has been identified to cause said
addiction.

Its a behavior that can develop into a physical or psychological addiction. A behavior or act that is motivated by mood altering experience is considered an desired act not an illness. you will hear people say the addict is ill. they very well may be from the effects of the addiction but they are not ill with the addiction itself but the effects of addiction. Once the source of the addiction is removed they return to pre-addicted state.

TJMAC77SP
01-28-2009, 07:14 PM
Yes religious beliefs can be a source of information to base morals on. The point I was making is a persons moral beliefs that homosexual behavior is wrong does not have to be religion as the source of those beliefs.
Example:
Some may believe drunk driving is immoral. This is based on their value in human life and the DUI death rate, not on their religious beliefs that drinking is wrong.

NO addiction is not an illness. this can be somewhat confusing when the lay community hears AA describe alcoholism as a disease.
Clarification - Alcoholism is not a diagnosis
- Addiction to alcohol is not a disease nor is there a gene that has been identified to cause said
addiction.

Its a behavior that can develop into a physical or psychological addiction. A behavior or act that is motivated by mood altering experience is considered an desired act not an illness. you will hear people say the addict is ill. they very well may be from the effects of the addiction but they are not ill with the addiction itself but the effects of addiction. Once the source of the addiction is removed they return to pre-addicted state.

WARNING: More dead horse beating ahead.

I got your point regarding the source of morals. You ignored my reference to other basis for morals (i.e. “be it for religious or other reasons “)and I was merely trying to point that out. No further examples are necessary.

It is not merely AA that calls alcoholism a disease. You can get disability for this and that requires a medical opinion.

Again, not really necessary to clarify anymore. I merely see things in your posts that seem to contradict one another and merely throwing out the ‘to the lay person’ mantra doesn’t clear anything up.

mel44
01-28-2009, 07:39 PM
WARNING: More dead horse beating ahead.

I got your point regarding the source of morals. You ignored my reference to other basis for morals (i.e. “be it for religious or other reasons “)and I was merely trying to point that out. No further examples are necessary.

It is not merely AA that calls alcoholism a disease. You can get disability for this and that requires a medical opinion.

Again, not really necessary to clarify anymore. I merely see things in your posts that seem to contradict one another and merely throwing out the ‘to the lay person’ mantra doesn’t clear anything up.

Alcoholism is not a medical classification - a person can ONLY be diagnosed with alcohol dependence.

In the early 80's a huge lawsuit was brought against a treatment system for classifying a client as suffering from alcoholism. This is an indication to the employer that the person has a chronic, life long illness. This resulted in the employee termination. The lawsuit was based on the medical fact that there is no known factor to indicate a person has or has not such an illness therefore we, as Mental Health Community, are not allowed to use this terminology in any form of charting or diagnosing.

The diagnosing has to be done by a licensed professional such as myself. It would be done through a assessment such as a MMPI or Sassi type assessing tool. A medical doctor most likely would send this person to get a legal assessment coded with the DSM IV diagnosis.

I have never heard of a case of disability paying on alcohol addiction simply because of the remission codes. I would have to have some documentation on that. It would be in direct conflict with our scope of practice. Now someone could be disabled from the effects of alcohol dependency not from the dependency itself.

Please understand that anything legal such as insurance or government subsidized disability would have to meet the diagnostic coding of the DSM IV - Its a diagnostic book - you can look it up on the web. The diagnostic code for alcohol dependency 303.9 alcohol dependence.

http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/complete_tables.htm

Michele
01-28-2009, 09:59 PM
Ok, this is gonna set the cat amongst the pigeons!

If we were all truly honest with ourselves we are all bisexual. It is only our social moral code that causes us to become straight.

Some of you use the word deviant like it’s a bad thing. Personally I don’t see anything wrong with being deviant within the context of homosexuality.

I am going to come at this from a bisexual POV because this is our true state. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply extremes of this.

There is no consensus on this issue at all. In addition, any studies or research done has been done on homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality. Bisexuality has been largely ignored (or lumped into homosexuality) because to include it would blur the clear-cut distinctions researchers hope to make, if not cast doubts on their findings altogether.



"It would encourage clearer thinking on these matters if persons were not characterized as hetereosexual or homosexual, but as individuals who have had certain amounts of heterosexual experience and certain amounts of homosexual experience. Instead of using these terms as substantives which stand for persons, or even as adjectives to describe persons, they may better be used to describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which an individual erotically responds." - Alfred Kinsey

mel44
01-28-2009, 10:11 PM
Ok, this is gonna set the cat amongst the pigeons!

If we were all truly honest with ourselves we are all bisexual. It is only our social moral code that causes us to become straight.

Some of you use the word deviant like it’s a bad thing. Personally I don’t see anything wrong with being deviant within the context of homosexuality.

I am going to come at this from a bisexual POV because this is our true state. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply extremes of this.

There is no consensus on this issue at all. In addition, any studies or research done has been done on homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality. Bisexuality has been largely ignored (or lumped into homosexuality) because to include it would blur the clear-cut distinctions researchers hope to make, if not cast doubts on their findings altogether.




Hey chicky !!!!! I knew this would get your attention!!! :tongue:

You know what? I really dont disagree with you. Now here is the question. If we look at sex as a "mood altering experience" then the potential for abuse or dependency would have to be a posibility?

I think we spend way to much time on the "who" you sleep with and not near enough time on how many and how often under what circumstances.

I would really be interrested in these studies and what they might indicate.

CVal
01-28-2009, 10:21 PM
Michele, I agree with your premise to a certain extent. I've long thought of the differences on a continuum. At one end is the extreme heterosexual person. At the other end is the extreme homosexual person. I believe most people are at varying points between.

Michele
01-28-2009, 10:25 PM
You know what? I really dont disagree with you. Now here is the question. If we look at sex as a "mood altering experience" then the potential for abuse or dependency would have to be a posibility?

I am not sure just what you are trying to say here. Sex as a mood altering experience? Or same sex sex? What is your point?



Michele, I agree with your premise to a certain extent. I've long thought of the differences on a continuum. At one end is the extreme heterosexual person. At the other end is the extreme homosexual person. I believe most people are at varying points between.

Thanks CVal I appreciate your courage for saying so.

Michele
01-29-2009, 02:47 AM
In your world maybe but in the mental health world a 45 year old man having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy, asking him to be dishonest in the attempt to hide the act, demonstrates criminal behavior and activity. I worked the area of Minneapolis that the "of age" boys worked for drugs and a place to live. I've seen the devastation of the so called homosexual lifestyle. These weren't nasty, dirty old men, that solicited these boys. The were business men in 3 piece suits. 17,18 these are kids but again the desire for sexual euphoria, when dysfunctional, is much like drug use. It is constant and progressive. The need to reach the euphoric high seems to always lead to young, inexperienced boys.


You know what? I really dont disagree with you. Now here is the question. If we look at sex as a "mood altering experience" then the potential for abuse or dependency would have to be a posibility?


I am not sure just what you are trying to say here. Sex as a mood altering experience? Or same sex sex? What is your point?

OK so I think what you are saying is same sex sex yes? Hell Mel, isn’t all sex mood altering? I know all of mine is lol. Does this mean, sex is addictive, abusive and dysfunctional?

mel44
01-29-2009, 03:06 AM
OK so I think what you are saying is same sex sex yes? Hell Mel, isn’t all sex mood altering? I know all of mine is lol. Does this mean, sex is addictive, abusive and dysfunctional?

That is exactly what I am saying so stop now!!! No wait - :D .
I am saying it has the potential as a mood altering experience. This is how we incorporate sexual addictions, gambling etc. My point is When taking this from a mental health view we can't say a mood altering experience is a predestined DNA concept. Even the person we are with can determine how our
juju flows. Big strong built soldier - juju flows - As with chemical dependency the nature of the participation is determined by person.

Michele
01-29-2009, 03:44 AM
I am saying it has the potential as a mood altering experience. This is how we incorporate sexual addictions, gambling etc.

No, this is a very controversial concept and professionals are still divided on the issue of sex addiction. But in any event, if I were to accept the concept of sex addiction (which I don’t) then it would not be confined to homosexuality which is, I think the point you are trying to make.


My point is When taking this from a mental health view we can't say a mood altering experience is a predestined DNA concept.

You are talking about 2 separate issues here. The first is the persons sexual orientation (some say this is at the DNA level but there is not consensus on this) the second is how they themselves deal with this orientation in their social life. Again this is not confined to homosexuality.

Sex IS a mood altering experience for most people if they are doing it right lol.

mel44
01-29-2009, 04:11 AM
No, this is a very controversial concept and professionals are still divided on the issue of sex addiction. But in any event, if I were to accept the concept of sex addiction (which I don’t) then it would not be confined to homosexuality which is, I think the point you are trying to make.

No I am not limiting it to homosexuality. I am saying that homosexuality is a result of desires acted on that are not in your nature but a indulgence in your desires that result in abuse and addiction to the act of homosexual act. Now the difficult part is love. Love can develop that is natural and worthy of commitment. This leaves the partners in a dilemma. Abuse of sex act vs love for the partner. So we get suicide, depression continued sex seeking behavior.

.

You are talking about 2 separate issues here. The first is the persons sexual orientation (some say this is at the DNA level but there is not consensus on this) the second is how they themselves deal with this orientation in their social life. Again this is not confined to homosexuality

I agree I don't think there is a sexual orientation. There is sex, sexual abuse and sexual dependency.


Sex IS a mood altering experience for most people if they are doing it right lol.

Absolutely

axscntU8_Dpstv
01-29-2009, 07:49 PM
http://i39.tinypic.com/6ej5n4.jpg

axscntU8_Dpstv
01-29-2009, 08:18 PM
looks more like the british navy lol


yeah, but you get the picture. I can go look for an army pic. LOL

I don't make them I just post them. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Michele
01-29-2009, 09:01 PM
No I am not limiting it to homosexuality. I am saying that homosexuality is a result of desires acted on that are not in your nature but a indulgence in your desires that result in abuse and addiction to the act of homosexual act. Now the difficult part is love. Love can develop that is natural and worthy of commitment. This leaves the partners in a dilemma. Abuse of sex act vs love for the partner. So we get suicide, depression continued sex seeking behavior.



Hahaha that is funny. What you are saying is that homosexuality is the result of becoming “jaded” Oh please! This is simply not the case. Most people know their sexual orientation at a young age and has nothing what so ever to do with becoming “jaded” Suicide, depression etc come with this group because of the social constraints placed on them that they can not accept.
You speak as though homosexuals are not capable of a loving committed relationship. More garbage. I know many people in same sex relationship that are both loving and committed.

The “gay” scene is the most misunderstood social scene. It is no different from the “club” scene. Young people getting together to have some fun. These scenes are not for everyone and generally only the young attend. The most curious thing about the “gay” scene in my country is that in most cases there tends to be a mix of hetro/homo people who attend these venues. It has come to the point where the gays who attend these are demanding that straights be kept out for various reasons.


I agree I don't think there is a sexual orientation. There is sex, sexual abuse and sexual dependency.

Please define “sexual abuse” for me. I am almost frightened of what your definition is.


Wasnt the discussion on homosexuality and morality and then everything went off on a tangent? I posed numerous points that it wouldnt be a conflict of terms and others as well but it wasnt acknowledged lol. Its seems like when its refuted, the response is like "right, I agree!!", instead of "I was off the marker big time in my thesis." My comrade was reading this and shaking his head and saying, it makes no sense. Just big words thrown on the page with no rhythm or cohesiveness.

Im sorry mate, I didn’t go back that far but I have gone back to read what you have posted and I agree with you.


well let me get my bisexual self moving lol. Soon, it will be known that I have asexual abilities as well lol.

You’re a funny guy lol

Michele
01-29-2009, 09:27 PM
Continued validation that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction that reaches far and wide. No matter how hard you try to validate its normalcy. .

How is does your first post validate that homosexuality is a sexual dysfuntion?

OIFCOMBATVETNYC
01-29-2009, 10:10 PM
we can't say a mood altering experience is a predestined DNA concept. Even the person we are with can determine how our
juju flows. Big strong built soldier - juju flows - As with chemical dependency the nature of the participation is determined by person.

this video sums it up

http://www.spike.com/video/in-living-color/2681989

Michele
01-29-2009, 10:59 PM
I only have a bachelors and my masters is a long way off. Anybody has a doctorate that can interpret this for me? I read it like a gazillion times and I still cant - MICHELE helppppp! The judge wont overrule you on this lol oh better yet, where is TJ? lol

I am in the same boat on this one lol. I tend to disregard the mumbo jumbo and only target the statements that make some sort of sense.

mel44
01-30-2009, 05:01 AM
Hahaha that is funny. What you are saying is that homosexuality is the result of becoming “jaded”
I did not imply that or state anyone is jaded so you Will have to elaborate your point.



Oh please! This is simply not the case. Most people know their sexual orientation at a young age

I'm sorry I must have missed this in my education. Has there been some new clinical data that would indicate that despite the fact that a "child" has not yet gone through puberty they are experiencing sexual "orientation" I would venture out and say thats environmental.


and has nothing what so ever to do with becoming “jaded” Suicide, depression etc come with this group because of the social constraints placed on them that they can not accept.

Bull!! It is the violation of the natural orientation.


You speak as though homosexuals are not capable of a loving committed relationship.

More bull I specifically stated that they develop a love for one another that is valid and creates continued conflict when dealing with sexual relationship.


The “gay” scene is the most misunderstood social scene. It is no different from the “club” scene. Young people getting together to have some fun. These scenes are not for everyone and generally only the young attend. The most curious thing about the “gay” scene in my country is that in most cases there tends to be a mix of hetro/homo people who attend these venues. It has come to the point where the gays who attend these are demanding that straights be kept out for various reasons.


I would imagine they would. More validation that the behavior is immoral.


Please define “sexual abuse” for me.

Sexual abuse when correlated with any other mood altering experience is defined by the use of said act for a purpose other than intended. More than recommended, when not appropriate
Abuse of sex can be defined in many sexual cases

homosexuality
pornography
multiple partners
adultery
molestation
pedophilia
rape
etc.




Sexual relationships, when mis-used, can create a multiple of psychological, emotional and even physical damage. Homosexual relationships, as the one in the article, demonstrates the sexual need this man has is not just a harmless homosexual urges, but a predator, which is what I believe, left untreated, is the destination for many that indulge in homosexual relationship which is based on the persons dependence on the sexual act.

Michele
01-30-2009, 05:15 AM
Oh now this is just gone beyond a joke lol


Ill see your shoop de whoop and raise you two bags of fertilizer.


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=qCzbNkyXO50

And thats all I have to say to you on this subject..................:D

mel44
01-30-2009, 06:32 AM
Same ole argument when it comes to morality. Morals ARE NOT Christianity. Morals are simply right and wrong. It is not what is socially acceptable and lobbied in Washington. It is the right and wrong built in every person.
It doesn't’t start with the homosexual predator. It starts with the breakdown of the family and the neglecting of standards.
The military had a very strong moral fiber. It outlined behavior that was right and wrong.

Soldiers were not supposed to live with girlfriend/boyfriend. This is no longer enforced now we have multitude of babies and broken marriages and homes.
Soldiers were supposed to marry a wife and take care of their home. This is not enforced. Now soldiers have so many wives and babies the military is going broke trying to pay for all the medical care retirement splits.
Etc. etc etc…..
You can’t argue the breakdown of morals in the military has an effect on the men and the battle directly.
The argument comes back to Christianity because its easier to argue that it is religion, and abandon the fact that the sexual relationship is meant for reproduction and expression of love between a married man and woman. Continuing to lower those morals and allowing the margin to be pushed back is a lowering of the standards of our military.

USMC_8156
01-30-2009, 06:36 AM
Same ole argument when it comes to morality. Morals ARE NOT Christianity. Morals are simply right and wrong. It is not what is socially acceptable and lobbied in Washington. It is the right and wrong built in every person.


Don't you claim to have a psychology background? So you have single handedly refuted a few hundred years of research eh? Ever heard of tabula rasa, or any other behavioral theory that bases around the fact that we have no inherent genetic knowledge? Morals are a learned cultural phenomenon. This is one of the most basic tenets of psychology.

So what are you talking about?

mel44
01-30-2009, 07:25 AM
Don't you claim to have a psychology background? So you have single handedly refuted a few hundred years of research eh? Ever heard of tabula rasa, or any other behavioral theory that bases around the fact that we have no inherent genetic knowledge? Morals are a learned cultural phenomenon. This is one of the most basic tenets of psychology.

So what are you talking about?

Morals are a cultures right and wrongs don't over analyze. Darlin we are talking about behavioral therapy - why is it every time someone refutes instead of stating their refute they attack my credentials? Do you see my credentials somewhere here that I haven't noticed? Don't fight with personal jabs if you don't agree state why or move on and leave my credentials in the office where they belong. I am stating what I believe - what is it you believe?

USMC_8156
01-30-2009, 07:40 AM
Morals are a cultures right and wrongs don't over analyze. Darlin we are talking about behavioral therapy - why is it every time someone refutes instead of stating their refute they attack my credentials? Do you see my credentials somewhere here that I haven't noticed? Don't fight with personal jabs if you don't agree state why or move on and leave my credentials in the office where they belong. I am stating what I believe - what is it you believe?

Right...ok...you completely sidestepped my question.

We are not talking about behavioral therapy. We are talking about behavioral science, which is a different animal. I'll give you a rundown of what I'm talking about. The theory originated with Aristotle, and probably earlier. It was adopted by Freud, and has been scientifically confirmed. That is to say, it is most likely true because we have been so far unable to prove otherwise. The theory (remember in science a theory is something that is verifiable by scientific experiment) is that we are a blank state upon birth, and all subsequent learnings attribute to our behavior.

So, in other words, morality is a learned construct and not a "built in code." This is, interestingly, in following with many religions in the world which in their own form speak of what Christianity calls the "natural state" of man, which is animalistic and cruel.

So my question, apart from any personal confusion on my part, is what you are referencing when you say that "morals are a built-in code." This is important to the debate of homosexuality, morality, and whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness, genetic condition, or semi-concious choice.

Michele
01-30-2009, 07:43 AM
why is it every time someone refutes instead of stating their refute they attack my credentials?

Because you were the one who, when you first joined these forums presented those credentials to us to validate your position on an issue AND because you are not making much sense in presenting your stance, hence your credentials come into question. Mylast post seemed to go way over your head, you post garbage I post garbage lol

I really dont think you know what you think on this issue. You seem to be in turmoil over it lol.

mel44
01-30-2009, 07:56 AM
Right...ok...you completely sidestepped my question.

We are not talking about behavioral therapy. We are talking about behavioral science, which is a different animal. I'll give you a rundown of what I'm talking about. The theory originated with Aristotle, and probably earlier. It was adopted by Freud, and has been scientifically confirmed. That is to say, it is most likely true because we have been so far unable to prove otherwise. The theory (remember in science a theory is something that is verifiable by scientific experiment) is that we are a blank state upon birth, and all subsequent learnings attribute to our behavior.

So, in other words, morality is a learned construct and not a "built in code." This is, interestingly, in following with many religions in the world which in their own form speak of what Christianity calls the "natural state" of man, which is animalistic and cruel.

So my question, apart from any personal confusion on my part, is what you are referencing when you say that "morals are a built-in code." This is important to the debate of homosexuality, morality, and whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness, genetic condition, or semi-concious choice.

Ok I understand our question. First of all I am very aware of the theory, what I don't know is where you are getting your information. First of all Freud is a joke and is not taught at all. His theories have been disproved. Most recently his sleep therapy. He was a nut! The argument is nature or nurture but there is another side of that argument. REBT, CBT. Ellis did most of this in theory. Your choices leave out behavior. Which is where addiction is. Chemical addiction is not mental illness, its not a genetic condition, its a conscious choice.
I believe we live in a body, we posses a mind (programed by us) and we are a spirit. We spend so much time on the body and the mind and give no validation to the spirit which is where our inerrant morals are stored. We are born with them. The knowledge of right and wrong despite what we are taught. this is why abused children fight to get out etc. etc.....

For those that don't have spirituality really will argue this is not factual. They blame Christianity. I never refer to any specific religion but it is not important what religion you are as long as you acknowledge your spiritual being. These are my beliefs. I tried on the others but they just don't fit.

USMC_8156
01-30-2009, 08:08 AM
Ok I understand our question. First of all I am very aware of the theory, what I don't know is where you are getting your information. First of all Freud is a joke and is not taught at all.

Incorrect. Freud's theories on psychoanalysis and the tri-mind are still a part of the most recent versions of psychology textbooks. I have one, so I know. You also said that his theories have been disproved...which ones? He is still commonly referred to as "the father of modern psychology." He is often critisized, but he is still considered a pioneer in his time and highly influential. I mentioned that he was one of the ones who built on tabula rasa because of his importance, not to draw correlaries to his other work. Critics' opinions of Freud are irrelevant to the much older and now commonly accepted theory of blank slate.


Your choices leave out behavior. Which is where addiction is. Chemical addiction is not mental illness, its not a genetic condition, its a conscious choice.

We are not discussing chemical addiction, we are discussiong homosexuality as a sexual preference and its' relation to morality.


I believe we live in a body, we posses a mind (programed by us) and we are a spirit. We spend so much time on the body and the mind and give no validation to the spirit which is where our inerrant morals are stored. We are born with them. The knowledge of right and wrong despite what we are taught. this is why abused children fight to get out etc. etc.....

For those that don't have spirituality really will argue this is not factual. They blame Christianity. I never refer to any specific religion but it is not important what religion you are as long as you acknowledge your spiritual being. These are my beliefs. I tried on the others but they just don't fit.

Ok...well then therein lies the problem with discussing the matter with you. You claim a supernatural cause which you can't prove, and won't define. I'm not saying that you are doing something wrong, just that you can not pose the question "Are Homosexuality and Morality conflicts of terms," and then present this argument with intent for a logical defense. Your belief is based on a self-validating system which none of us can argue with. I, for example, am a Christian. I'll go toe to toe discussing my morality based on scripture. Without defining a stance, however, you can't logically argue. That is why I pointed out when you said "morals are a built-in code" as if it was an irrefutable fact.

Here's my take on morality and homosexuality. Morality exists only within cultural and religious confines. According to cultural norms, homosexuality may or may not be immoral. At the moment, the world is slowly oozing towards it being acceptable behavior. Speaking from religious morals, particularly Judeo-Christian, homosexuality is and will always be immoral. It's really as simple as that. The question really is, should the law ban something which is immoral?

mel44
01-30-2009, 08:40 AM
Incorrect. Freud's theories on psychoanalysis and the tri-mind are still a part of the most recent versions of psychology textbooks. I have one, so I know. You also said that his theories have been disproved...which ones? He is still commonly referred to as "the father of modern psychology." He is often critisized, but he is still considered a pioneer in his time and highly influential. I mentioned that he was one of the ones who built on tabula rasa because of his importance, not to draw correlaries to his other work. Critics' opinions of Freud are irrelevant to the much older and now commonly accepted theory of blank slate.

You will learn just stay with it.


We are not discussing chemical addiction, we are discussion homosexuality as a sexual preference and its' relation to morality.

Morality again is the right and wrongs not values. My point is sexual dysfunction such as homosexuality is in the same category as addiction. Addiction is not limited to chemicals.


Ok...well then therein lies the problem with discussing the matter with you. You claim a supernatural cause which you can't prove, and won't define.

I don't know if I would call it supernatural - if your studying psychology then you will find there are many many things that are theory. No scientific data. Get ust to it.



I'm not saying that you are doing something wrong, just that you can not pose the question "Are Homosexuality and Morality conflicts of terms,"

Sure I can. They are a conflict its just not politically correct. I have studied under great professors that have educated me and I developed my own style and adoption of the theories I believe are true.



and then present this argument with intent for a logical defense.

What seems illogical is the argument "everyone's doing it" so its right. The culture decides its right so its right. What makes since to me is understanding what sex is for, what it does, and how it can be perverted.


Your belief is based on a self-validating system which none of us can argue with.

My belief is based on clinical data that validates addiction. Whenever you use lets say coke. the first time you use you have a real hesitancy. You use and its fun, feels good. you begin to rationalize it is a good thing to do because you like it. you like it because it dumps dopamine and seratonin into your system as well as and neuro ephrine ephrine, giving you energy. Now you spend all your time trying to get the next high and justifying why its ok to use all the while you are destroying you decision making process by violating your moral sense of right and wrong. I believe homosexuality falls in this same category. the problem is the culture has validated the behavior so the moral sense of right and wrong is slowly disappearing so the addiction continues looking for the first high. I believe this is what happens to sex addicts of all kinds - I don't think homosexuals are any different or any worse. They need treatment. We give them treatment and they get well.

mel44
01-30-2009, 08:41 AM
Because you were the one who, when you first joined these forums presented those credentials to us to validate your position on an issue AND because you are not making much sense in presenting your stance, hence your credentials come into question. Mylast post seemed to go way over your head, you post garbage I post garbage lol

I really dont think you know what you think on this issue. You seem to be in turmoil over it lol.

No :confused: You said you were done I was just beng polite

kojack
01-30-2009, 09:05 AM
Another impact of the "change" will be rewriting the UCMJ to permit sodemy. Right now, sodemy is a violation of the UCMJ, eithe male to male to husband to wife. TheN once you decide homosexuality and sodemy is a "celebration of the rich tapestry of diversity", whats next? The proud lesbian SSG who is demanding to marry her german shepard to have sex with it?

This is "change" we can live with...

Can you imagine all the "tolerance" training for our soldiers? They will taken into auditoriums and told they will be prosecuted for "hate crimes" if they and their family members "disagree" with homosexuality.

USMC_8156
01-30-2009, 09:08 AM
Morality again is the right and wrongs not values.

Rights and wrongs are based on moral values...I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say here. How is a value judgement different from "rights" and "wrongs?"


My point is sexual dysfunction such as homosexuality is in the same category as addiction. Addiction is not limited to chemicals.


Yes, addiction is more widespread than chemicals. You are the first person I've ever heard to call homosexuality a sexual dysfunction. Sexual dysfunction, according to the AMA, is (to put it bluntly) failure to perform, performing too quickly, or performing without scoring a touchdown. The term has nothing to do with sexual orientation.



I don't know if I would call it supernatural - if your studying psychology then you will find there are many many things that are theory. No scientific data. Get ust to it.

Scientific data is the reason we do studies such as clinical trials and published data. You often confuse scientific and lay terms. A scientific theory is one which is well substantiated. A theory in lay terms is a hypothetical theory for the sake of argument. When we're discussing behavioral science, and I say theory, I'm referring to a scientific one.

Even in psychology, theories that can not be proven are generally discarded. Such as...Freud's sleep pattern theory, which was at one time well believed and later disproven, as you pointed out.




Sure I can. They are a conflict its just not politically correct. I have studied under great professors that have educated me and I developed my own style and adoption of the theories I believe are true.

They are in conflict based on your personal opinion. Once again, you can't make a blanket statement based on "I said so."




What seems illogical is the argument "everyone's doing it" so its right. The culture decides its right so its right. What makes since to me is understanding what sex is for, what it does, and how it can be perverted.


I would say that it is very much not the case of "everyone's doing it." The vast majority of the American public is heterosexual. Homosexuals are a complete minority, the question is whether or not their acts should be banned or limited due to the wide spread belief that what they are doing is immoral. Get this straight: I believe homosexuality is immoral. I do not believe, however, that we have the right as a government to restrict their freedoms. That is why I don't think that morality matters in what is going on in the country right now.



My belief is based on clinical data that validates addiction. Whenever you use lets say coke. the first time you use you have a real hesitancy. You use and its fun, feels good. you begin to rationalize it is a good thing to do because you like it. you like it because it dumps dopamine and seratonin into your system as well as and neuro ephrine ephrine, giving you energy. Now you spend all your time trying to get the next high and justifying why its ok to use all the while you are destroying you decision making process by violating your moral sense of right and wrong. I believe homosexuality falls in this same category. the problem is the culture has validated the behavior so the moral sense of right and wrong is slowly disappearing so the addiction continues looking for the first high. I believe this is what happens to sex addicts of all kinds - I don't think homosexuals are any different or any worse. They need treatment. We give them treatment and they get well.

Ok...the problem with that is, there is no scientific data to link cocaine use and homosexuality. You are hypothesising pretty randomly. You're assuming without data that homosexual relations (exclusively) cause a chemical cocktail in the brain which is addictive. In order to validate this hypothesis, you would have to prove that this actually happens, and that it is exclusive to homosexual sex. If you are talking about sex addicts, which I think you are, then yes there is a documented mental state. But, it is no different between homosexuals and heterosexuals. So why say that all homosexuals are addicts, and only heterosexuals who violate the DSM-IV's qualifications for sexual addiction are?

OIFCOMBATVETNYC
01-30-2009, 09:27 AM
Incorrect. Freud's theories on psychoanalysis and the tri-mind are still a part of the most recent versions of psychology textbooks. I have one, so I know. You also said that his theories have been disproved...which ones? He is still commonly referred to as "the father of modern psychology." He is often critisized, but he is still considered a pioneer in his time and highly influential. I mentioned that he was one of the ones who built on tabula rasa because of his importance, not to draw correlaries to his other work. Critics' opinions of Freud are irrelevant to the much older and now commonly accepted theory of blank slate.
?[/i]


And they say Marines are rocks. This totally disproves. But this is a proven fact - Great professors have and still produce sub-standard students and at times issued out some F's.

mel44
01-30-2009, 11:05 AM
Rights and wrongs are based on moral values...I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say here. How is a value judgment different from "rights" and "wrongs?"

Morals and values are two different things – Morals are your right and wrongs. The question of course is where the morals come from. Values come from morals – they are simply the things you value. the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive, as cleanliness, freedom, or education, or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy. I like this definition but to sum up what you value


Yes, addiction is more widespread than chemicals. You are the first person I've ever heard to call homosexuality a sexual dysfunction. Sexual dysfunction, according to the AMA, is (to put it bluntly) failure to perform, performing too quickly, or performing without scoring a touchdown. The term has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Go to your DSM IV – disorder is the medical term – Homosexual activity has been removed so you wont find specific terms to address the issues. It has become politically incorrect to suggest it is a malfunction of any type so finding specifics wont be in the medical journals or books. This one you will have to make a judgment call on your own. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove so the debate continues. When it comes to you sitting on the other side of the desk you will have to decide what you believe to be a effective therapist. The theories are just that theories based on another's opinion. What will yours be?


Scientific data is the reason we do studies such as clinical trials and published data. You often confuse scientific and lay terms. A scientific theory is one which is well substantiated. A theory in lay terms is a hypothetical theory for the sake of argument. When we're discussing behavioral science, and I say theory, I'm referring to a scientific one.

There is no scientific theory when it comes to behavior. Have you taken Neuro chemistry yet? Many therapist never do and it is vital to understand the reasons the brain responds the way it responds


Even in psychology, theories that can not be prove are generally discarded. Such as...Freud's sleep pattern theory, which was at one time well believed and later disprove, as you pointed out.

That is not true they just don't get used or incorporated into another
Have you actually studied Freud or is it just in your book?



They are in conflict based on your personal opinion. Once again, you can't make a blanket statement based on "I said so."

You’ll have o be specific I don’t understand what your saying



I would say that it is very much not the case of "everyone's doing it." The vast majority of the American public is heterosexual. Homosexuals are a complete minority, the question is whether or not their acts should be banned or limited due to the wide spread belief that what they are doing is immoral. Get this straight: I believe homosexuality is immoral. I do not believe, however, that we have the right as a government to restrict their freedoms. That is why I don't think that morality matters in what is going on in the country right now.

If they were harmless I agree but I do not think they are harmless. Understand mood altering experiences come from the same place. If chemically induced then it is forced release. Behavior mood altering comes from experience but releases the same chemistry in the brain creating the same dependence on the experience.




Ok...the problem with that is, there is no scientific data to link cocaine use and homosexuality. You are hypothesizing pretty randomly. You're assuming without data that homosexual relations (exclusively) cause a chemical cocktail in the brain which is addictive. In order to validate this hypothesis, you would have to prove that this actually happens, and that it is exclusive to homosexual sex. If you are talking about sex addicts, which I think you are, then yes there is a documented mental state. But, it is no different between homosexuals and heterosexuals. So why say that all homosexuals are addicts, and only heterosexuals who violate the DSM-IV's qualifications for sexual addiction are?


When You are referring to mood altering experience it certainly does and is scientific fact. Release of Serotonin and dopamine. I didn't’t say it was just homosexuals. Homosexuals when enlisting come with a pre-disposition. With the repeal of the DADT it would make it impossible to screen for it before enlistment.

OIFCOMBATVETNYC
01-30-2009, 11:10 AM
Maam, they dont screen you for homosexuality at MEPS. Before the days of DADT, there were just questions that you had to answer on a sheet of paper. No blood test. So if its repealed, it just means there would never, ever be questions on it at MEPS (like it stands currently) and no recourse if you are an open or admitted homosexual at your unit and free to live the lifestyle you choose without hiding. The debate is whether the government will seek to consider homosexuality moral for the military community and let homosexuals roam free without not one ounce of fear or backlash or discrimination within the ranks. Another user made a reference about sodomy in the UCMJ as a barrier for it being lifted but it is known that homosexuals are already in the military that are serving.

But females can be homosexuals as well but they werent never asked at any point about their sexuality so that is interesting as well. Do female homosexuals fall under your thesis?

Anyway, anybody or somebody if I am wrong, please let me know.

Thank you and have a nice day.

USMC_8156
01-30-2009, 11:16 AM
Morals and values are two different things – Morals are your right and wrongs. The question of course is where the morals come from. Values come from morals – they are simply the things you value. the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive, as cleanliness, freedom, or education, or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy. I like this definition but to sum up what you value



Dictionary.com disagrees with you.


Go to your DSM IV – disorder is the medical term – Homosexual activity has been removed so you wont find specific terms to address the issues. It has become politically incorrect to suggest it is a malfunction of any type so finding specifics wont be in the medical journals or books. This one you will have to make a judgment call on your own. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove so the debate continues. When it comes to you sitting on the other side of the desk you will have to decide what you believe to be a effective therapist. The theories are just that theories based on another's opinion. What will yours be?


That, or there is no scientific evidence to support that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction or disorder. Huh, funny, no evidence, it gets removed from the book. And no, it is not your judgement call to make, you are not a clinical scientist. Your job is to follow the DSM-IV and abide by the APA. You don't get to decide "Well, I'm mel, and in my office homosexuals are sick." If you were a licensed psychologist, that would get your license revoked.



There is no scientific theory when it comes to behavior.
What about... behavioral science? It's actually such a wide range of study that there are doctorate programs within sub types of it.


Have you taken Neuro chemistry yet? Many therapist never do and it is vital to understand the reasons the brain responds the way it responds


Neuro chemistry is mandatory for an undergraduate degree in Psychology, much less a doctorate program. In other words, every licensed psychologist has an in depth understanding. Anyone who has taken Psych 101 has an understanding of seratonin and dopamine levels.



That is not true they just don't get used or incorporated into another
Have you actually studied Freud or is it just in your book?


The definition of discarded is "to not use anymore, or to throw away."

I have studied Freud in books. How else would I study him?




You’ll have o be specific I don’t understand what your saying


I'm saying that substantial amount of your claims are "Just trust me on this one." It doesn't work like that.



If they were harmless I agree but I do not think they are harmless.

Why?


Understand mood altering experiences come from the same place. If chemically induced then it is forced release. Behavior mood altering comes from experience but releases the same chemistry in the brain creating the same dependence on the experience.

Yes, and endorphins flowing to the brain after a severe trauma induce the same kind of feeling as initial exposure to heroin. So what? A brief similarity which somewhat resembles the mood patterns of initial drug use does not mean that homosexuals are the same as addicts.







When You are referring to mood altering experience it certainly does and is scientific fact. Release of Serotonin and dopamine. I didn't’t say it was just homosexuals. Homosexuals when enlisting come with a pre-disposition. With the repeal of the DADT it would make it impossible to screen for it before enlistment.


Once again, there is no evidence that homosexuals are predisposed to sexual addiction. That's a stereotype, and it is not supported by any studies. Please cite a peer reviewed, recent source which proves otherwise.

mel44
01-30-2009, 11:26 AM
We'll sounds like you got it all figured out and I'm tired and cant type I did make and error in my post but will correct it after some sleep. I am having some issues I am dealing with and getting resolved so my debate is a little erratic so I will put it off until tomorrow. What is your destination with your degree?

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2009, 01:16 PM
I only have a bachelors and my masters is a long way off. Anybody has a doctorate that can interpret this for me? I read it like a gazillion times and I still cant - MICHELE helppppp! The judge wont overrule you on this lol oh better yet, where is TJ? lol

Hey Alice change the topic to - THESIS WRITING - A CONFLICT IN TERMS AND UNDERSTANDING

but this video sums it up lol

http://www.spike.com/video/in-living-color/2681989

There is a reason I stopped posting on this thread.

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2009, 01:18 PM
Morals are a cultures right and wrongs don't over analyze. Darlin we are talking about behavioral therapy - why is it every time someone refutes instead of stating their refute they attack my credentials? Do you see my credentials somewhere here that I haven't noticed? Don't fight with personal jabs if you don't agree state why or move on and leave my credentials in the office where they belong. I am stating what I believe - what is it you believe?

Mel....you spout your credentials in almost every post..............

mel44
01-30-2009, 01:20 PM
Mel....you spout your credentials in almost every post..............

I am truly going to bed but I do challenge you to find one post I have given my credentials.

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2009, 01:23 PM
The Oral Roberts home based foolproof course of self proclaimed mental therapists course? 80 bucks and you have a new career!!: First job on the resume is working pro bono on militarytimes.com and a free coupon subscription to all seasons of Prison Break. :D And dont forget the Prozac!!!

Ouch !!!!!!!!!!

Still laughing

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2009, 01:25 PM
I am truly going to bed but I do challenge you to find one post I have given my credentials.

You consistantly refer to yourself as a mental health professional, your practice, referring patients to other mental health professionals. That is 'spouting your credentials'. The term is not merely limited to your CV (although where you went to school would interest me at this point.)

mel44
01-30-2009, 01:34 PM
You consistantly refer to yourself as a mental health professional, your practice, referring patients to other mental health professionals. That is 'spouting your credentials'. The term is not merely limited to your CV (although where you went to school would interest me at this point.)

As I said I have not posted my credential as it would be unethical. I have some significant questions as to some of the declared military personnel here as well but do not ask as it is a public forum. Alice was quite clear on the forum community rules. You have already posted you had no interest in posting here or the subject so your only point would be to disrupt and demean me personally. Please engage in the conversation or find a thread that does interest you.

hawk71049
01-30-2009, 01:49 PM
.

Ouch !!!!!!!!!!

Still laughing

Well, hell… since we're all getting such a laugh, out of this… are these laughs at someone else’s expense?

How about 500 bucks and you can be a moderator:eek: :eek: - there’s a career and profession for ya…
:D :D :D


.

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2009, 05:25 PM
As I said I have not posted my credential as it would be unethical. I have some significant questions as to some of the declared military personnel here as well but do not ask as it is a public forum. Alice was quite clear on the forum community rules. You have already posted you had no interest in posting here or the subject so your only point would be to disrupt and demean me personally. Please engage in the conversation or find a thread that does interest you.

Touchy.....How in the Hell was my post a personally demeaning attack on you?!?! When you make assertions and claim professional status as the source of authority and/or credibility you can expect questions. This is compounded when your posts are confusing and controversial. If you read that as demeaning you personally then I am guilty. Some might call it a conversation.

I have participated in this conversation. And I didn't say that I had no further interest in this thread. What I said was that I had stopped posting. I called you on some of your more questionable comments, to which you posted non-answers. This is why I stopped posting. As to that decision, I changed my mind.

Want to ask me how that makes me feel?

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2009, 05:27 PM
.


Well, hell… since we're all getting such a laugh, out of this… are these laughs at someone else’s expense?

How about 500 bucks and you can be a moderator:eek: :eek: - there’s a career and profession for ya…
:D :D :D


.

I have found that most humor is at the expense of someone or another. The trick is to be able to laugh at yourself. I am sure that someone of your age knows that already.

I wouldn't be a moderator on any forum. Not for $500 or 10 times that amount.............

mel44
01-30-2009, 06:02 PM
Touchy.....How in the Hell was my post a personally demeaning attack on you?!?! When you make assertions and claim professional status as the source of authority and/or credibility you can expect questions. This is compounded when your posts are confusing and controversial. If you read that as demeaning you personally then I am guilty. Some might call it a conversation.

I have participated in this conversation. And I didn't say that I had no further interest in this thread. What I said was that I had stopped posting. I called you on some of your more questionable comments, to which you posted non-answers. This is why I stopped posting. As to that decision, I changed my mind.

Want to ask me how that makes me feel?

Then "respect my authority" called me on WHAT?????? I simply gave my opinion - let me clarify for you. You see my name with little letters behind it then I am making a official statement. Kinda like your name is not TJMAC77SP but a rank like PVT and your last name!

Variable Wind
01-30-2009, 06:09 PM
Then "respect my authority" called me on WHAT?????? I simply gave my opinion - let me clarify for you. You see my name with little letters behind it then I am making a official statement. Kinda like your name is not TJMAC77SP but a rank like PVT and your last name!

Actually his name to YOU is his full name as you are a civilian and especially since this is not a military sanctioned forum. This is merely a forum geared towards military members, and those interested in the military which seems to include people who think they are board certified psychologists.

Your opinions about homosexuality are yours to tend to. However, I find that you possess only an entry level education in psychology. Probably an AP level high school course? Or maybe youve been hitting up the correspondence courses.

axscntU8_Dpstv
01-30-2009, 06:16 PM
I should take the time to read this entire thread but I'm not gonna. I've been reading bits here and there. It's really funny in that context because I've got some information that was "tongue in cheek" and it first made me do a double take but then I laughed.

Anyway, I just have to say that what people feel is "moral" is purely based upon their beliefs and/or upbringing.

In the end, the God I know is loving and forgiving. I highly doubt he cares what someone does in the bedroom.

axscntU8_Dpstv
01-30-2009, 06:25 PM
perhaps our purpose serves is to prevent mental patients from bad treatment but I am wondering where has the window for work gone in dealing with the patients since the time is consumed here? BTW, I didnt know TJ was a private. Smart man I have to admit. Man reminds me of a joke. Once I remember it I will post it. Its about privates and sergeants lol

I think I should go on invisible mode and scan the site so my little green light wont appear lmaof.


nah, don't go invisible. The little green light is the top secret transporter button that allows you to travel between dimensions.

Oh crap.... I think I said too much....

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2009, 06:39 PM
Then "respect my authority" called me on WHAT?????? I simply gave my opinion - let me clarify for you. You see my name with little letters behind it then I am making a official statement.
I called you on the fucking preposterous assertion the homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction and that you could presume to wrap that in a cloak of credibility by calling yourself a mental health professional. Is that any more clear? I don’t give a rat’s ass about ‘official statements’ (I can’t imagine that is what you would call an entry to medical record either). You posted drivel. Some, myself included called you on it.
And speaking of personally demeaning,…………

Kinda like your name is not TJMAC77SP but a rank like PVT and your last name!
Was that a lame attempt to insult me? I was never a Private but you could have called me Airman at one time but that would have been almost 30 years ago.
Keep trying.

Michele
01-30-2009, 06:40 PM
At the end of the day its just Skin..... the colour or configuration of that skin is unimportant.
The same people who say homosexuality is bad, would also be saying mixed race relationships are bad using the same logic.

Thankfully that attitude is no longer socially acceptable.
If a white woman wants to marry a black man or visa versa, most people dont make biggoted comments in regards to that anymore,though in a less enlightened age people used to do so.(and of course there are still a few ignorant bigots left who do so)

What has skin colour got to do with it, its the "people" inside that skin that make a connection, the colour of the skin is irrelevant.
The same applys to "configuration" its just skin, it comes in different colours and different configurations, and as the undeniable reality demonstrates its no barrier to the "people" inside that skin forming an intimate connection if thats what they want to do.

Objecting to homosexuality is just like objecting to mixed marriages, its the same logic. The reality is its just skin.
What that skin "looks" like ,its colour, its shape should not stand in the way of a relationship if thats what the two individuals want.

To say "I dont want my kids seeing that", was the same argument used to deny mixed race marriages not so long ago.
When you see it from that topological view, thats just ugly.
Its no longer acceptable to point at a mixed race couple and say thats disgusting (ppl used to not so long ago).

Its just skin.

mel44
01-30-2009, 06:45 PM
I called you on the fucking preposterous assertion the homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction and that you could presume to wrap that in a cloak of credibility by calling yourself a mental health professional. Is that any more clear? I don’t give a rat’s ass about ‘official statements’ (I can’t imagine that is what you would call an entry to medical record either). You posted drivel. Some, myself included called you on it.
And speaking of personally demeaning,…………

Na not buying sorry..... homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction and a moral violation. It is the violation of natural order. It is birthed from a violation of morals and is in fact a sexual addiction.


Was that a lame attempt to insult me? I was never a Private but you could have called me Airman at one time but that would have been almost 30 years ago.
Keep trying.
If I wanted to insult you I would have - I simply gave you an example. if you chose to take it that way then you will have to deal with that on your own.

Variable Wind
01-30-2009, 06:50 PM
At the end of the day its just Skin..... the colour or configuration of that skin is unimportant.
The same people who say homosexuality is bad, would also be saying mixed race relationships are bad using the same logic.

Thankfully that attitude is no longer socially acceptable.
If a white woman wants to marry a black man or visa versa, most people dont make biggoted comments in regards to that anymore,though in a less enlightened age people used to do so.(and of course there are still a few ignorant bigots left who do so)

What has skin colour got to do with it, its the "people" inside that skin that make a connection, the colour of the skin is irrelevant.
The same applys to "configuration" its just skin, it comes in different colours and different configurations, and as the undeniable reality demonstrates its no barrier to the "people" inside that skin forming an intimate connection if thats what they want to do.

Objecting to homosexuality is just like objecting to mixed marriages, its the same logic. The reality is its just skin.
What that skin "looks" like ,its colour, its shape should not stand in the way of a relationship if thats what the two individuals want.

To say "I dont want my kids seeing that", was the same argument used to deny mixed race marriages not so long ago.
When you see it from that topological view, thats just ugly.
Its no longer acceptable to point at a mixed race couple and say thats disgusting (ppl used to not so long ago).

Its just skin.

Well there is no mainstream religious restriction to interracial relationships (though the dynamic can make family gatherings in some groups pretty crazy). However, being that our government is not run by religion. I am inclined to agree with you.

Measure Man
01-30-2009, 06:52 PM
Na not buying sorry..... homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction and a moral violation. It is the violation of natural order. It is birthed from a violation of morals and is in fact a sexual addiction.

If I wanted to insult you I would have - I simply gave you an example. if you chose to take it that way then you will have to deal with that on your own.

Mel,

You appear to be a reasonably intelligent person.

HOWEVER, your opinion is not in line with current APA opinion

Is not in line with mainstream Amercian opinion.

Is not in line with any scientific, clinical or educated opinion.

You are, in agreement with Drake.

If you take that as a compliment...well...good luck

mel44
01-30-2009, 07:00 PM
You can state your opinion the way you want I and I will state mine the way I want. I really am not that concerned with whether you agree or not. I have already seen your opinion and your stance so it really is pointless to debate you on a subject you already have stated your opinion. Remember this is a discussion forum. I or drake should be able to discuss our personal opinion you should be able to discuss yours. I will continue to discuss however I want as long as I don't violate community rules. This is way off topic so I have digressed from original point. Have at it the thread is yours!

TJMAC77SP
01-30-2009, 07:02 PM
See you next time.

Variable Wind
01-30-2009, 07:04 PM
You can state your opinion the way you want I and I will state mine the way I want. I really am not that concerned with whether you agree or not. I have already seen your opinion and your stance so it really is pointless to debate you on a subject you already have stated your opinion. Remember this is a discussion forum. I or drake should be able to discuss our personal opinion you should be able to discuss yours. I will continue to discuss however I want as long as I don't violate community rules. This is way off topic so I have digressed from original point. Have at it the thread is yours!

Thats right, and that is why I said that your opinion is yours to tend to. However, in order to take such a ludicrous position seriously, the more rational members here are going to look for something substancial to back it up. You have provided nothing save for some vague references to you being a mental health professional. My wife works at the local CSB so I know that a mental health professional could make you a full on clinical psychologist or someone who answers the phones at the suicide prevention hotline. Now given that information, what do you think we are to believe?

And as far as giving up on the thread, I saw you do the same thing on the military spouses/civilians thread only to come back later. Save us the fickle martyrdom.

Your_Name_Here
01-31-2009, 03:06 AM
Na not buying sorry..... homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction and a moral violation. It is the violation of natural order. It is birthed from a violation of morals and is in fact a sexual addiction.

If I wanted to insult you I would have - I simply gave you an example. if you chose to take it that way then you will have to deal with that on your own.

THE HELL IT IS.

It might not be your or my cup of tea, but that doesn't make it dysfunctional. However, someone COULD become dysfunctional due to relentless pressure to live a lie in order to preserve their familial relationships, their livelihoods, and in extreme cases, their very lives. You consistently go against established medical and scientific consensus to pass your opinion off as fact; expect the BS flag to be thrown at you accordingly. Throw us a bone here--"IMO/IMHO," or equivalent, go a long way in establishing that you are stating an opinion. No way in Hell anyone's gonna remember to look for the "little letters" at the end of your name (BS?)

Pray tell, what is it that makes it a "violation of the natural order," again?

What disturbs me most is your apparent refusal to see the case of the Mayor for what it is: plain old-fashioned abuse of power and position by someone who thought he was untouchable, and who gave no outward sign of what he was up to. This is squarely in Jim Bakker/Bill Clinton/Ted Haggerty territory--but YOU want to pin it all on, "because he's gay and boys get excited" blah blah blah.

Here's a tip: if you truly wanted your posts to stand on their own merit, post meritorious and verifiable facts; if you insist on invoking your training--whatever it is or its extent--either spill the whole Nine Yards, or STFU. Your incessant teasing about "I'm a mental health professional" has worn thin, and w/o further elaboration, leads us all to believe the capacity you serve in is as its Custodial Engineer, or something.

And to put the shoe on the other foot: this is constructive criticism; if you take it as anything else, well--that's on you.

mel44
01-31-2009, 05:40 AM
In case you haven't quite got the download on Freud. He was a cocaine addict. He believed cocaine was a great antidepressant and had therapeutic qualities.

Now I have known many many cocaine addicts that feel this way as well.

His theories, some of which were straight on, were influenced while he was under the influence thus the preoccupation with sexual order and behavior. Which is a side effect of cocaine addiction.

Some of his work is consistent with theories we incorporate into our current scope of practice. Such theories as his work on transference, psychotherapy (discussion w/therapist). His ego, superego, if you buy into it. But the whole of who he was is a respect for his pioneering work but for the most part is discredited due to his addiction.

I personally think his preoccupation with the sexual functioning of children is alarming.

TJMAC77SP
02-01-2009, 04:42 AM
Yes same questions. I didnt ask what you thought of me I asked what you thought about the issue. Let me re-state:
What is your stance on homosexuality and the DADT. Do you believe its a illness, learned behavior or natural state your born with? Is it a violation of morals? Is it moral?

You did learn about deflection in your course of studies didn't you?

Anyone who has read any of my posts has figured this out but for your benefit….

I believe that DADT is a flawed policy which was a political answer to a campaign promise.

I believe homosexuality is NOT an illness anymore than heterosexuality is.

I believe that it is a natural state that can be influenced by the environment.

It is in no way a violation of my moral standards.

In fact, I view vacillation and equivocation more of a violation of my morals than homosexuality can ever be.

Now, exactly how was it that you attempted to equate the topic of this thread to DADT? That is prior to some posters telling you that your beliefs were bonzo (an admittedly nonclinical term)?

Again………..any other questions?

mel44
02-01-2009, 05:12 AM
You did learn about deflection in your course of studies didn't you?

Anyone who has read any of my posts has figured this out but for your benefit….

I believe that DADT is a flawed policy which was a political answer to a campaign promise.

I believe homosexuality is NOT an illness anymore than heterosexuality is.

I believe that it is a natural state that can be influenced by the environment.

It is in no way a violation of my moral standards.

In fact, I view vacillation and equivocation more of a violation of my morals than homosexuality can ever be.

Now, exactly how was it that you attempted to equate the topic of this thread to DADT? That is prior to some posters telling you that your beliefs were bonzo (an admittedly nonclinical term)?

Again………..any other questions?

Well to answer I suppose the only question why is this related to DADT?? Alice said it was - I placed it into the general discussion thread but after we talked she felt it was better placed here and she moved it.

I can see that aspect. If you equate homosexuality to a behavioral disorder. The article would seem to validate this approach and therefore indicate a significant threat to "good order".

I tend to agree. There have been many great men and women before me that believe this is fact as well as many alive and kicking today. We have facilities that treat homosexuality as a sexual disorder and are classified as such. The fact is it can not be proved or disproved so it remains a mystery that is worthy of further debate.

Ya know personal and demeaning comments in the course of social communication is an indication of low self esteem and need to validate masculinity in male subjects? Just thought I would point that out.

axscntU8_Dpstv
02-02-2009, 02:35 PM
In summation:

Homosexuality: majority consensus is that it's not immoral.
VW has not offended anyone.
TJ is older than dirt.
Lou isn't far behind.
Michelle has a keen sense of what a good debate is

and

I still haven't read this entire thread but also agree that homosexuality isn't immoral.

Oh yeah and DADT is ludicrous.

TJMAC77SP
02-02-2009, 03:03 PM
TJ is older than dirt.
.

((tearing up))

older than DIRT !?!?!

Ok, I admit it, dammit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

axscntU8_Dpstv
02-02-2009, 03:15 PM
((tearing up))

older than DIRT !?!?!

Ok, I admit it, dammit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


heheheh... that's okay TJ I admire you still!! :D

If it's any consolation, I'm not far behind you.:(

Variable Wind
02-02-2009, 03:19 PM
Well Im wayyy far back there in the age thing at least.

axscntU8_Dpstv
02-02-2009, 03:23 PM
Well Im wayyy far back there in the age thing at least.


I was 13 when you were born. LOL

I can be your big sister! :cool:

ringjamesa
02-02-2009, 05:58 PM
It's my opinion that homosexuality isn't much different than heterosexuality in regards to the dynamics of the relationship.

IMHO this about sums it up. Some people are just F'd up. Sexual preference doesn't make someone F'd up-though some would argue the sociatal pressures placed on homosexuals causes some problems and I wouldn't disagree. There are rapists, pedophiles, and other disturbed individual hetero and homosexual so to blame those social ills on homosexuals is unfair and unreasonable.

axscntU8_Dpstv
02-02-2009, 07:50 PM
IMHO this about sums it up. Some people are just F'd up. Sexual preference doesn't make someone F'd up-though some would argue the sociatal pressures placed on homosexuals causes some problems and I wouldn't disagree. There are rapists, pedophiles, and other disturbed individual hetero and homosexual so to blame those social ills on homosexuals is unfair and unreasonable.


oooo I know. Let's just blame the parents.

TJMAC77SP
02-02-2009, 08:22 PM
oooo I know. Let's just blame the parents.

Or..........the consumption of Twinkies.

Variable Wind
02-02-2009, 08:40 PM
and the hits keep on coming!!:D

Youre just full of A Few Good Men quotes.

OIFCOMBATVETNYC
02-02-2009, 09:56 PM
just finished reading the army times and this soldier from Fort Campbell wrote his opinion about DADT. Here is it.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f252/signalwarrant/dadt.jpg

Michele
02-02-2009, 10:13 PM
Well I guess that says it all IOF


In summation:

Homosexuality: majority consensus is that it's not immoral.
VW has not offended anyone.
TJ is older than dirt.
Lou isn't far behind.
Michelle has a keen sense of what a good debate is

and

I still haven't read this entire thread but also agree that homosexuality isn't immoral.

Oh yeah and DADT is ludicrous.

I wanna know who Lou is. Well Ax, you now dont have to read 27 pages of it just 13 now that Alice has cleaned it up lol. Someone dobbed......

axscntU8_Dpstv
02-02-2009, 11:12 PM
Well I guess that says it all IOF



I wanna know who Lou is. Well Ax, you now dont have to read 27 pages of it just 13 now that Alice has cleaned it up lol. Someone dobbed......


International Man of Mystery??

Variable Wind
02-03-2009, 03:27 AM
International Man of Mystery??

Close...

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j86/Goku1983d/fonzie.jpg

Michele
02-19-2009, 11:15 PM
The different scopes of interpretation on homosexuality are, morality (sense of right and wrong), religion (sin)

The argument has been going for many years is it nurture or nature? Were you born there or did you acquire it.
Neither side can be proved so it remains in debate.

Seems to me it makes little difference how we got there.

I really love getting these choice little pieces out of the bible.

Jesus spoke in Matthew 19 about marriage and the immorality of adultery and divorce.
Jesus gives an explanatory example.


19.10 ¶ His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

19.11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
19.12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

So Jesus being all knowing I would think that this applies to homosexuality as well since he has remained silent on this.

Pueblo
02-21-2009, 09:10 PM
In case you haven't quite got the download on Freud. He was a cocaine addict. He believed cocaine was a great antidepressant and had therapeutic qualities

I tend to agree. There have been many great men and women before me that believe this is fact as well as many alive and kicking today. We have facilities that treat homosexuality as a sexual disorder and are classified as such. The fact is it can not be proved or disproved so it remains a mystery that is worthy of further debate.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/cartman.jpg

BWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!

That's too funny! What's astounding is how you nitpick personal aspects of Freud to dismiss his professional accomplishments, then post links to your junk-science quacks in the "medical" community whose personal AND professional lives are shameful. Case in point, the founder of NARTH, which you frequently cite, is a man named Charles Socarides. I've posted this before , but you ignored it and continued to treat NARTH as a serious organization:

In 1992, Socarides met neuroscientist Simon LeVay, who interviewed him for Born That Way?, a British documentary produced by Jeremy Taylor for Windfall Films. According to LeVay, he asked Socarides what had caused his son Richard to become homosexual. Socarides then, "...became incensed and said, among other things, "How would you like it if I asked you about your HIV status?"" This part of the interview was excised at Socarides' request.

Richard Socarides, Charles's son, is openly gay and served as Clinton's liaison on gay and lesbian issues. Apparently his father's pseudo-science was ineffective.

bowenj10
02-22-2009, 08:32 AM
Continued validation that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction that reaches far and wide.

Continued validation that heterosexuality is a sexual dysfunction that reaches far and wide: http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/01/17/20020117_175502_ml.htm

Drake_vampiel_d
02-25-2009, 06:00 PM
Continued validation that heterosexuality is a sexual dysfunction that reaches far and wide: http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/01/17/20020117_175502_ml.htm

All tha tproves is that Libs libke BJ Bill Clinton need to learn to have morals.

Variable Wind
02-25-2009, 06:03 PM
Some people believe that killing is immoral, should we not kill in the military either?
Drinking can be considered immoral, should we outlaw alcohol on base?
Speeding is against the law, should we kick everyone with a speeding ticket out for criminal activity?
Premarital sex is considered immoral by some people, should we kicked all sexually active non-married personnel out?

I mean if you are going to judge things based on morals...where is the line and why is it there?

bowenj10
02-25-2009, 06:36 PM
All tha tproves is that Libs libke BJ Bill Clinton need to learn to have morals.

If the aberrant sexual behavior of one or several homosexuals means that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction, then it only stands to reason that the aberrant sexual behavior of one or several heterosexuals means that heterosexuality is a sexual dysfunction. Try to keep up.


I mean if you are going to judge things based on morals...where is the line and why is it there?

Clearly the line has been drawn. Whoever has the most power wins. This has been the case since the beginning of human civilization.

Variable Wind
02-25-2009, 06:39 PM
Clearly the line has been drawn. Whoever has the most power wins. This has been the case since the beginning of human civilization.

I was asking him personally, as he has proven that he does not represent anyone other than his own personal interests.

Drake_vampiel_d
02-25-2009, 07:21 PM
If the aberrant sexual behavior of one or several homosexuals means that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction, then it only stands to reason that the aberrant sexual behavior of one or several heterosexuals means that heterosexuality is a sexual dysfunction. Try to keep up.

So the Aberrant sexual behavior of EVERY homosexual is what makes it a dysfunction. The fact that only some heterosexuals are mentally defective such as BJ Bill.


Clearly the line has been drawn. Whoever has the most power wins. This has been the case since the beginning of human civilization.

Yes on one side of the line are people who are decent moral and are against homosexuality and on the other side are the "people" who are pro homosexual, pro immoral behavior, pro stupidity,

Sop which side of the line are you on???

bowenj10
02-25-2009, 08:08 PM
So the Aberrant sexual behavior of EVERY homosexual is what makes it a dysfunction. The fact that only some heterosexuals are mentally defective such as BJ Bill.

Please try to speak in complete sentences so that others can understand what you write. What you wrote makes no sense.

"So the Aberrant sexual behavior of EVERY homosexual is what makes it a dysfunction." is an incomplete sentence. Perhaps you meant to say, "No, the aberrant sexual behavior of every homosexual is what makes it a dysfunction.", at which point you still have to explain why you, and others like you, feel you have the right to deprive them of rights?


Yes on one side of the line are people who are decent moral and are against homosexuality and on the other side are the "people" who are pro homosexual, pro immoral behavior, pro stupidity,

I'm on the side of people who are decent, in favor of treating individuals as individuals, protecting individual rights, and against the imposition of religious views on others. On the other side are the "people" who are pro-bigotry, pro-oppression, and pro-stupidity.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 11:38 AM
When ever you, mel44, become God, then you can judge the write or wrong of homosexuality. Till then, do as I do and let them live their lives as they want, and when they die as you and I will one day, God and only God will judge them for their lives the lived. As He will judge the way you and I lived our lives. Treat everyone the same, do you want someone in your face all the time saying you are wrong for living your life this way? No, you wouldn't. All you can do is be the God fearing person you are and follow the simple rule, judge lest ye be judged. I dont care if the bible says they are going to hell for being homosexuals, you still arnt the one to accuratly tell them that they are going to hell.

PS: That really goes for everyone.

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 12:02 PM
Excellent point Joker, it is not our place to judge others actions that do not hurt others. Basically, its none of Drake's business who is gay and its none of mine.

Drake_vampiel_d
02-26-2009, 12:44 PM
When ever you, mel44, become God, then you can judge the write or wrong of homosexuality. Till then, do as I do and let them live their lives as they want, and when they die as you and I will one day, God and only God will judge them for their lives the lived. As He will judge the way you and I lived our lives. Treat everyone the same, do you want someone in your face all the time saying you are wrong for living your life this way? No, you wouldn't. All you can do is be the God fearing person you are and follow the simple rule, judge lest ye be judged. I dont care if the bible says they are going to hell for being homosexuals, you still arnt the one to accuratly tell them that they are going to hell.

PS: That really goes for everyone.

As I have said I will let them live their lives as long as they stop trying to impose their lifestyle on society. should we do the same for pedophiles and people who commit beastiality? I live a fairly simple life so I doubt anyone would do that (unless it's variable) I wouldn't care because I am able to ignore ignorance just like I could easily ignore variabl ebut he is so funny with all his lies. but thank you for your opinion.

Drake_vampiel_d
02-26-2009, 12:46 PM
Excellent point Joker, it is not our place to judge others actions that do not hurt others. Basically, its none of Drake's business who is gay and its none of mine.

And if they keep it out of our business then there is no problem so let them shut up and keep their lifestyle behind closed doors.

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 12:53 PM
And if they keep it out of our business then there is no problem so let them shut up and keep their lifestyle behind closed doors.

Then arent you imposint your lifestyle on him? You dont get "extra" rights just because you are self-righteous. A homosexual being open about their sexuality is not IMPOSING on you and if you feel that way then perhaps you should reconsider calling other people baby's.

Drake_vampiel_d
02-26-2009, 01:14 PM
Then arent you imposintyour lifestyle on him? You dont get "extra" rights just because you are self-righteous. A homosexual being open about their sexuality is not IMPOSING on you and if you feel that way then perhaps you should reconsider calling other people baby's.

no I'm trying to stop them from trying to impose their lifestyle on others. ohh did I hurt your fewwings by showing that what they are doing is trying to impose their lifestyle on others. I'm sorry that I've hurt your feelings

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 01:19 PM
And if they keep it out of our business then there is no problem so let them shut up and keep their lifestyle behind closed doors.

Pedolphiles and beastiality is against the law. That is for the law to judge what happens to their physical bodies. If God deams it unworthly of heaven, he will judge them when they die. As for keeping it behind closed doors,why should 2 adults, keep it behind closed doors? Do you go ask the interracial couple kissing to take it behind closed doors? I would prefer that the guy next to me not be gay, but if he is, i dont care until he starts smacking my ass or rubing my leg. Men think that they will be turned into the eye candy or pieces of meat that they treated women like for so many years when they are around gay guys. That is what makes men so uncomfortable around gay men. Grow up, one, all men are not horn dogs waiting to ravage any hole left exposed. And two, do you want to ban the unatractive women from the mil too, they make some people just as uncomfortable as a gay man would. No one is going to ask you to see if you can have a relationship with your co-workers anyways, so who cares if they are gay or straight.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 01:22 PM
no I'm trying to stop them from trying to impose their lifestyle on others. ohh did I hurt your fewwings by showing that what they are doing is trying to impose their lifestyle on others. I'm sorry that I've hurt your feelings

How are they imposing their lifestyle on others? Does your PDA impose your lifestyle on others then?

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 01:27 PM
How are they imposing their lifestyle on others? Does your PDA impose your lifestyle on others then?

It does by using his own logic against him.

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 01:28 PM
no I'm trying to stop them from trying to impose their lifestyle on others. ohh did I hurt your fewwings by showing that what they are doing is trying to impose their lifestyle on others. I'm sorry that I've hurt your feelings

Its not imposing to be open about it. Are you open about your sexual orientation? Its a two way street.

mel44
02-26-2009, 01:40 PM
When ever you, mel44, become God, then you can judge the write or wrong of homosexuality. Till then, do as I do and let them live their lives as they want, and when they die as you and I will one day, God and only God will judge them for their lives the lived. As He will judge the way you and I lived our lives. Treat everyone the same, do you want someone in your face all the time saying you are wrong for living your life this way? No, you wouldn't. All you can do is be the God fearing person you are and follow the simple rule, judge lest ye be judged. I dont care if the bible says they are going to hell for being homosexuals, you still arnt the one to accuratly tell them that they are going to hell.

PS: That really goes for everyone.

J - Your definition of Judge is different than mine I suppose. I don't judge the person or the sin but I do defend my right to not be affected by someone else's sin and the effect it has on my children, my husband, and my country. no different than I would respond to drug use or promescuity. Actually the word teaches us to love the sinner hate the sin. To judge someone would be to say they are not worth saving due to thier sin. Contrary to popular belief I would do everything to lead somone away from sin that destroys them and into the truth of Godly living.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Paul makes this statment in Romans. Was he judging? No he was tryig to open the eyes of those that are unlearned in this area. This is the comisionof every Christian to go into all the world an preach the gospel.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,


Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,


Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Of course there is redemption and a answer for sin. Jesus will clean you up turn you around and get your feet set back on solid ground. How will they know if we dont tell them? Its not judging its proclaining truth!

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 01:51 PM
J - Your definition of Judge is different than mine I suppose. I don't judge the person or the sin but I do defend my right to not be affected by someone else's sin and the effect it has on my children, my husband, and my country. no different than I would respond to drug use or promescuity. Actually the word teaches us to love the sinner hate the sin. To judge someone would be to say they are not worth saving due to thier sin. Contrary to popular belief I would do everything to lead somone away from sin that destroys them and into the truth of Godly living.
Right but what you claim to do in your treatment is in essense a violation of the gift of free will given to us by God. Noone is telling you that you cannot think the way you do, but there is a separation of church and state and you cannot expect the state to base things on what the bible says. And your being "affected" by gays is not a restriction on your rights whereas your RESTRICTION of a gay person's rights IS a violation of the constitution. The state should NOT be a judge on this issue as it does not cause you or your family any real harm or danger. SEEING something that you fundamentally disagree with is not the same as censorship. Your rights END once you try to tell someone what they cannot be public as long as they are not disturbing the peace.


Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Separation of church and state.


Paul makes this statment in Romans. Was he judging? No he was tryig to open the eyes of those that are unlearned in this area. This is the comisionof every Christian to go into all the world an preach the gospel.
Right, but he never forced anyone to obey him. THat is the difference between you and Paul. You are NO Paul.


Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Separation of church and state.


Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
You would be wise to heed this, as well as your friend Drake who just said that he "is never wrong"


Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Doesnt apply here.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Separation of church and state.


Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Separation of church and state.


Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
So how do you defend Drake who says what IS existent in nature is wrong? Its a contradiction.


Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Separation of church and state.


Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Separation of church and state.


Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Fornication would be EVERY sexual act between two unmarried couples. I dont see you on here calling for the restriction of unmarried sexually active soldiers into the military.



Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Separation of church and state.


Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Separation of church and state.


Of course there is redemption and a answer for sin. Jesus will clean you up turn you around and get your feet set back on solid ground. How will they know if we dont tell them? Its not judging its proclaining truth
Separation of church and state.

Pueblo
02-26-2009, 01:52 PM
As I have said I will let them live their lives as long as they stop trying to impose their lifestyle on society.

You said you want homosexuality made illegal.

mel44
02-26-2009, 01:53 PM
You said you want homosexuality made illegal.

It already is illegal according to God

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 01:54 PM
It already is illegal according to God

Separation of church and state.

Pueblo
02-26-2009, 01:54 PM
J - Your definition of Judge is different than mine I suppose. I don't judge the person or the sin but I do defend my right to not be affected by someone else's sin and the effect it has on my children, my husband, and my country. no different than I would respond to drug use or promescuity. Actually the word teaches us to love the sinner hate the sin. To judge someone would be to say they are not worth saving due to thier sin. Contrary to popular belief I would do everything to lead somone away from sin that destroys them and into the truth of Godly living.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Paul makes this statment in Romans. Was he judging? No he was tryig to open the eyes of those that are unlearned in this area. This is the comisionof every Christian to go into all the world an preach the gospel.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,


Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,


Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Of course there is redemption and a answer for sin. Jesus will clean you up turn you around and get your feet set back on solid ground. How will they know if we dont tell them? Its not judging its proclaining truth!

What does any of this have to do with the secular military of a secular nation?

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 01:55 PM
What does any of this have to do with the secular military of a secular nation?

Remember, Remember the 5th of November.

Pueblo
02-26-2009, 01:55 PM
It already is illegal according to God

Am I allowed to disagree with your definition of legality without fear of retribution?

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 01:57 PM
Am I allowed to disagree with your definition of legality without fear of retribution?

It depends on if you find Mr Creedy's black bagging executions a form of retribution.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 01:58 PM
Of course there is redemption and a answer for sin. Jesus will clean you up turn you around and get your feet set back on solid ground. How will they know if we dont tell them? Its not judging its proclaining truth!

It is one thing to proclaim the truth, it is another to throw their face in it and force them to love something they dont. Showing them water where to drink from and shoving their head under till they drown, you are going to loose more people than you help. You can tell people about God and Jesus, you cant make them accept it. You are telling them about God but you are also FORCING them to change their ways by trying to ban them from miltary or public eyes. God only wants you to embrace being a Christian and show it through your actions so others might see, you cant make everyone believe though.

As far as "defending" your family from it, that is just plain ignorant. You going to lock them in the basement with no windows to the outside world? Or do you live in that area of the world where there is no homosexuality and the only time they can see it is on TV or the internet, or in magazines. What is that place called again? Can someone tell me...

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 01:59 PM
It is one thing to proclaim the truth, it is another to throw their face in it and force them to love something they dont. Showing them water where to drink from and shoving their head under till they drown, you are going to loose more people than you help. You can tell people about God and Jesus, you cant make them accept it. You are telling them about God but you are also FORCING them to change their ways by trying to ban them from miltary or public eyes. God only wants you to embrace being a Christian and show it through your actions so others might see, you cant make everyone believe though.

As far as "shielding" your family from it, that is just plain ignorant. You going to lock them in the basement with no windows to the outside world? Or do you live in that area of the world where there is no homosexuality and the only time they can see it is on TV or the internet, or in magazines. What is that place called again? Can someone tell me...

Afghanistan.

Pueblo
02-26-2009, 02:06 PM
It depends on if you find Mr Creedy's black bagging executions a form of retribution.

I do, but I'm gonna disagree anyway. We're talking about real laws, because there are plenty of moral people who eat ham and shellfish. When I say legal, I mean the real government has established that homosexuality is an act that it allows and tolerates. I don't mean the laws that you and your friends at the Westboro Baptist Church seek to use against others. I will, however, commend you for backing down from the nonsensical claim that there's the slightest shred of scientific evidence that supports homosexuality as a disease or chosen behavior. You stand alone, without a legal or scientific leg to stand on, and that takes courage, stupidity, or both.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 02:09 PM
I do, but I'm gonna disagree anyway. We're talking about real laws, because there are plenty of moral people who eat ham and shellfish. When I say legal, I mean the real government has established that homosexuality is an act that it allows and tolerates. I don't mean the laws that you and your friends at the Westboro Baptist Church seek to use against others. I will, however, commend you for backing down from the nonsensical claim that there's the slightest shred of scientific evidence that supports homosexuality as a disease or chosen behavior. You stand alone, without a legal or scientific leg to stand on, and that takes courage, stupidity, or both.


Well, to go with real laws and in the military UCMJ, there is the article that state there will be no sexual acts other than missionary position.

Pueblo
02-26-2009, 02:16 PM
Well, to go with real laws and in the military UCMJ, there is the article that state there will be no sexual acts other than missionary position.

There's some room for interpretation on that. You can get creative with Kama Sutra and all the crazy stuff provided it involves a penis and a vagina. If there is oral or anal sex, EVEN IF IT INVOLVES A MARRIED COUPLE, it is punishable under the UCMJ.

Pueblo
02-26-2009, 02:17 PM
Uhhh, I was on your side...DUHHHH

When I said disagree, I meant my hesitation to disagree with Mel, not any disagreement with you

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 02:18 PM
When I said disagree, I meant my hesitation to disagree with Mel, not any disagreement with you

ah, yes I see. my appologies.

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 02:19 PM
There's some room for interpretation on that. You can get creative with Kama Sutra and all the crazy stuff provided it involves a penis and a vagina. If there is oral or anal sex, EVEN IF IT INVOLVES A MARRIED COUPLE, it is punishable under the UCMJ.

Drake has said before that he would not punish that because he disagrees with that part. Or what about possession of pornography, the most violated UCMJ in history

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 02:22 PM
There's some room for interpretation on that. You can get creative with Kama Sutra and all the crazy stuff provided it involves a penis and a vagina. If there is oral or anal sex, EVEN IF IT INVOLVES A MARRIED COUPLE, it is punishable under the UCMJ.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Pueblo
02-26-2009, 02:25 PM
925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

I say doggie-style is as natural as it gets.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 02:35 PM
Drake has said before that he would not punish that because he disagrees with that part. Or what about possession of pornography, the most violated UCMJ in history

When is porn covered under UCMJ other than cardnal knowledge or GO-1?

mel44
02-26-2009, 02:41 PM
I say doggie-style is as natural as it gets.

:mad: :mad: :rolleyes:

mel44
02-26-2009, 02:43 PM
What does any of this have to do with the secular military of a secular nation?

Absolulty nothing I was answering a question from another poster if you would have read the quote in my post :)

mel44
02-26-2009, 02:45 PM
Am I allowed to disagree with your definition of legality without fear of retribution?
Yes you are sir the floor is yours! Hammer away but please don't call my house it scares me :)

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 02:51 PM
Absolulty nothing I was answering a question from another poster if you would have read the quote in my post :)

So basically it means nothing to the arguement of its application in the military.

mel44
02-26-2009, 02:52 PM
It is one thing to proclaim the truth, it is another to throw their face in it and force them to love something they dont. Showing them water where to drink from and shoving their head under till they drown, you are going to loose more people than you help. You can tell people about God and Jesus, you cant make them accept it. You are telling them about God but you are also FORCING them to change their ways by trying to ban them from miltary or public eyes. God only wants you to embrace being a Christian and show it through your actions so others might see, you cant make everyone believe though.

As far as "defending" your family from it, that is just plain ignorant. You going to lock them in the basement with no windows to the outside world? Or do you live in that area of the world where there is no homosexuality and the only time they can see it is on TV or the Internet, or in magazines. What is that place called again? Can someone tell me...

I think your being a little harsh here. No one is drowning anyone or forcing anyone. If the military allowed heroine use for recreation or advocate promiscuity I would be yelling at the top of my lungs! My children are in the army as my husband and I don't want them exposed tot the heroine use - as my pastor always said if mess around on that creek bed long enough your gonna fall in - I believe it is a learned behavior and a lack of morals and ethics that makes me nervous about their ability to make moral choices such as when the have a weapon in their hand. I don't want my country to advocate such acts. If you remember when Israel would embrace sin as a nation curse would fall on the nation as a whole. I love all people and will fight with a passion for each and every one but I will not embrace sin or advocate the winking at it as just the way it is.

ringjamesa
02-26-2009, 02:53 PM
When is porn covered under UCMJ other than cardnal knowledge or GO-1?

Only 3 instances that I know of;
GO-1
Illegal participants (child porn etc..)
Use of Gov property to view porn (computer etc..)

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 03:40 PM
The different scopes of interpretation on homosexuality are, morality (sense of right and wrong), religion (sin), and mental health. DADT also includes good order.
I wanted to discuss mental health.

The argument has been going for many years is it nurture or nature? Were you born there or did you acquire it.
Neither side can be proved so it remains in debate.

I am a huge promoter of REBT (Rational Emotive Behavioral therapy) and Behavior Modification.
We have different forms of addiction. Psychological and physical are the predominant classification. Physical addictions are the addictions that in Lyman's terms means our body has assimilated the substance as part of our body and its function and leaves the body responding to the absence of the substance as if it were going to die. Now some substance such as alcohol or barbiturates can go to the extreme as to cause grand maul seizures and you could die.
The other is the psychological dependence. This is where I believe homosexuality falls. It is an addiction. Anything that is mood altering has the potential for abuse and addiction. Substance, gambling, spending, sex, physical abuse all have the potential to become addicted to. Anything that can alter your mood through the experience.

I believe through many different experiences homosexual desires can be birthed. When acted upon they produce increased desire and an attempt to normalize the behavior.

As with drug abuse there are those that their mental make- up is such that they don’t experience as dramatic dysfunction as others.
AS with drug abuse it likes to incorporate a following. It has to continue to find the extremes to reproduce the euphoric effects.
The normalizing homosexual behavior in my opinion is no different than the legalizing some drugs. The drug in itself is not that damaging but it leads to a lifestyle of harder, more addictive type drugs.

Homosexuality can and does incorporate pedophilia in some cases.

My concern with the acceptance of gay activity in the military by the repealing of the DADT is not so much the unwanted glance in the shower but the incorporating of young men and women into a lifestyle that once experienced may not be a choice but an obligation to justify behavior.
In my mind if people “came out” as drug addicts. Then every young person that experienced drug use would be far more prone to identify with the addiction then the experience. It’s the danger is see in this condition.

Because you have fulfilled your homosexual desires and it feels good does not make it DNA driven. That means it’s psychologically driven. Any mood altering experience repeatedly acted on becomes habit and desire.

This goes for any sexual relationship. Many of them are psychologically damaging. The number one issue causing problems with recruits is relationship issues.

I love this and want to dive into your arument that homosexuality is an addiction because it is a mind altering action. So you eat bland food with no salt nor sugar? You drink only water? Your sex with your husband was for procreation and had no feelings to it what so ever? Even love, you have none, for that can also be considered mind altering action and people can be addicted to it. Why does just the act of being gay constitue an addiction? They may just prefer the company of men over women.

DNA drives us to procreate, God gave us the understaning that sex can be more than just procreation. But yes, he did stipulate who should have sex. My only argument is to let people do as they please, dont shun them, dont dismiss them for their action or life style. Accept them for being human and allow God to do with them as God wants to do with them. If I am shot in action, I dont really who comes to save my life, a gay man is not going to take advantage of me any more than a woman or a straight man caring for a woman would.

mel44
02-26-2009, 03:44 PM
I love this and want to dive into your arument that homosexuality is an addiction because it is a mind altering action. So you eat bland food with no salt nor sugar? You drink only water? Your sex with your husband was for procreation and had no feelings to it what so ever? Even love, you have none, for that can also be considered mind altering action and people can be addicted to it. Why does just the act of being gay constitue an addiction? They may just prefer the company of men over women.

DNA drives us to procreate, God gave us the understaning that sex can be more than just procreation. But yes, he did stipulate who should have sex. My only argument is to let people do as they please, dont shun them, dont dismiss them for their action or life style. Accept them for being human and allow God to do with them as God wants to do with them. If I am shot in action, I dont really who comes to save my life, a gay man is not going to take advantage of me any more than a woman or a straight man caring for a woman would.

Well looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree :)

ringjamesa
02-26-2009, 04:09 PM
So that is one person who has changed their mind since as I have stated time and time again, the living arrangement argument hasn't been a valid one since the early '90s. Men and women in the military already share living quarters, showers, and bathrooms with persons of the same sex that are homosexual and don't have a problem so to pretend that it will all of a sudden become a problem is absurd.

mel44
02-26-2009, 04:13 PM
Big deal, Im not an officer, Im too sensible and too frank to be one.

And there you have it, people would be MUCH more open to the repeal of DADT as long as the logistics behind living accomodations are hashed out. It is well within Mel's rights to disagree with the practice and to say that it is wrong. However I do not see the correllation between homosexuality and job performance.

i don't really think there is a big impact on job performance unless it is accompanied by a mental health disorder but as I said that would be filtered out eventually anyways so it really is about living quarters. VW your air force so you know when the AF dudes come here they are given extra BHA and classifies it as sub-standard living conditions. We DO NOT have the accommodations for this. If the argument is it is just natural for some and they are born that way then it is wrong to house them with straight people wouldn't you agree. If it is ok then housing men and women together would be ok but its not for many reasons. Let me give you a reasonable example.

My daughter is Scandinavian. She has a mane of blond hair down to her butt and breasts that go on for ever. She is beautiful. She naturally draws looks when she goes out. Now lets say she has to be housed with Machine666 (sorry M not putting you down) he is really interested in a girl that doesn't have a hairy back. How unfair is that to both of them? She has to put up with a mans natural desire and he has to constantly have restraint. Its just not reasonable.

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 04:13 PM
So that is one person who has changed their mind since as I have stated time and time again, the living arrangement argument hasn't been a valid one since the early '90s. Men and women in the military already share living quarters, showers, and bathrooms with persons of the same sex that are homosexual and don't have a problem so to pretend that it will all of a sudden become a problem is absurd.

No, we still have separated bathrooms and living quarters based on gender because the military was an established heterosexual environment. Removing that changes the dynamic. We do need to treat everyone the same. We either need to make separate living arangements for homosexuals or make everything co-ed. You cannot treat someone special under these circumstances.

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 04:15 PM
i don't really think there is a big impact on job performance unless it is accompanied by a mental health disorder but as I said that would be filtered out eventually anyways so it really is about living quarters. VW your air force so you know when the AF dudes come here they are given extra BHA and classifies it as sub-standard living conditions. We DO NOT have the accommodations for this. If the argument is it is just natural for some and they are born that way then it is wrong to house them with straight people wouldn't you agree. If it is ok then housing men and women together would be ok but its not for many reasons. Let me give you a reasonable example.
Get your facts straight. Im army aviation, blackhawks to be more specific. I lived in less flattering quarters in Iraq than your husband did.

ringjamesa
02-26-2009, 04:16 PM
No, we still have separated bathrooms and living quarters based on gender because the military was an established heterosexual environment. Removing that changes the dynamic. We do need to treat everyone the same. We either need to make separate living arangements for homosexuals or make everything co-ed. You cannot treat someone special under these circumstances.

Have you brought that up with your chain of command? If not, why would you make it an issue all of a sudden? It hasn't been one yet so why would it be in the future?
As i have said before;


They are already using your bathroom! If you went to BMT since DADT, you more than likely showered with someone who is gay. They are already trusted to handle themselves with people they may or may not be attracted to. If you look at the statistical data for the DADT discharges, the vast majority of them occur in Basic Training location (DoD wide). That would logically lead one to deduce that at the point of your career when you are in the most confined quarters with the least privacy, there are the MOST homosexuals. Do you hear any basic trainees demanding that they have their own private apartment so they won't run the risk of exposing themselves in from of someone that may be attracted to them?

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 04:19 PM
Have you brought that up with your chain of command? If not, why would you make it an issue all of a sudden? It hasn't been one yet so why would it be in the future?
As i have said before;

Its not an issue right now because gays know to suppress their sexual urges because failure to do so will result in discharge from the military. Now we either all need to abide by that or none. You cant pick and choose.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 04:26 PM
seperate living quarters, hmmmm....

As far as I am seeing, most AF bases have either the 1 and 1 style or the very new 4 rooms (private bathrooms per room) 1 common area dorms. And the AF already seperates men from women when it comes to sweet mates. Although my biggest question is why would anyone divulge they gay before or during basic? Unless they really do make a pass at another person, it shouldnt be an issue. At BMT, you are under GO-1 anyways. Only Tech school do you really see 2 people sharing 1 room. When it comes to two ppl in 1 room, how do you split it up, two gay guys in one room might be as bad as putting a straight guy and girl in a room.

ringjamesa
02-26-2009, 04:28 PM
Its not an issue right now because gays know to suppress their sexual urges because failure to do so will result in discharge from the military. Now we either all need to abide by that or none. You cant pick and choose.

Bullspit. The argument is that you shouldn't have to shyte, shower, and shave with someone that might be attacted to you. You already do. You are currently picking and choosing-you are willing to shyte, shower, and shave with homosexuals even though you dont get to with the opposite sex (at least not in BMT unless you were just that good). I didn't hear you raising hell then so why would you now? You want to change the rules and make everything co-ed? Fine but don't try to say that it is because of homosexuals.

ringjamesa
02-26-2009, 04:34 PM
seperate living quarters, hmmmm....

As far as I am seeing, most AF bases have either the 1 and 1 style or the very new 4 rooms (private bathrooms per room) 1 common area dorms. And the AF already seperates men from women when it comes to sweet mates. Although my biggest question is why would anyone divulge they gay before or during basic? Unless they really do make a pass at another person, it shouldnt be an issue. At BMT, you are under GO-1 anyways. Only Tech school do you really see 2 people sharing 1 room. When it comes to two ppl in 1 room, how do you split it up, two gay guys in one room might be as bad as putting a straight guy and girl in a room.

It is irrelevant. the reason you see the amt of discharges that you do at Basic Training locations may be for several different reasons; 1) people know it is a way to get out of the military no harm no foul and almost no one will ever know 2) some that actually are homosexual may find that the military lifestyle isn't what they expected and/or they don't feel that hiding their identity for the next 4-6 years is feasible for them. IMHO, most are the former rather than the later though if you as Drake, the Army is now choosing to violate federal law and is requiring those that admit to homosexuality in BMT to provide some sort of proof or they won't let them out-I myself highly doubt that the USA would put themselves in the positiion of violating Federal Law just to keep a few more people in but....ya never know.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 04:42 PM
It is irrelevant. the reason you see the amt of discharges that you do at Basic Training locations may be for several different reasons; 1) people know it is a way to get out of the military no harm no foul and almost no one will ever know 2) some that actually are homosexual may find that the military lifestyle isn't what they expected and/or they don't feel that hiding their identity for the next 4-6 years is feasible for them. IMHO, most are the former rather than the later though if you as Drake, the Army is now choosing to violate federal law and is requiring those that admit to homosexuality in BMT to provide some sort of proof or they won't let them out-I myself highly doubt that the USA would put themselves in the positiion of violating Federal Law just to keep a few more people in but....ya never know.


My only point of my statement was, getting rid of the DADT policy should just go to DA and if someone tells, then who cares. The only real logistical problem is BMT and again, why is someone going to anounce they are gay in BMT unless they are looking for some love. GO-1 is in effect in BMT so unless you go looking for some romance, you should never have a problem or have to bring it up. Not saying they have to hide it.

Battleshort
02-26-2009, 04:53 PM
...just for the sake of argument:

Imagine a room 60 feet wide, 25 feet deep and 10 feet high. In this room live 80 guys with most of their belongings. Walled off in a separate area within this room is the bathroom with 3 urinals, 6 commodes, 8 sinks and 5 showers. One has to check above and/or below and/or across from himself prior to climbing out of bed and stand in line to shit, shower and shave.

Live here for 6 months (or more) at a whack and tell me you would not care about living with gays.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 05:00 PM
...just for the sake of argument:

Imagine a room 60 feet wide, 25 feet deep and 10 feet high. In this room live 80 guys with most of their belongings. Walled off in a separate area within this room is the bathroom with 3 urinals, 6 commodes, 8 sinks and 5 showers. One has to check above and/or below and/or across from himself prior to climbing out of bed and stand in line to shit, shower and shave.

Live here for 6 months (or more) at a whack and tell me you would not care about living with gays.

I am sure there were a few that i went through BMT with, it is called not caring what they did as long as it did not affect me. The same would be true if 12 of 80 were really unatractive ppl of the opposite sex. 68 people unconfortable about nudity. Doesnt mean the 12 minority would try to have their way with any of the 68 unless accepted.

ringjamesa
02-26-2009, 05:08 PM
...just for the sake of argument:

Imagine a room 60 feet wide, 25 feet deep and 10 feet high. In this room live 80 guys with most of their belongings. Walled off in a separate area within this room is the bathroom with 3 urinals, 6 commodes, 8 sinks and 5 showers. One has to check above and/or below and/or across from himself prior to climbing out of bed and stand in line to shit, shower and shave.

Live here for 6 months (or more) at a whack and tell me you would not care about living with gays.

So it's the duration? Or is it the fact that it is no longer in a training environment? Why is it now a problem when it wasn't when you were in the same situtation during Basic Training and you knew that according to statistics, that is where the highest percentage of homosexuals would be concentrated?

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 05:15 PM
Bullspit. The argument is that you shouldn't have to shyte, shower, and shave with someone that might be attacted to you. You already do. You are currently picking and choosing-you are willing to shyte, shower, and shave with homosexuals even though you dont get to with the opposite sex (at least not in BMT unless you were just that good). I didn't hear you raising hell then so why would you now? You want to change the rules and make everything co-ed? Fine but don't try to say that it is because of homosexuals.

No, my problem is not what a person is thinking, but what a person is required to act upon. By putting homosexuals in this environment, you are holding them to a different and unequal standard and I. Ask yourself, why are women and men seperated now? If your answer is to subvert sexual tension/harassment/privacy/ect then you have to apply things equally. This is a show stopper, but for this to be the ONLY show stopper means that DADT is coming to a close soon. Right now the military is implied to be a heterosexual only environment. Gays have to conform or get out. That I feel is wrong.

Im saying you come up with a solution and you will see a LOT more support for DADT's repeal. Including mine. Unfortunately the PC climate that our military has engrossed itself in has made such a thing difficult.

Battleshort
02-26-2009, 05:17 PM
So it's the duration? Or is it the fact that it is no longer in a training environment? Why is it now a problem when it wasn't when you were in the same situtation during Basic Training and you knew that according to statistics, that is where the highest percentage of homosexuals would be concentrated?

BMT is much shorter in length and the barracks I was in was like a cavern. Additionally, in BMT you were just trying to survive and not living day to day.

The space I described is typical on a ship where the racks are 2 feet apart and stacked 3 high. Getting someones morning wood poked through your "privacy" curtain is common.:eek:

ringjamesa
02-26-2009, 07:24 PM
Isn't it ironic that this thread was created by someone that claims that she defines morals not based on what SHE believes is right or wrong but based on what others think is right or wrong?


That is why I didn't state what defines that is your to do. It is immoral for me and according to my standards. For you it may not be. I always define morals as your right and wrongs not mine.

Michele
02-26-2009, 08:10 PM
Wow, such a lot of fear coming out of peoples own inability to come to terms with someone else’s differences. Its no wonder young gays are still having so many psychological problems with “coming out”.

It’s ok to work side by side with someone who is gay just as long as they don’t tell you about it. The minute you are made aware of it the relationship suddenly changes, not because anything has really changed but because some people just don’t feel comfortable being in close proximity with you now they know this.

Some people seem to think that because you are attracted to the same sex everyone of the same sex is a sexual target.

Fear of the unknown comes from within and manifest in the form of a phobia. If these phobias are not managed it turns to hate. The person who started this thread presents a very good example of this………………..

Sometimes it gets very tiresome fighting to keep a lid on these hateful people..

Very very sad.

**shakes head and walks away**

Variable Wind
02-26-2009, 08:14 PM
Wow, such a lot of fear coming out of peoples own inability to come to terms with someone else’s differences. Its no wonder young gays are still having so many psychological problems with “coming out”.

It’s ok to work side by side with someone who is gay just as long as they don’t tell you about it. The minute you are made aware of it the relationship suddenly changes, not because anything has really changed but because some people just don’t feel comfortable being in close proximity with you now they know this.

Some people seem to think that because you are attracted to the same sex everyone of the same sex is a sexual target.

Fear of the unknown comes from within and manifest in the form of a phobia. If these phobias are not managed it turns to hate. The person who started this thread presents a very good example of this………………..

Sometimes it gets very tiresome fighting to keep a lid on these hateful people..

Very very sad.

**shakes head and walks away**

I hope this was not in reference to what I said. I mean just because I am attracted to the opposite sex doesnt mean that everyone of the opposite sex is a sexual target. You have to treat both orientations equally. Its not fear, at least not with me, its either etiquette or personal maturity.

mel44
02-26-2009, 08:15 PM
Isn't it ironic that this thread was created by someone that claims that she defines morals not based on what SHE believes is right or wrong but based on what others think is right or wrong?


Silly your taking what I said wrong - I mean that your morals are your right and wrongs not my definition of right and wrongs

Michele
02-26-2009, 08:31 PM
Sharp VW this is exactly my point. You being straight does not mean that everyone of the opposite sex is a sexual target. Why do straights seem to think that this is the case with gays? Don’t tell me that this is not the case because frankly it is.

Its all fine to say I don’t have a problem with it but put us all together in close quarters and what do you get?

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2009, 10:03 PM
Sharp VW this is exactly my point. You being straight does not mean that everyone of the opposite sex is a sexual target. Why do straights seem to think that this is the case with gays? Don’t tell me that this is not the case because frankly it is.

Its all fine to say I don’t have a problem with it but put us all together in close quarters and what do you get?

I did state this earlier, some men are afrraid of being treated the same way they used to treat women, as eye candy for someone they are not attracted to. Just as maybe a really unattractive girl was trying to hit on a guy and he didnt want it. I wouldnt care if the person was gay sitting next to me, just as long as there is no trying to pick up on me. The same rule of MEO/sexual harrasment would aply to them as do they apply to anyone. Just being gay does not constitute a sexual harasment.

Proud Mom
02-26-2009, 11:44 PM
Its all fine to say I don’t have a problem with it but put us all together in close quarters and what do you get?

To look at her wedding album :) She brought it to work so I could see it

Michele
02-27-2009, 01:53 AM
I did state this earlier, some men are afrraid of being treated the same way they used to treat women, as eye candy for someone they are not attracted to. Just as maybe a really unattractive girl was trying to hit on a guy and he didnt want it. I wouldnt care if the person was gay sitting next to me, just as long as there is no trying to pick up on me. The same rule of MEO/sexual harrasment would aply to them as do they apply to anyone. Just being gay does not constitute a sexual harasment.

Indeed.

I have asked this question before but did not get any response so I’ll ask you VW what you think. How do we go about separating hetro and homo in the way you suggest without discrimination?


To look at her wedding album She brought it to work so I could see it

That’s nice PM and you are a special person. Unfortunately you are a minority!

Pueblo
02-27-2009, 02:08 AM
BMT is much shorter in length and the barracks I was in was like a cavern. Additionally, in BMT you were just trying to survive and not living day to day.

The space I described is typical on a ship where the racks are 2 feet apart and stacked 3 high. Getting someones morning wood poked through your "privacy" curtain is common.:eek:

Additionally, if they've ever had a membership to a gym, the odds are pretty high that they've showered with a homosexual already.

Pueblo
02-27-2009, 02:09 AM
That’s nice PM and you are a special person. Unfortunately you are a minority!

Wait, what's your problem with minorities?

Michele
02-27-2009, 02:12 AM
lmao, I was just comming back in to rephrase that and here it is.

Unforunately you seem to be a minority lol

Variable Wind
02-27-2009, 12:21 PM
Indeed.

I have asked this question before but did not get any response so I’ll ask you VW what you think. How do we go about separating hetro and homo in the way you suggest without discrimination?


Honestly I dont know, and the alternative would be to not separate ANYONE. Like I said, I think this is an issue that does need to be addressed given the climate of feelings between homophobes (not anti-gay but just literally afraid) homosexuals and many other opinions within the military. We are a nation of ideas and less and less personal accountability. Maturity is what is going to make this transition work and unfortunately much of the military infrastructure needs to make a 180 here to meet that need. I will defer to anyone with a good idea. But I will say I have no problems serving with gays and believe it is their constitutional right to do so openly. DADT I think is a good TEMPORARY policy while we solve the problem. Unfortunately its a bandaid that has been forgotten about.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-27-2009, 05:19 PM
Honestly I dont know, and the alternative would be to not separate ANYONE. Like I said, I think this is an issue that does need to be addressed given the climate of feelings between homophobes (not anti-gay but just literally afraid) homosexuals and many other opinions within the military. We are a nation of ideas and less and less personal accountability. Maturity is what is going to make this transition work and unfortunately much of the military infrastructure needs to make a 180 here to meet that need. I will defer to anyone with a good idea. But I will say I have no problems serving with gays and believe it is their constitutional right to do so openly. DADT I think is a good TEMPORARY policy while we solve the problem. Unfortunately its a bandaid that has been forgotten about.

If any of you have seen Starship Troopers, they had the co-ed showers. Honestly, as a human, put me in the shower with a really good looking woman, I dont think I could get out of the shower. :) Anyways, the amercan society has put too much emphisis on how nudity is precieved. My wife is still hot but i am so accustomed to seeing her, unless I think about making love to her, I dont always get arroused. As 17 y/o+, in a shower with someone we are physically attracted to, i dont think we could control all of our bodily functions. Could we make it private shower stalls? Could we have combined living quarters and seperate shower times? How about basic functions, why cant a female measure my waiste for PT testing? Then what happens when basic turns into the accademy and there are numorus complaints about rape? DADT should just be limited to basic.

I never went to a fwd deployed location, but the base i did deploy to was set up with the private shower stalls, would there be the problem if it was communal showers?

mel44
02-27-2009, 05:28 PM
If any of you have seen Starship Troopers, they had the co-ed showers. Honestly, as a human, put me in the shower with a really good looking woman, I dont think I could get out of the shower. :) Anyways, the amercan society has put too much emphisis on how nudity is precieved. My wife is still hot but i am so accustomed to seeing her, unless I think about making love to her, I dont always get arroused. As 17 y/o+, in a shower with someone we are physically attracted to, i dont think we could control all of our bodily functions. Could we make it private shower stalls? Could we have combined living quarters and seperate shower times? How about basic functions, why cant a female measure my waiste for PT testing? Then what happens when basic turns into the accademy and there are numorus complaints about rape? DADT should just be limited to basic.

I never went to a fwd deployed location, but the base i did deploy to was set up with the private shower stalls, would there be the problem if it was communal showers?

I think the relationship thing is a going to be a issue as well. Lets look at a parallel example. If we had co-ed living quarters there would be some significant issues with soldier a and soldier b having a relationship but soldier a rooms with soldier c which kinda has a thing for soldier a so soldier b gets pissed off because they sleep in the same bunk together - good order becomes a brawl in the mess hall!

I also agree with the natural bodily responses. Whats gonna happen if a couple of guys in the shower and one gets turned on once again brawl in the shower!

Poor commander will spend all his/her time on sexual harassment issues :(

Pueblo
02-27-2009, 05:34 PM
lmao, I was just comming back in to rephrase that and here it is.

Unforunately you seem to be a minority lol

Don't be fooled by the name. I'm as white as it gets and my ancestry is from a country that doesn't speak spanish.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-27-2009, 05:38 PM
I think the relationship thing is a going to be a issue as well. Lets look at a parallel example. If we had co-ed living quarters there would be some significant issues with soldier a and soldier b having a relationship but soldier a rooms with soldier c which kinda has a thing for soldier a so soldier b gets pissed off because they sleep in the same bunk together - good order becomes a brawl in the mess hall!

I also agree with the natural bodily responses. Whats gonna happen if a couple of guys in the shower and one gets turned on once again brawl in the shower!

Poor commander will spend all his/her time on sexual harassment issues :(


OMG, you are back on thread? lol

mel44
02-27-2009, 05:39 PM
Don't be fooled by the name. I'm as white as it gets and my ancestry is from a country that doesn't speak spanish.

Pueb are you in Colorado? We were looking at the post there as a possible place to go after signal school. If you are there is it nice?

Pueblo
02-27-2009, 10:55 PM
Pueb are you in Colorado? We were looking at the post there as a possible place to go after signal school. If you are there is it nice?

Perhaps I am. What I can tell you about Pueblo is that it's at least an hour away from anything decent. There's a movie theater... a Wal Mart... a couple Mexican joints... and that's about it.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-27-2009, 11:04 PM
Did we loose focus of the thread or had everything been said that is needed to be said?

imported_Xtreme
02-28-2009, 01:18 AM
Homosexuality is a LIFESTYLE.

Being that the military is a lifestyle of it's own, I really don't see why the military needs to caters towards an alternate lifestyle. An alternate lifestyle doesn't make anyone special. Being a weedhead is a lifestyle, yet no one is baffled why the military doesn't allow people to smoke weed. Overall, my stance is this -- the Armed Forces doesn't owe a thing to any alternate lifestyles, and they can prohibit whatever lifestyles they deem necessary.

I mean, the military tell whoever who joins it, how to live, respectfully. What purpose does it serve to defeat that? This isn't Subway.

mel44
02-28-2009, 01:31 AM
Perhaps I am. What I can tell you about Pueblo is that it's at least an hour away from anything decent. There's a movie theater... a Wal Mart... a couple Mexican joints... and that's about it.

owww doesn't sound very exciting how come everyone raves about Colorado so much I wonder???

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2009, 01:44 AM
Homosexuality is a LIFESTYLE.

Being that the military is a lifestyle of it's own, I really don't see why the military needs to caters towards an alternate lifestyle. An alternate lifestyle doesn't make anyone special. Being a weedhead is a lifestyle, yet no one is baffled why the military doesn't allow people to smoke weed. Overall, my stance is this -- the Armed Forces doesn't owe a thing to any alternate lifestyles, and they can prohibit whatever lifestyles they deem necessary.

I mean, the military tell whoever who joins it, how to live, respectfully. What purpose does it serve to defeat that? This isn't Subway.

Correct, the military is the socialist lifestyle protecting the free American way of life. Usually that statement is used for financial arguments, but the same could be said about this. I didnt want to say it was a communist lifestyle, we have more freedom than communism.

Pueblo
02-28-2009, 05:01 AM
Being a weedhead is a lifestyle, yet no one is baffled why the military doesn't allow people to smoke weed.

Being a "weedhead" is an illegal lifestyle. Being a homosexual is not

imported_Xtreme
02-28-2009, 08:04 PM
Being a "weedhead" is an illegal lifestyle. Being a homosexual is not
Whatever is illegal or not is subjective. If someone really wanted to, there can actually be laws on homosexuality. There's nothing literally stopping something from being illegal or not.

And to follow through with your example: a male sporting a mullet, large afro, cornrows or dreadlocks isn't illegal either... yet you cannot wear such hairstyles in the military, because, again, the military is a lifestyle of it's own.

The logic behind it all, is that certain lifestyles are not compatible with the military, because the military IS a lifestyle of it's own. It tells people how to live, period.

So basically, if a person is allowed to serve "openly" gay, then why can't I have a mullet, afro, dreadlocks or cornrows for a hairstyle? As you can see, catering towards alternative lifestyles would open so many doors and raise so many questions, and military personnel don't need that level of distraction.

Pueblo
03-01-2009, 03:18 AM
Whatever is illegal or not is subjective.

The word you're looking for is objective, since there is no disputing the legality of homosexuality. You may or may not agree with the righteousness of its legality, but it's on the books.


If someone really wanted to, there can actually be laws on homosexuality. There's nothing literally stopping something from being illegal or not.

It would take an amendment to the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html)


And to follow through with your example: a male sporting a mullet, large afro, cornrows or dreadlocks isn't illegal either... yet you cannot wear such hairstyles in the military, because, again, the military is a lifestyle of it's own.

It also requires me to shave, yet I let my facial hair grow out on the weekend, because that's my time. I don't care what people in the military do in their free time, as long as they're obeying the law.


The logic behind it all, is that certain lifestyles are not compatible with the military, because the military IS a lifestyle of it's own. It tells people how to live, period.

If you genuinely believed this, then if the military allowed openly gay people, the dreaded "shower" scenario would be invalid because the military told you to tolerate homosexuality.


So basically, if a person is allowed to serve "openly" gay, then why can't I have a mullet, afro, dreadlocks or cornrows for a hairstyle?

Something tells me mullets are *pretty* common where you come from

Proud Mom
03-01-2009, 03:43 AM
So basically, if a person is allowed to serve "openly" gay, then why can't I have a mullet, afro, dreadlocks or cornrows for a hairstyle? .

Because being a homosexual or not has nothing to do with your military standards. Stand in a room with 100 active duty people, all meeting their grooming and clothing regulations....then ask for the gays to step forward

before they stepped forward you wouldn't be able to tell

now that I have gotten that out of my system I'll run along

imported_Xtreme
03-01-2009, 08:09 PM
Because being a homosexual or not has nothing to do with your military standards.
If the standard is DADT, and then someone were to go against it, there is a conflict of standards. It's not an minority group, ethnicity, nationality. It's a lifestyle... no different than other lifestyles, like a vegetarian.

Stand in a room with 100 active duty people, all meeting their grooming and clothing regulations....then ask for the gays to step forward
For what? What they do on their own time is none of my business.

before they stepped forward you wouldn't be able to tell
For some reason people tend to speak as if DADT hurts homosexuals, because of the "don't tell" part. The other side of that, is "don't ask", which means it's none of my business to sit there and ask, wonder, interrogate, anything of the subject towards any person, gay or not. There are people who are gay who currently serve.... knowing that, what's the problem? Where is the issue?

The word you're looking for is objective, since there is no disputing the legality of homosexuality.
No, subjective. technically, there could be a law of everything one can ever think of. Subjective, as in, subject to change, subjective to whatever people in power wishes to make happen.

It would take an amendment to the Constitution
Oh, like the constitution has never been circumvented before.

It also requires me to shave--
No, I mentioned something more visible and lasting -- hairstyle, as in, the hair on the top of your head. Your example is irrelevant.


I don't care what people in the military do in their free time, as long as they're obeying the law.
That's exactly what DADT policy let's happen. On one's free time, no one cares, as long as they are obeying the law and UCMJ.

If you genuinely believed this, then if the military allowed openly gay people, the dreaded "shower" scenario would be invalid because the military told you to tolerate homosexuality.
With that said, when the military actually doesn't allow an open gay lifestyle of operate in the Armed Forces, (which is, in this case, REALITY) then everyone just live their lives, obeying UCMJ and regulation with no issue, whether gay or not.

Something tells me mullets are *pretty* common where you come from
Well look kid... While you may have a completely different opinion on this subject matter, I have not attacked you in any way. Maybe you need to come off disrespectful because you really don't too much of a point, and you need to add distraction, I don't know. But I do know that you are quite immature when someone actually debates you to a corner where you realize that your point is actually invalid.

Continue to attack the debate, not the person. Just a tip... it would make you at least seem smarter.

Michele
03-01-2009, 08:47 PM
So basically, if a person is allowed to serve "openly" gay, then why can't I have a mullet, afro, dreadlocks or cornrows for a hairstyle? As you can see, catering towards alternative lifestyles would open so many doors and raise so many questions, and military personnel don't need that level of distraction.

I can not have the hair styles that you discribe in my job and I am not military. It is a matter of presentation and neatness. How would it look going into a management meeting wearing jeans and a t-shirt.

I am however protected under the law from being discriminated against if someone knew I was gay and did not like it. This is the very reason gays want the DADT policy repealed, to give the protection under the law from people who cant get over their own preducide.



If the standard is DADT, and then someone were to go against it, there is a conflict of standards. It's not an minority group, ethnicity, nationality. It's a lifestyle... no different than other lifestyles, like a vegetarian.

And the military doesn’t discriminate against vegetarianism.



For some reason people tend to speak as if DADT hurts homosexuals, because of the "don't tell" part. The other side of that, is "don't ask", which means it's none of my business to sit there and ask, wonder, interrogate, anything of the subject towards any person, gay or not. There are people who are gay who currently serve.... knowing that, what's the problem? Where is the issue?


I could ask you the same question. If they serve now then what is your problem?

sigecaps
03-01-2009, 09:08 PM
"Homosexuality is a lifestyle" arguments have been debunked ad infinitum.

Let's ignore the body of evidence that says homosexuality has a biological basis for a second, and assume for the sake of argument that it is a lifestyle choice. You know what else is a lifestyle choice? Religion. If there is a moral problem with allowing homosexuals to practice homosexuality, than surely there is just as large of a moral problem with allowing non-Christian religions to persist. After all, the Christian god's greatest commandment is to worship him. But you know what? We as a country still allow non-Christian theists, even atheists, to serve openly without fear of retribution. We do so because we recognize that the bible was written by man and thus is a flawed document so Christians pick and choose the nice scriptures to follow and cast aside the ugly ones. Well guess what, society is beginning to recognize that Leviticus 18:22 is just as ugly as the bible verses that justified everything we've come to expect from old civilizations: slavery, the subjugation of women, rape, religious intolerance, etc.

imported_Xtreme
03-02-2009, 12:13 AM
It is a matter of presentation and neatness.
Bingo. It is all a matter of presentation and neatness. Emphasis on PRESENTATION.


How would it look going into a management meeting wearing jeans and a t-shirt.
How would it look to have homosexual magazines in a shoppette? Men getting off of an aircraft after a deployment kissing each other in sight of mass media like that famous WWII picture? Michele, homosexuality, deals with sexuality... a concept that people hold private and dear. To some things people do regarding sex, other mind find disgusting, and specifically, what's the problem with that? Homosexuality is a disgusting thing to people, most people. And being that the Armed Forces don't exactly have to same level of private personal space as the civilian sector, it would be a problem -- why can a gay bunk and shower with the same sex while a straight person cannot? You might as well throw everyone into one large mass, males and females bunking and showering with each other like Starship Troopers.


I am however protected under the law from being discriminated against if someone knew I was gay and did not like it.
They are still protected by law, as well as UCMJ. If a person get beaten or violated for being gay in the military, it's still a hate crime. I have no idea where people get the the idea that DADT allows hate crimes or something -- it doesn't.


This is the very reason gays want the DADT policy repealed, to give the protection under the law from people who cant get over their own preducide.
NEWS FLASH -- they already are protected. Hate crimes are not tolerated in the U.S. Military, and all are punishable via UCMJ action.

Second, I like to bring up a very interesting point -- since when is a straight male is 100% the bad guy? Since when does disagreeing with a certain cause of a specific group of people makes someone prejudiced? There is no issue with homosexuals, no different than there's no issue with anyone else. I find it ruthlessly ironic that while everyone speaks of tolerance, they absolutely HATE people who disagrees, has their own opinions, etc.

Overall, I find the crap disgusting.... no different than the fact that I find bug eating disgusting... and there's NOTHING wrong with that. So, knowing this, you mean to tell me that if you were to eat a cockroach off the floor in my face, and I ask you to NOT do that in front of me, does that mean I'm biased against you? I hate you? I'm prejudiced against you? No, it doesn't. It only means that some things SHOULD be kept private, done in privacy, out of plain sight, because most people do not accept it. That's exactly what DADT provides. Privacy.


And the military doesn’t discriminate against vegetarianism.
The military doesn't discriminate against gays either -- they are still allowed to join... so what's the problem?

I could ask you the same question. If they serve now then what is your problem?
Good question, and I'm glad you asked. Why? Because there isn't any problem. What a person does on their off time shouldn't matter, as long as they produce results regarding their job.

mel44
03-02-2009, 12:24 AM
Michelle I am curious are the laws the same in Australia for discrimination as it is here? and how long has the military there allowed gays to serve openly? Have they put out any statistics on the success yet? Just wondering.

imported_Xtreme
03-02-2009, 12:25 AM
"Homosexuality is a lifestyle" arguments have been debunked ad infinitum.
It is still a lifestyle.


Let's ignore the body of evidence that says homosexuality has a biological basis for a second,
It does? Where?

You know what else is a lifestyle choice? Religion.
That depends of how forward a religion is carried out.


If there is a moral problem with allowing homosexuals to practice homosexuality, than surely there is just as large of a moral problem with allowing non-Christian religions to persist.
I never said it was a moral problem, did I? There might not be a moral problem of people who defecate/urinate on each other as part of their sexuality, but I do find it disgusting... and I see no problem in finding something disgusting.

so Christians pick and choose the nice scriptures to follow and cast aside the ugly ones.
That true, but I hint that you speak of this as if Christians are supposed to follow the entire Bible. News has it, that they don't have to -- the Bible is only a mere collection of books, historical text, that houses multiple religions. So when you get upset that a Christian doesn't follow the whole Bible, remember that there's a LOT in it that has NOTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus. They are supposed to follow Jesus, not a whole book... which is really no different than how multiple schools can have the same textbook, and teach completely a different curriculum for each one.

But overall, my point doesn't stem from religion, just basic common decency, and the fact people actually don't have to force others to accept social issues as a norm.

Pueblo
03-02-2009, 02:20 AM
How would it look to have homosexual magazines in a shoppette? Men getting off of an aircraft after a deployment kissing each other in sight of mass media like that famous WWII picture?

It would look exactly the way you describe it. What is a gay magazine, by the way?


Michele, homosexuality, deals with sexuality... a concept that people hold private and dear. To some things people do regarding sex, other mind find disgusting, and specifically, what's the problem with that? Homosexuality is a disgusting thing to people, most people.

The argument that the rights of those who find an act "disgusting" supersede the constitutionally protected right to sex between consenting adults has no basis. The legally superior stance belongs to those obeying the law as opposed to those who would prefer to bend the law to shelter themselves from an alternative lifestyle.


And being that the Armed Forces don't exactly have to same level of private personal space as the civilian sector, it would be a problem -- why can a gay bunk and shower with the same sex while a straight person cannot?

Because they're there to bunk and shower.


Since when does disagreeing with a certain cause of a specific group of people makes someone prejudiced? There is no issue with homosexuals, no different than there's no issue with anyone else. I find it ruthlessly ironic that while everyone speaks of tolerance, they absolutely HATE people who disagrees, has their own opinions, etc.

Tolerance
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

It doesn't mean I have to like you for pretending gays are bad, or that I can't make fun of you for similar reasons. It means allowing you to do so without retribution. As an example, I can say you should return to the trailer park you came from while still tolerating your right to say what you want here and not petitioning for your comment to be removed or other forms of retribution against you. On the other hand, those against homosexuals in the military would find a way to get a homosexual removed from the military; because they can't tolerate the actual behavior.


Overall, I find the crap disgusting.... no different than the fact that I find bug eating disgusting... and there's NOTHING wrong with that. So, knowing this, you mean to tell me that if you were to eat a cockroach off the floor in my face, and I ask you to NOT do that in front of me, does that mean I'm biased against you?

You may want to start a thread in this forum for all those against gay sex in uniform at work, and I'd be the first one to support you. Otherwise, that analogy has no business in this discussion. As an aside, if that person brought up their SERE training at work and the insect consumption they did there without actually eating a bug in front of you at that moment, they can do so without reprisal. I'm sure it would still bother you, but the military would expect you to man up and do your job.


I hate you? I'm prejudiced against you? No, it doesn't. It only means that some things SHOULD be kept private, done in privacy, out of plain sight, because most people do not accept it. That's exactly what DADT provides. Privacy.

All DADT changed was the enlistment form that asked if you are a homosexual. After the enlistment process is through, anyone can "ask", but that individual can't "tell". And if it's a superior, then there's nothing protecting them from being forced to tell. So DADT does not protect the private lives of anyone, since the same investigative procedures still exist and the policy has barely changed. If you truly believed it was a private matter and thought gays in the military currently serve, you wouldn't have brought up the shower scenario.

Michele
03-02-2009, 02:38 AM
NEWS FLASH -- they already are protected. Hate crimes are not tolerated in the U.S. Military, and all are punishable via UCMJ action.

We are not protected under the DADT policy! Your CO finds out you’re gay and out the door you go. Where is the protection in our working environment?


Michelle I am curious are the laws the same in Australia for discrimination as it is here? and how long has the military there allowed gays to serve openly? Have they put out any statistics on the success yet? Just wondering.

I really don’t know why I should bother giving you this info Mel because it really makes no difference to you. No matter how much info I give you on this issue you will still be blinded by your own ignorance and prejudice. But what the heck.
Our discrimination laws I think a fairly similar to the US.

http://www.gaynet.com.au/news/archive/story-138.htm

mel44
03-02-2009, 07:20 AM
We are not protected under the DADT policy! Your CO finds out you’re gay and out the door you go. Where is the protection in our working environment?



I really don’t know why I should bother giving you this info Mel because it really makes no difference to you. No matter how much info I give you on this issue you will still be blinded by your own ignorance and prejudice. But what the heck.
Our discrimination laws I think a fairly similar to the US.

http://www.gaynet.com.au/news/archive/story-138.htm

That was harsh M I was just thinking about something and couldn't find any info on it. If I didn't think your opinoin was relevant I would not have asked you so don't be so defensive it doesn't become you at all!!!

imported_Xtreme
03-02-2009, 07:53 PM
We are not protected under the DADT policy! Your CO finds out you’re gay and out the door you go. Where is the protection in our working?
Michele, I'll answer you first because you seem to be a little better of a person than Peublo is.

I'll have to disagree with you still. There are countless homosexuals in the military who currently serve, with no issue, with their superiours and peers in either complete or full knowledge of their lifestyle. A person, cannot get kicked out by mere speculation. In fact, that's the #1 thing that DADT protects everyone from -- speculation and rumor mills. Why? Because for one, it's none of the business of whoever to speculate or cause rumor, two as far as speculation and rumors go, they can be very uncomfortable and socially damaging, and this can take place whether speculation is wrong or not.

If anything, I'd guess my logic is that DADT policy is against the act, not the person. A person not caught in the act can serve... just like a weedhead can serve, as long as he isn't smoking weed after taking oath. But yes, I like to differentiate between the concept of being against the act, and against the person. They are not interchangeable.

imported_Xtreme
03-02-2009, 08:16 PM
What is a gay magazine, by the way?
Homosexual literature sold in magazine format.

The argument that the rights of those who find an act "disgusting" supersede the constitutionally protected RIGHT to sex between consenting adults has no basis.
News Flash -- those who serve in the Armed Forces DO NOT HAVE the same basic rights that civilians have. Hence, the term, Service. This implies that one must give up rights in order to protect them. And if you cannot understand that point then I feel sorry for you.

Because they're there to bunk and shower.
Your answer implies that straight soldiers are not there to bunk and shower, as if homosexuals would produce zero incidents while straight soldiers would cause all incidents. Wow, you must really be twisted if you think that the probability of incident would be any greater than straight men and women bunking/showering together.

It doesn't mean I have to like you for pretending gays are bad
I never said(or ahem, "pretended") gays are bad. Wow, do you have a problem reading English text, perhaps? I even specified to someone that I find no moral issue with gays. Please, I DARE YOU, point out where I said gays, the people, are bad.


As an example, I can say you should return to the trailer park
I'm not from a trailer park. Now had I said something like, "you should return back to Mexico" or whatever, that might seem like an ignorant thing to say, wouldn't it?


while still tolerating your right to say what you want here and not petitioning for your comment to be removed or other forms of retribution against you.
I highly doubt my post would get moderated here -- for one, I only debate. [2] I don't go out to insult others. I really don't care of I get modded here, because I know what I say and I do follow the regulations of the forums. If I really wanted to, I'd just ignore you as you become more ignorant with your response and only speak to those who actually have a legitimate argument, like Michele here.

On the other hand, those against homosexuals in the military would find a way to get a homosexual removed from the military; because they can't tolerate the actual behavior.
People don't do that, at least not in the way you make it seem. I find and interesting point on how while there is a percieved fear of homosexuals, there is also a reciprocal fear that homosexuals have of those who are straight -- and I'll clear it up here... people won't try to get you kicked out unless you specifically bother them and you get out of hand. As far as a basic human tolerance, it's actually out there.

You may want to start a thread in this forum for all those against gay sex in uniform at work, and I'd be the first one to support you. Otherwise, that analogy has no business in this discussion.
The point was the fact that a person like me, using myself as an example, has a problem with the action, not the person.

Michele
03-02-2009, 10:29 PM
The point was the fact that a person like me, using myself as an example, has a problem with the action, not the person.

What action might that be?

I can see two trains of thought here but I am not sure which you are refering to. The sex act? Or the way we present ourselves? Or both? Either way both are generalizations that can be applied to hetrosexuals in terms of the UCMJ.

imported_Xtreme
03-03-2009, 02:00 AM
The DADT policy is discriminatory and give the military the right to discriminate by discharge, anyone who discloses openly they are gay. This policy is exempt from all discrimination laws.
I'll have to agree with you somewhat... If discharge is a discrimination, than it is. But there are multiple ways and reasons why someone can get discharged of service. As far as the homosexuality issue goes, it is almost 100% the person's effort to use the policy to get out of service easily, far more than someone actually getting kicked out by DADT any other way.

But as being a discrimination, there are many ways the military discriminate... and sadly, as it will sound rather rude and selfish, I understand that. The military doesn't have to be politically correct, the military never charged itself to be the most politically correct organization, and I fully understand that... because to function, RIGHTS HAVE TO BE NULLIFIED. For example, a military person doesn't have the same level of "Freedom of Speech" as regular civilians do. You have have a "President", you have a "Commander-in-Chief". You don't have the right to choose to place a hand over your heart when the flag is raised, you have a salute; you gave up the right to choose. You cannot decide to quit the Army, like you can a civilian job or college, either. You don't have that right... when you swear in, you must completely understand that you give up your regular rights to be among those who
protect them. This is why the military warrants the respect of the common civilian.


This policy does not protect gays from discrimination it suppresses them.
Well, I'm not going to argue with you there. It does suppress.

What action might that be?

I can see two trains of thought here but I am not sure which you are refering to. The sex act? Or the way we present ourselves? Or both? Either way both are generalizations that can be applied to hetrosexuals in terms of the UCMJ.
I'm glad you asked Michele.

The train of thought I would ride on is the act of commiting homosexual sex, same sex on same sex. No matter what, I would never consider it a normal act. It will always induce images in my head that I deem disgusting. Also keep in mind, as I said before, I see no issue on whether it's immoral or not. Homosexuals are not automatically bad in my book. I just don't agree with what they do, and who they choose as a mate (a person of the same sex). Just because I don't agree on something with a person, it doesn't mean I hate them or have a problem with them.

As far as DADT goes, I don't see that it discriminate against homosexuals overall, because it discriminates against the act, not the person. Because technically, if a straight person commits a homosexual act, then that person, a straight person would get kicked out of the military.

I'm kinda glad that you don't come off immature... you actually what to know the logic behind my points, which is a good thing. Also I get to hear from your point of view in a civil manner, which makes this actually a good convo and/or debate. But overall, I believe that you give up rights when you charge yourself with the responsibility to protect them... which in this case would be giving up the basic right to have sexual relations with the same sex out in the open.

Also, take note that this is only my logic, not my feelings, if I sound a little cold or heartless. What I think of an issue and what I feel about it isn't going to be the same thing.

imported_Xtreme
03-03-2009, 02:18 AM
All DADT changed was the enlistment form that asked if you are a homosexual. After the enlistment process is through, anyone can "ask", but that individual can't "tell". And if it's a superior, then there's nothing protecting them from being forced to tell. So DADT does not protect the private lives of anyone, since the same investigative procedures still exist and the policy has barely changed.
No. As DADT is in effect, NO ONE, neither those appointed over you or your peers can ask if you are gay or not. If someone does, whether you actually are or not, you can go to JAG about it, and you would be 100% in-the-right.

If you truly believed it was a private matter and thought gays in the military currently serve, you wouldn't have brought up the shower scenario.
I know gays in the military currently serve, that's not a thought. And yes, it still is a private matter -- the persons who are gay don't tell me that they are, what they do on their off time, and I don't ask, either. The issue would be, that the removal of DADT policy would mean that it's okay to NOT be so private about whatever their matters are.

That would mean that a homosexual person can openly share what they do. What exactly is being a "open" homosexual, anyway? This, has never been explained, which leaves absolute space for interpretation.

As far as the shower scenario goes, I KNOW that not every single gay male would be looking at me... just as a female should know that not every straight male would be looking at them(or vice versa). So, when it comes to the shower scenario, I know good and well that regardless of anything, bunking and showering with the sex that one find sexual compatibility with, creates a level of discomfort. Why? Because as far as socio-sexual situations goes, people would rather have a sense of privacy... it's common sense.

Really, it's common sense. A (straight)female wouldn't want a (straight)man in the shower with them whether they are looking at them or not. For a straight man, the same goes. So where do homosexuals fit in? What does being openly gay mean in this case?

Michele
03-03-2009, 02:33 AM
But as being a discrimination, there are many ways the military discriminate... and sadly, as it will sound rather rude and selfish, I understand that. The military doesn't have to be politically correct, the military never charged itself to be the most politically correct organization, and I fully understand that... because to function, RIGHTS HAVE TO BE NULLIFIED. For example, a military person doesn't have the same level of "Freedom of Speech" as regular civilians do. You have have a "President", you have a "Commander-in-Chief". You don't have the right to choose to place a hand over your heart when the flag is raised, you have a salute; you gave up the right to choose. You cannot decide to quit the Army, like you can a civilian job or college, either. You don't have that right... when you swear in, you must completely understand that you give up your regular rights to be among those who

I understand your logic but from your words you are assuming that being gay is a choice. IMHO there is no choice involved here. It is not something that you decide you want to do.
Freedom of speech is a choice in that you choose to exercise it or not.


I'm glad you asked Michele.


The train of thought I would ride on is the act of commiting homosexual sex, same sex on same sex. No matter what, I would never consider it a normal act. It will always induce images in my head that I deem disgusting. Also keep in mind, as I said before, I see no issue on whether it's immoral or not. Homosexuals are not automatically bad in my book. I just don't agree with what they do, and who they choose as a mate (a person of the same sex). Just because I don't agree on something with a person, it doesn't mean I hate them or have a problem with them.

And there’s that “C” word again……


As far as DADT goes, I don't see that it discriminate against homosexuals overall, because it discriminates against the act, not the person. Because technically, if a straight person commits a homosexual act, then that person, a straight person would get kicked out of the military.

If a straight person commits a homosexual act then he/she is not straight now are they?


I'm kinda glad that you don't come off immature... you actually what to know the logic behind my points, which is a good thing. Also I get to hear from your point of view in a civil manner, which makes this actually a good convo and/or debate. But overall, I believe that you give up rights when you charge yourself with the responsibility to protect them... which in this case would be giving up the basic right to have sexual relations with the same sex out in the open.

Article 125 Sodomy

Text.
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)
(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.
(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.
Explanation.
It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

This is the regulation you refer to yes?

Note the explanation of the article. A little bit hypocritical wouldn’t you say? I mean really, are you going to tell me that every member of the US Military follow this regulation?

imported_Xtreme
03-03-2009, 03:11 AM
I understand your logic but from your words you are assuming that being gay is a choice. IMHO there is no choice involved here. It is not something that you decide you want to do.
Actually, for the record, I honestly don't have a exact bead on what a homosexual is. Do they choose to be gay? Or are they born? Or, a little bit of both, are they developed? I don't know... but I do know for certain, that an act, is a choice. A gay person may or may not choose to be gay, but they do choose the act, no different than how I know I choose to kiss ladies.

Being straight, I'd say that attraction to women seems innate, but how a correspond with them is my personal choice.

In the case of a gay person, I still maintain that the act is a choice.


And there’s that “C” word again…
The word "Commit"?

If a straight person commits a homosexual act then he/she is not straight now are they?
This is the part that gets me -- what defines a gay person? The act? Or the seemingly innate attraction? I don't think that a straight person is gay if they commit a homosexual act... they are only a straight person committing a homosexual act. Homosexuality is a lifestyle... To my definition, a straight person doing something gay doesn't make him homosexual just like merely eating a salad doesn't make me a vegetarian. So, what makes someone homosexual? What exactly is gayness?


Note the explanation of the article. A little bit hypocritical wouldn’t you say? I mean really, are you going to tell me that every member of the US Military follow this regulation?
I wouldn't say that every single member of the military follows this regulation, but at the same time all those who don't follow that regulation are not ever so OPEN about what they do. For example, one cannot have sex while deployed, but it does happen... it's just that they are not open about it, to the point at which the command finds out and takes action. Sex while deployed... that's another freedom you lose when you volunteer for the Armed Forces. Anyway, yes, I still maintain that when you sign up to serve, you lose rights, respectively.

ringjamesa
03-03-2009, 01:13 PM
I'll have to agree with you somewhat... If discharge is a discrimination, than it is. But there are multiple ways and reasons why someone can get discharged of service. As far as the homosexuality issue goes, it is almost 100% the person's effort to use the policy to get out of service easily, far more than someone actually getting kicked out by DADT any other way.
But as being a discrimination, there are many ways the military discriminate... and sadly, as it will sound rather rude and selfish, I understand that. The military doesn't have to be politically correct, the military never charged itself to be the most politically correct organization, and I fully understand that... because to function, RIGHTS HAVE TO BE NULLIFIED. For example, a military person doesn't have the same level of "Freedom of Speech" as regular civilians do. You have have a "President", you have a "Commander-in-Chief". You don't have the right to choose to place a hand over your heart when the flag is raised, you have a salute; you gave up the right to choose. You cannot decide to quit the Army, like you can a civilian job or college, either. You don't have that right... when you swear in, you must completely understand that you give up your regular rights to be among those who them. This is why the military warrants the respect of the common civilian.
Well, I'm not going to argue with you there. It does suppress.
I'm glad you asked Michele.
The train of thought I would ride on is the act of commiting homosexual sex, same sex on same sex. No matter what, I would never consider it a normal act. It will always induce images in my head that I deem disgusting. Also keep in mind, as I said before, I see no issue on whether it's immoral or not. Homosexuals are not automatically bad in my book. I just don't agree with what they do, and who they choose as a mate (a person of the same sex). Just because I don't agree on something with a person, it doesn't mean I hate them or have a problem with them.
As far as DADT goes, I don't see that it discriminate against homosexuals overall, because it discriminates against the act, not the person. Because technically, if a straight person commits a homosexual act, then that person, a straight person would get kicked out of the military.
I'm kinda glad that you don't come off immature... you actually what to know the logic behind my points, which is a good thing. Also I get to hear from your point of view in a civil manner, which makes this actually a good convo and/or debate. But overall, I believe that you give up rights when you charge yourself with the responsibility to protect them... which in this case would be giving up the basic right to have sexual relations with the same sex out in the open.
Also, take note that this is only my logic, not my feelings, if I sound a little cold or heartless. What I think of an issue and what I feel about it isn't going to be the same thing.

It isn't your "100%" that concerns most of us. it is the other 20-30%. The ones who get kicked out because of speculation and witch hunts..... Like this Maj for instance. She wasn't asked, and she didn't tell. She was investigated based on rumors and speculation and kicked out.

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1572641

imported_Xtreme
03-03-2009, 03:32 PM
It isn't your "100%" that concerns most of us. it is the other 20-30%. The ones who get kicked out because of speculation and witch hunts..... Like this Maj for instance. She wasn't asked, and she didn't tell. She was investigated based on rumors and speculation and kicked out.

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1572641
Hmpf. I've read that article Ringjamesa, and I also read that the first page of the topic... which was a whole other interesting debate with some of the same characters here.

Myself? Situations like that are messed up in my book. Being that I know how the military culture works, that person probably had something else hanging over her head that couldn't exactly be nailed, so they pushed her out on something else... it's a common practice in the military. Is it right? No, it isn't. But is does happen. Her command community could have been petty to the point at which she just wasn't liked as a person, and people done that to be spiteful. It might have nothing to do with her homosexual actions, it just that that provided a reason to kick her out. And after 18 years? Two years from retiring? You mean to tell me that no one knew she was gay after 18 years? Yeah right... people knew, but they chose to kick her out with it, probably with the real issue being something else.

But being in all reality, the chances that situations like these happening are slim... almost like getting kicked out for infidelity. Someone must NOT like you for other reasons to kick you out for infidelity... which is pretty much approached with a pick-and-choose game like UCMJ action against homosexuality.

Michele
03-05-2009, 01:59 AM
In the case of a gay person, I still maintain that the act is a choice.

Of course it’s a choice wether to act on it or not. So too is it a choice that you act on your hetero desires or not.


The word "Commit"?

No, choice…….



This is the part that gets me -- what defines a gay person? The act? Or the seemingly innate attraction? I don't think that a straight person is gay if they commit a homosexual act... they are only a straight person committing a homosexual act. Homosexuality is a lifestyle... To my definition, a straight person doing something gay doesn't make him homosexual just like merely eating a salad doesn't make me a vegetarian. So, what makes someone homosexual? What exactly is gayness?

In terms of this discussion the problem is clearly the “act” which is in essence, the lifestyle.


I wouldn't say that every single member of the military follows this regulation, but at the same time all those who don't follow that regulation are not ever so OPEN about what they do.

Well first off, I am sure there are blokes that are so OPEN about what they do and secondly you are generalizing that all homosexuals advertise who they are. This is a myth.

Your_Name_Here
03-05-2009, 03:15 PM
Actually, for the record, I honestly don't have a exact bead on what a homosexual is. Do they choose to be gay? Or are they born? Or, a little bit of both, are they developed? I don't know... but I do know for certain, that an act, is a choice. A gay person may or may not choose to be gay, but they do choose the act, no different than how I know I choose to kiss ladies.

Being straight, I'd say that attraction to women seems innate, but how a correspond with them is my personal choice.

In the case of a gay person, I still maintain that the act is a choice.

The word "Commit"?

This is the part that gets me -- what defines a gay person? The act? Or the seemingly innate attraction? I don't think that a straight person is gay if they commit a homosexual act... they are only a straight person committing a homosexual act. Homosexuality is a lifestyle... To my definition, a straight person doing something gay doesn't make him homosexual just like merely eating a salad doesn't make me a vegetarian. So, what makes someone homosexual? What exactly is gayness?

I wouldn't say that every single member of the military follows this regulation, but at the same time all those who don't follow that regulation are not ever so OPEN about what they do. For example, one cannot have sex while deployed, but it does happen... it's just that they are not open about it, to the point at which the command finds out and takes action. Sex while deployed... that's another freedom you lose when you volunteer for the Armed Forces. Anyway, yes, I still maintain that when you sign up to serve, you lose rights, respectively.

Xtreme,

I agree with your post, for the most part. My personal working definition of homosexual would be the innate attraction, e.g. the very same spark between straight men and women for the opposite sex, is present in Gay/Lesbians for those of the "matching" sex. Bisexuals? I think they just can't make up their damn minds!!!:tongue: :D

Another scenario/setting to see the theory in action: prison. I'll bet that the vast majority of inmates are indeed ordinarily straight, but that environment eventually bends many to the point of finding the most "feminine"-looking and make them the "prison bitch" (for all the Oz fans out there!) Some of those inmates simply neither see nor have an alternative, and with only each other to turn to...

You mention losing rights as a member in uniform. I always heard it put like this back in the day: It's not that you have lost rights, but it is that you have GAINED responsibilities. Now, that said, the net effect is the same, as many of these responsibilities, when properly carried out, do basically preclude exercising of rights as one would have before joining.

imported_Xtreme
03-05-2009, 03:17 PM
Well first off, I am sure there are blokes that are so OPEN about what they do and secondly you are generalizing that all homosexuals advertise who they are. This is a myth.
This is no generalization here... The point is, if DADT is eliminated, then that provides an option to be open and indiscreet, pretty much. So those who do not, "advertise" themselves, they are currently serving in the Armed Forces with no issue. In fact, the way the military is ran currently, you have no option but to be discreet... that's the overall point.

On top of the fact that the elimination of DADT policy would actually open the doors to more discrimination than less. It's called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which implies that one is not to ask, and one is not to tell. This includes everyone... Forgive me, but I don't want to be asked if I'm gay just because I'm in a new unit and I prefer to NOT flirt with the females I work with as soon as I get there.

And overall, yes, the removal of DADT does open the door to telling and "advertising", so to speak. It makes it an option. And just as good that there are straight people who want to turn a gay person straight, there are gay people who want to turn a straight person gay. In some cases, the start is an "experimental" situation. especially with females. The military isn't a place for people to explore their sexual boundries. Are 100% gay people actively seeking straight people? No, which is no different than the fact that 100% of straight people are not interested in seeking gay people. But, it does happen, and it is a reality that cannot be simply ignored as if people don't do such things.

What's the purpose of removing DADT anyway? So someone can tell me that they are homosexual(without legal repercussions)? "Hey, SGT, I'm gay." I would be like, "Um, so? What do I need to know this for?" Sometimes there's information that isn't needed, and I need not to be a part of it.

It has no point, at least in my view. Sure, it would remove the fear of getting kicked out of service, but one can kick you out for any other reason in the first place. If a person was gay, and say, DADT didn't exist, and they were late to formation 2-4 times, APFT failure, missing equipment or uniformity, adultery, or anything else, someone can easily kick them out based off of some other reason... Sure one can overtime make pie graphs and statistics of how many gays get kicked out the military for other issues compared to straights, but overall that person would still be kicked out, and their overall state of being will still be worse off.

Should the military get rid of it's adultery laws and regulations as well?

sigecaps
03-05-2009, 11:14 PM
What's the purpose of removing DADT anyway? So someone can tell me that they are homosexual(without legal repercussions)? "Hey, SGT, I'm gay." I would be like, "Um, so? What do I need to know this for?" Sometimes there's information that isn't needed, and I need not to be a part of it.

Not many people know this, so I'm not going to jump on you for your ignorance. DADT is more than just not telling, and not asking. It also implies that gays must not act on being gay. In other words, they either have to be celibate or live in constant fear of being found out and possibly discharged. I assume you are heterosexual. So think if the roles were reversed and you had to be celibate or live in constant fear of being found out and possibly discharged. It's not a fair policy towards homosexuals.

sigecaps
03-05-2009, 11:36 PM
Whether or not Sexual Orientation is a Choice is Irrelevant.

Whether or not we choose our sexual orientation is an irrelevant factor to consider when discussing whether or not sexual orientation should be a protected right. You know what else is a choice? Religion. The precedent has already been set. We allow Wiccans, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, and everyone in between to serve in the US military openly and without the gross systemic rights violations that homosexuals face under DADT.

We never say to a Wiccan, well you chose to be a Wiccan, so that's why you shouldn't be granted the same rights as Christians. Because since birth we been taught to accept that freedom to choose your religion is a human right, and we've been taught that giving others that freedom is the right thing to do, even if your own religion says that god's greatest commandment is to love your god with all your soul, heart and mind (Mathew 22:36-38). As an aside, I'd like to point out if it is OK for Christians to allow others to break their god's greatest commandment, and this commandment is broken by choice no less, then they really have no room to stand on to say that it is a "moral outcry" to allow homosexuals to be homosexual.

But that's just an aside, because my main point is that the precedent has been set. The possibility that you can choose your sexual orientation should not play a role in interfering with the right to equal protection anymore than we allow the very real certainty that you can choose your religion to interfere with your right to religious freedom.

Variable Wind
03-06-2009, 12:16 PM
Not many people know this, so I'm not going to jump on you for your ignorance. DADT is more than just not telling, and not asking. It also implies that gays must not act on being gay. In other words, they either have to be celibate or live in constant fear of being found out and possibly discharged. I assume you are heterosexual. So think if the roles were reversed and you had to be celibate or live in constant fear of being found out and possibly discharged. It's not a fair policy towards homosexuals.

Youre right that its not a fair policy but right now it seems to be the only practical one.

And no DADT does not require celibacy, its basically says "if you do it just dont get caught."

imported_Xtreme
03-06-2009, 01:10 PM
Whether or not we choose our sexual orientation is an irrelevant factor to consider when discussing whether or not sexual orientation should be a protected right.
Guess I can agree there, however, I see no reason why the military forces should and would have every single right that civilians have; it's the fundamental thing that sets us apart. This isn't Walmart, Disney or some corporate job. It's called, service, and to serve implies that you give up basic rights, and depending on your lifestyle, you may have to give up more rights than the next person.

You know what else is a choice? Religion. The precedent has already been set. We allow Wiccans, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, and everyone in between to serve in the US military openly and without the gross systemic rights violations that homosexuals face under DADT.
Are you comparing a concept of faith in metaphysical or higher power to sexual orientation? Understand that the main reason why religious freedom(some what) is foudn in the Armed Forces is because it might be important to how one prefers to be buried. Second, there are faults in the religious regulation as well -- you can wear a jewelry chain on your neck provided that it has an religious medallion on it. What about athiests? Technically, they cannot wear neck jewelry... isn't this a form of discrimination?

The military doesn't have to be politically correct, it only has to work, be effective, be efficient.


Because since birth we been taught to accept that freedom to choose your religion is a human right, and we've been taught that giving others that freedom is the right thing to do, even if your own religion says that god's greatest commandment is to love your god with all your soul, heart and mind (Mathew 22:36-38).
I fail to see how sexual orientation is equal to religion, especially in terms of necessity. Whether you have a religious faith or not, it's not hard to understand that the concept of a higher metaphysical power beyond you is important, provided that you may have to DIE for your country, which in turn the nation owes you the right to be buried according to your religious beliefs. The main reason why religion is a necessary thing is because it deals with death and beyond... which is a great reality that a Soldier, Airmen, Seaman or Marine may have to face. I don't see how in effect, you can have sex for your country, therefore, there must be freedom of sexual orientation. It doesn't add up.

Speaking of sexual orientation, it's only natural to men and women mate; that's how the human race reproduces. I don't see the military negating the right to reproduce, excluding deployments. It would make no sense to make it so straight people cannot have sex... because that would infringe on the right to bear children. This is the second important thing that the military at least owes a service member... because [1] You may DIE; [2] You should at least be able to carry on your genetic bloodline via offspring being that you may DIE.

If you're homosexual, your sexual intercourse doesn't produce children, therefore, it isn't necessary to let you carry on and do it. The military doesn't owe you a thing in this department.


The possibility that you can choose your sexual orientation should not play a role in interfering with the right to equal protection anymore than we allow the very real certainty that you can choose your religion to interfere with your right to religious freedom.
Again, I'll close this out with this -- religious freedoms and sexuality freedoms do not compare in regarding Military service. Why? Because the concept of a higher power and/or metaphysical relations is important to an organization that may ask one to pay the Ultimate Price for one's country, and it governs burial preference, which is the only reason why religion is found on your dog tags.

Sexual preference outside of anything that doesn't support basic human reproduction is unimportant, this includes homosexuality. Why? Because being that you are simply asked to DIE for your country, you should at least have the freedom to produce offspring, and homosexuality doesn't support that; it's biologically impossible.

Trust me, if the military had it ther own way, the Armed Forces would all be asexual clones who are genetically engineered for warfare, who would have no religion, no sex, nothing else to live for except the fight. But before we get that far, we have us... with all the complexities and difficulties inbetween.

Variable Wind
03-06-2009, 01:15 PM
Dont argue with sigecaps, Xtreme. He will confuse all the logic you present to him with 'ad hominem' and change the subject or ignore you completely.

imported_Xtreme
03-06-2009, 01:42 PM
Another scenario/setting to see the theory in action: prison. I'll bet that the vast majority of inmates are indeed ordinarily straight, but that environment eventually bends many to the point of finding the most "feminine"-looking and make them the "prison bitch" (for all the Oz fans out there!) Some of those inmates simply neither see nor have an alternative, and with only each other to turn to...
That's another dynamic about it. The theory about allowing homsexuality in the uniformed services is that homosexuality will grow. I remember watching a segment on the History Channel about one of Hitler's SS groups that allowed homosexuality. Eventually, the homosexuality grew to pretty much the mass of the whole unit. I gotta search it up to provide real data on it, but yeah, that might be a part of the reason why DADT exists.

Because there is a very thin line between comradery and homosexuality. When that line becomes blurred, homosexuality will grow to a, in my words, disgusting level. Straight people may become the irregular, and homosexual may become the norm. For one, military personnel don't command the same level of private space as the civilian world. But the line between homosexuality and comradery is very thin and real. Example, in sports, patting the butt of another player after a good play is considered comradery, not gay, even though it can be a gay act. The bond that men develop in warfare, is described to be very strong, just as strong as brotherhood or marriage, which is what many of war veterans have said. If you don't know this, I recommend reading Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book, "On Killing". It covers the psychological occurences in warfare.

You mention losing rights as a member in uniform. I always heard it put like this back in the day: It's not that you have lost rights, but it is that you have GAINED responsibilities. Now, that said, the net effect is the same, as many of these responsibilities, when properly carried out, do basically preclude exercising of rights as one would have before joining.
Pretty much. But that's a better, softe way of saying it -- you don't have rights, you have responsibilities.

imported_Xtreme
03-06-2009, 02:04 PM
Dont argue with sigecaps, Xtreme. He will confuse all the logic you present to him with 'ad hominem' and change the subject or ignore you completely.
I can picture that, kinda, being that he ignored well over half of what I stated earlier.

Variable Wind
03-06-2009, 02:08 PM
Xtreme,

I agree with your post, for the most part. My personal working definition of homosexual would be the innate attraction, e.g. the very same spark between straight men and women for the opposite sex, is present in Gay/Lesbians for those of the "matching" sex. Bisexuals? I think they just can't make up their damn minds!!!:tongue: :D

Another scenario/setting to see the theory in action: prison. I'll bet that the vast majority of inmates are indeed ordinarily straight, but that environment eventually bends many to the point of finding the most "feminine"-looking and make them the "prison bitch" (for all the Oz fans out there!) Some of those inmates simply neither see nor have an alternative, and with only each other to turn to...

You mention losing rights as a member in uniform. I always heard it put like this back in the day: It's not that you have lost rights, but it is that you have GAINED responsibilities. Now, that said, the net effect is the same, as many of these responsibilities, when properly carried out, do basically preclude exercising of rights as one would have before joining.

OH NO!! I dont have a problem serving with gays, but the moment Simon Adebisi shows up in the shower, I become a deserter.
http://forumimages.footballguys.com/uploads/av-35401.gif

axscntU8_Dpstv
03-06-2009, 02:10 PM
Roflmao...

imported_Xtreme
03-06-2009, 02:25 PM
That guy is a actually a damn good actor. But lol @ that the random pic

Variable Wind
03-06-2009, 02:26 PM
That guy is a actually a damn good actor. But lol @ that the random pic

Oh I agree, but after watching him in Oz, Ill never break the law.

Your_Name_Here
03-06-2009, 02:37 PM
That's another dynamic about it. The theory about allowing homsexuality in the uniformed services is that homosexuality will grow. I remember watching a segment on the History Channel about one of Hitler's SS groups that allowed homosexuality. Eventually, the homosexuality grew to pretty much the mass of the whole unit. I gotta search it up to provide real data on it, but yeah, that might be a part of the reason why DADT exists.

Because there is a very thin line between comradery and homosexuality. When that line becomes blurred, homosexuality will grow to a, in my words, disgusting level. Straight people may become the irregular, and homosexual may become the norm. For one, military personnel don't command the same level of private space as the civilian world. But the line between homosexuality and comradery is very thin and real. Example, in sports, patting the butt of another player after a good play is considered comradery, not gay, even though it can be a gay act. The bond that men develop in warfare, is described to be very strong, just as strong as brotherhood or marriage, which is what many of war veterans have said. If you don't know this, I recommend reading Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book, "On Killing". It covers the psychological occurences in warfare.

Pretty much. But that's a better, softe way of saying it -- you don't have rights, you have responsibilities.

I think you overstate the possibility of just how much homosexuals will proliferate. Will more join? Absolutely; will every gay/lesbian believe it's the right move for him/her? I doubt it--as you know, the Military lifestyle isn't for everyone as it is. Many--gay or straight--will not join no matter what, and many who might be on the fence vis-a-vis DADT were probably gonna join anyway. Due to present social stigmas that remain in place, I highly doubt many are going to flaunt it, if only to save themselves hassling, or worse, at the hands of some bigoted homophobic ignoramus. In other words--don't go looking for Elton John or Nathan Lane at the local Recruiter station.
Not sure of the exact population/demographics of the gay community, but the numbers overall can't be that high--and that's before subtracting those who would not qualify due to the usual factors that routinely catch straight folks (e.g. age, mental illness, unwaivable criminal record, physical DQ, etc.)

That would be an interesting show to watch, if you can find it; look forward to watching.

Yes, I have heard that the bonds forged in battle, or other extremely high-stress/traumatic event can be every bit as strong as those that bind family members together. Whoever is the one that saves your* ass, I don't think you'll mind or care what their persuasion is, and that certainly isn't going to obligate anyone to "service" their buddy--if you catch my drift. Your point about pats on the ass in a sporting event simply boils down to context. It's context that is all-important. To me, it's a thin line--but not that thin. Personally, I really believe that when it's all said and done and they are openly acknowledged and integrated into the ranks, that it will be much ado about nothing.

Better/softer? LOL, well what do you want; I heard this more than 16 yrs. ago in BMT!!!:D

*NOTE: Figurative "you" in effect here.:)

imported_Xtreme
03-06-2009, 05:01 PM
Just in case one might attempt to take my previous statement as some type of fear mongering... it isn't. I was only stating a historical reference over homosexuality in world history of military forces, something which is a very interesting concept if you add Greek, Roman, Persian histories, as well as other cultures and civilizations.


To me, it's a thin line--but not that thin.
This tells me that you do see the line, know it exists.

Michele
03-09-2009, 04:04 AM
And no DADT does not require celibacy, its basically says "if you do it just dont get caught."

Great celibacy or dont get caught. Where is the discrimination protection in the work place?



That's another dynamic about it. The theory about allowing homsexuality in the uniformed services is that homosexuality will grow. I remember watching a segment on the History Channel about one of Hitler's SS groups that allowed homosexuality. Eventually, the homosexuality grew to pretty much the mass of the whole unit. I gotta search it up to provide real data on it, but yeah, that might be a part of the reason why DADT exists

Oh please! When the DADT policy is removed you wont see any real difference. Real data would be wonderful..... Gays are not suddenly going to be jumping out of the closet when it is repealed. The standards still apply.

imported_Rabbit69
03-09-2009, 10:50 AM
You would think that people in the military would have compassion for those serving next to them. It isn't like these people CHOOSE to be attracted to members of the same sex. I wish I could choose who I was attracted to. I would choose fat chicks. It sucks being attracted to Playboy model types that I'll never get.

However, I believe that just as racism died out, this homophobia being taught by parents and churches will also die out. Perhaps along with the Republican party.

Want a true conflict of terms? Look on a "pro-family" group on Google. Their primary mission is to destroy the families of homosexuals. There are two types of morals. Real ones and those that the churches try to force on us. Don't allow yourself to be brainwashed by the church, you parents, or talk radio. Think for yourself dammit!

Pueblo
03-09-2009, 11:17 AM
OH NO!! I dont have a problem serving with gays, but the moment Simon Adebisi shows up in the shower, I become a deserter.
http://forumimages.footballguys.com/uploads/av-35401.gif

I miss Father Eko

imported_Xtreme
03-09-2009, 05:54 PM
Oh please! When the DADT policy is removed you wont see any real difference. Real data would be wonderful..... Gays are not suddenly going to be jumping out of the closet when it is repealed. The standards still apply.
There will be differences. There will be more situations of violence and conflict... such as a young paratrooper who finds out his roommate is doing some random guy in their room in the barracks, and decides to get violent.

Frustrations steaming from the idea that Pvt. Joe Homo can bunk with males downrange(which renders all regulations that separate the sexes from having sex) while every straight soldier will have to deal with the same basic rules and regulations separating males and females.

Females would get super frustrated from always getting propositioned by females, because there's no rules against doing so(which is something I can clearly picture, because females complain about this already).

The ONLY WAY that it would work, is to just simply DESTROY all socio-political walls separating males and females in the military. This is bathrooms, showers, bunks, barrack room selection, etc. On movies like Starship Troopers it may seem alluring, but in reality it's simply not a sound idea.






I mean, really -- why do you think the government goes through the pain-staking detail separating the sexes? It's done so the likely hood of habitual sex doesn't take place, and on deployment it's even more strict. So why allow open homosexuality, which BY-PASSES every single idea in operation that separates the sexes?

imported_Rabbit69
03-09-2009, 06:17 PM
So we are punishing one group because there are others who cannot handle it? Instead of punishing gays, why not punish the homophobes?

If there is a problem with propositioning or sexual relations, then make the rules more strict. If the Paratrooper catches his roommate doing something against the rules, report it. If he gets violent, he won't be around very long to be a problem.

Jealousy that they get to bunk with their boyfriend/girlfriend is just something you might have to deal with. You can take a small bit of comfort in knowing that they get screwed over when it comes to living outside the barracks because we as a nation ignorantly deny them the privlige of marriage.

Variable Wind
03-09-2009, 06:23 PM
So we are punishing one group because there are others who cannot handle it? Instead of punishing gays, why not punish the homophobes?

If there is a problem with propositioning or sexual relations, then make the rules more strict. If the Paratrooper catches his roommate doing something against the rules, report it. If he gets violent, he won't be around very long to be a problem.

Jealousy that they get to bunk with their boyfriend/girlfriend is just something you might have to deal with. You can take a small bit of comfort in knowing that they get screwed over when it comes to living outside the barracks because we as a nation ignorantly deny them the privlige of marriage.

Rabbit, I agree its wrong, but from a practical standpoint, its the only thing we can do right now while we are coming up with a solution. While it is cold comfort for gays in the military, I do believe that some understand that certain logistical solutions need to be made to various integration problems. Sexuality is a unique issue different from race and religion in an applicable sense.

Michele
03-09-2009, 10:59 PM
Frustrations steaming from the idea that Pvt. Joe Homo can bunk with males downrange(which renders all regulations that separate the sexes from having sex) while every straight soldier will have to deal with the same basic rules and regulations separating males and females.

Yep, I was waiting for this issue to come up. Separate the gays from the straights (as demanded) and then the straights start bitching that the gays are doing the “wild thang” whilst they remain celibate


Realistically, how often and under what circumstances do you really have to shower with someone else? Like, is there no divider or anything? Come on, give me some feedback here…


studies show that at least 75% of heterosexuals engage in oral sex, conduct also prohibited by the UCMJ. Thus, in the U.S. military and in all but 5 states, sodomy statutes are no more relevant to homosexual than to heterosexual conduct. The notion that sodomy statutes somehow support the ban on homosexual personnel in the military is erroneous





Australia:
From 1986 to 1992, the Australian military formally prohibited the participation of known homosexuals in the Armed Forces. Before 1986, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) had no formal policy on homosexual service members, and recruits were not asked about their sexual orientation (General Accounting Office, 1993). While no formal policy existed, however, informal procedures were in place such that personnel suspected of homosexual behavior were usually removed from duty (Agostino 2000). ADF officials pointed to state and federal sodomy laws to justify the removal of homosexual personnel (Croome 1992, 9; Livingstone 2000).
In the 1980s, broad legal changes in Australia undermined the informal procedures that the ADF had adopted to handle homosexuality among service members. Specifically, state and national governments repealed anti-homosexual laws and began to enact anti-discrimination measures. As a result, the ADF, no longer able to use territorial laws to support discriminatory practices against homosexuals, was required to draft its own formal policy on homosexuality. In September of 1986, the ADF issued a written policy which formalized its longstanding informal procedures barring homosexual personnel from service (Croome 1992; Smith 1995).
The formal policy had not been in effect for long when the rationale of the ADF ban began to be questioned. Some of these criticisms were broad complaints about equality of opportunity within the military and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the service (Smith 1995). The legitimacy of the ADF ban was further weakened by the adoption of a human rights plank in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Provisions barring discrimination based on sexual orientation were not articulated in explicit terms, but part of the “spirit” of the law, according to Human Rights Commissioner Chris Sidoti (Sidoti 2000).
In 1990, a servicewoman filed a complaint with the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, claiming that she was discharged from the ADF because she was a lesbian. The complaint was a serious challenge to ADF policy. Some believe that it was a catalyst which prompted the ADF to review its anti-homosexual policy (UK Ministry of Defence 1996, H1-1; Smith 1995, 544; Croome 1992, 10). The Government formed a special committee to investigate and make recommendations. In September of 1992, this committee urged an immediate repeal of the ban on gay and lesbian personnel (Agence France Presse, 18 September 1992). Two months later, the Government followed the recommendation, voting to end the ban. While the Defense Minister and the Service Chiefs remained steadfast in their opposition to homosexual service, the Attorney General, the Health Minister, and the Prime Minister all supported lifting the ban. Prime Minister Paul Keating ordered that the policy change be immediately implemented in the entire ADF (Agence France Presse, 23 November 1992; United Press International, 23 November 1992; Reuters, 24 November 1992).
The government replaced the policy barring homosexual service with a general instruction on “sexual misconduct policy.” The new policy prohibited unacceptable conduct without making a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Behavior would be considered unacceptable under the policy, then, if it negatively impacted group cohesion or command relationships, exploited subordinates, or somehow dishonored the armed services (Smith 1995, 545). Threatening sexual behavior, for example, was illegal under the policy regardless of whether it was homosexual or heterosexual in nature. The introduction of the Defence Instruction on Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Offenses, Fraternisation and Other Unacceptable Behavior in the Australian Defence Forces was accompanied by new programs and training courses which explained and supported the new policy.
A study conducted by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military in 2000 found that the elimination of the ban on gay personnel in the ADF did not have negative effects in terms of troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance. The policy change was positively evaluated by military officials, commanders, and scholars as contributing to equal opportunity and improving working relationships within the ranks. The new policy was not found to be disruptive to the military overall—officers and enlisted personnel had uneventfully come out to their fellow service members; recruitment and retention rates were unaffected by the new policy. At the time of Belkin and McNichol’s study, it appeared that gender integration posed greater challenges for the ADF than the integration of homosexual personnel (Belkin and McNichol, 2000).
The Australian military successfully integrated gays and lesbians into the ADF several years before sodomy laws were fully eliminated in Australia. Tasmania, one of Australia’s six states, retained its sodomy law until 1997. In 1991, Nick Toonen, a gay resident of Tasmania, filed a complaint about the sodomy law with the United Nations. He argued that the sodomy law “constituted a threat to his life and liberty, violated his privacy and led to constant vilification and threats of physical violence.” In March of 1994, the U.N. Human Rights Commission agreed with Toonen and called on Australia to repeal this law. The Federal Government responded by drawing up legislation to override the Tasmania law. But the government of Tasmania refused to repeal the law and it remained on the books until May of 1997. While police in Tasmania were increasingly reluctant to use the law to prosecute homosexuals as time went on, there were 46 criminal convictions for sodomy in Tasmania after 1976. Both men and women were convicted under the statute; punishment ranged from monetary fines to prison sentences up to 2 _ years long (Wallace 1994, 4; and IGLHC 1997).
Despite the fact that supporters of the ban pointed to sodomy laws as justification for the anti-homosexual policy, Tasmania’s ongoing sodomy law appears to have had very little effect on the lifting of the ADF’s ban on gay personnel. Tasmania’s law was mentioned during the debate surrounding gays in the Australian military, but mostly by those who wanted the law repealed, according to military scholar Hugh Smith (Smith 2001). Moreover, states David Allen of Australia’s GayLawNet, military and defense establishments come under federal law whilst sodomy laws were state laws and so irrelevant in so far as conduct in the military was concerned (Allen 2001). But even barring this distinction, Smith asserts that the Tasmanian law was rarely used. To summarize, the lifting of the ban was a successful policy before Tasmania repealed its sodomy law, and it continued to be an effective policy after the sodomy law was finally eliminated. According to Hugh Smith, the whole question of gays in the Australian military “has disappeared.” The ADF is much more preoccupied, according to Smith, “with issues [of] heterosexual harassment and … the proposal for women in ground combat” (Smith 2001).

imported_Rabbit69
03-09-2009, 11:56 PM
I was going to say, why don't we simply examine the policies of countries that allow gays in their militaries, but Michele more or less beat me to it. Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK all allow gays to serve openly.

If these countries can manage, why can't we?

imported_Xtreme
03-10-2009, 02:02 AM
So we are punishing one group because there are others who cannot handle it?
Why is it deemed a punishment? I like to hear your answer to this. It's a regulation. By your logic, I'm being "punished" for being black because I can't dread my hair.

Instead of punishing gays, why not punish the homophobes?
According to why I know, a person is punished in the military for actions taken, not for simply being anything. Example, if a straight person does a homosexual act, they person will maybe have to answer to UCMJ. If a set of "homophobes" went off to gang beat a person in their sleep, for suspecting them to be a gay, then yes, the end result would be UCMJ punishment. Why? Because it punishes the ACTION, not the person's socio-political leanings.

If there is a problem with propositioning or sexual relations, then make the rules more strict.
Like how? What examples can you provide? Can you elaborate, please?

Jealousy that they get to bunk with their boyfriend/girlfriend is just something you might have to deal with.
I underline the part of your logic that I shall reverse back to you -- since the majority is the norm, and this norm is straight, you just might have to deal with how the military is, with DADT in effect, as it is right now.

You can take a small bit of comfort in knowing that they get screwed over when it comes to living outside the barracks because we as a nation ignorantly deny them the privlige of marriage.
Can I introduce the new term, Heterophobe?

Just because someone disagrees with something, like finding a certain sex-life disgusting, it doesn't mean they take great joy in seeing you suffer. While I myself personally don't care about the issue of same sex marriage, I do side on the opposing side of that debate concerning you(presumably) because marriage is a religious concept, and most religions recognize marriage as a union between woman and man, not same sex. Some type of legal union that's just like marriage? Civil Union? Sure... But to marry the same sex infringes on the religious beliefs concerning it, which in tern is creating a whole new religion or not abiding by religion at all.

imported_Xtreme
03-10-2009, 02:20 AM
Rabbit, I agree its wrong, but from a practical standpoint, its the only thing we can do right now while we are coming up with a solution. While it is cold comfort for gays in the military, I do believe that some understand that certain logistical solutions need to be made to various integration problems. Sexuality is a unique issue different from race and religion in an applicable sense.
Just because that might needed to be read again.

Yep, I was waiting for this issue to come up. Separate the gays from the straights (as demanded) and then the straights start bitching that the gays are doing the “wild thang” whilst they remain celibate
Again, think about the post I just highlighted above this one from Variable Wind.

Realistically, how often and under what circumstances do you really have to shower with someone else? Like, is there no divider or anything? Come on, give me some feedback here…
Honest question. Cool, I'll answer -- downrange, deployment, field training, and Basic Training.

I was going to say, why don't we simply examine the policies of countries that allow gays in their militaries, but Michele more or less beat me to it. Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK all allow gays to serve openly.

If these countries can manage, why can't we?
Because we are a different fighting force than they are. We operate differently. We are an Expeditionary Force(not a "Defense Force" like most of those countries you named), who are on the most difficult wars and the most difficult missions. We don't have to be politically correct amongst ourselves; we just have to be efficient. We have to be more than merely effective.

Our societies are different as well, and that has the biggest effect on the whole issue. Unlike Germany, Norway, and everyone else in example, we are America -- a nation founded on by Pilgrims -- people who opted to cover their bodies up because we prefer a higher grade of personal, sexual privacy and space, and those "values" echo into everyday life present day. Simply put, those nations are more open towards sexuality than we are.

Michele
03-10-2009, 02:33 AM
Why is it deemed a punishment? I like to hear your answer to this. It's a regulation. By your logic, I'm being "punished" for being black because I can't dread my hair.

Geez, only blacks dread their hair? The standards that apply, apply to everyone not just one group of people.

Any misconduct is dealt with under exsisting regulations. It makes no difference weather your gay or straight, misconduct is freaking misconduct.



Again, think about the post I just highlighted above this one from Variable Wind.

“Certain logistical solutions need to be made to various integration problems”. BS That says absolutely nothing! It’s a sidestep, no offense VW but it is….

What you’re really saying is that there are too many prejudice people in the military to accommodate gays at this point in time…..


Honest question. Cool, I'll answer -- downrange, deployment, field training, and Basic Training.

This really didn’t answer the how often question or are there divides there now did it?



Simply put, those nations are more open towards sexuality than we are.

And you don’t think that’s a problem?

Measure Man
03-10-2009, 09:07 AM
Guess I can agree there, however, I see no reason why the military forces should and would have every single right that civilians have; it's the fundamental thing that sets us apart. This isn't Walmart, Disney or some corporate job. It's called, service, and to serve implies that you give up basic rights, and depending on your lifestyle, you may have to give up more rights than the next person.

When does service imply you give up basic rights?

I'm so glad that isn't true...


Are you comparing a concept of faith in metaphysical or higher power to sexual orientation? Understand that the main reason why religious freedom(some what) is foudn in the Armed Forces is because it might be important to how one prefers to be buried. Second, there are faults in the religious regulation as well -- you can wear a jewelry chain on your neck provided that it has an religious medallion on it. What about athiests? Technically, they cannot wear neck jewelry... isn't this a form of discrimination?

In the AF, you can wear a necklace so long as it doesn't show...religious or not. Not sure about the other services.


The military doesn't have to be politically correct, it only has to work, be effective, be efficient.

BS...the military has to go above and beyond to provide equal opportunity (be politically correct). We have a career field and many policies devoted to ensuring fair treatment for all.


I fail to see how sexual orientation is equal to religion, especially in terms of necessity. Whether you have a religious faith or not, it's not hard to understand that the concept of a higher metaphysical power beyond you is important, provided that you may have to DIE for your country, which in turn the nation owes you the right to be buried according to your religious beliefs. The main reason why religion is a necessary thing is because it deals with death and beyond... which is a great reality that a Soldier, Airmen, Seaman or Marine may have to face. I don't see how in effect, you can have sex for your country, therefore, there must be freedom of sexual orientation. It doesn't add up.

I think the poster's point was...many on your side of the argument use their opinion that homosexuality is a choice as some kind of reason to say why it doesn't have to be allowed in the military. I know, it doesn't make any sense, but it is a common argument. IF that is your argument, then religion is also a choice, therefore the military need not make any special recognition of those who choose to be religious. IN fact, why not just ban religious people..they cause more discord and problems in a unit than gays ever could.


Speaking of sexual orientation, it's only natural to men and women mate; that's how the human race reproduces. I don't see the military negating the right to reproduce, excluding deployments. It would make no sense to make it so straight people cannot have sex...

Enough with the reproduce argument...it is lame. We do not HAVE to reproduce...people everywhere have sex without wanting to reproduce...do we ban the birth control pill? Do we ban post-menopausal women from marrying? Hell, the govt. gave me a vasectomy!


because that would infringe on the right to bear children. This is the second important thing that the military at least owes a service member... because [1] You may DIE; [2] You should at least be able to carry on your genetic bloodline via offspring being that you may DIE.

If the military owes you the right to bear children...does it not also owe you the right to NOT bear children if you so choose?


If you're homosexual, your sexual intercourse doesn't produce children, therefore, it isn't necessary to let you carry on and do it. The military doesn't owe you a thing in this department.

What a load of crap...they why do we fund bill conrol, vasectomies, etc?


Again, I'll close this out with this -- religious freedoms and sexuality freedoms do not compare in regarding Military service. Why? Because the concept of a higher power and/or metaphysical relations is important to an organization that may ask one to pay the Ultimate Price for one's country, and it governs burial preference, which is the only reason why religion is found on your dog tags.

My dog tags say "No preference"


Sexual preference outside of anything that doesn't support basic human reproduction is unimportant, this includes homosexuality. Why? Because being that you are simply asked to DIE for your country, you should at least have the freedom to produce offspring, and homosexuality doesn't support that; it's biologically impossible.
Again...who cares whether or not you decide to have children...the military allows me to get married and presumably have sex even though I've had a vasectomy.


Trust me, if the military had it ther own way, the Armed Forces would all be asexual clones who are genetically engineered for warfare, who would have no religion, no sex, nothing else to live for except the fight. But before we get that far, we have us... with all the complexities and difficulties inbetween.

Quite right...and us, with all the complexities includes homosexuality...which is just one trait among many that have no bearing on an individuals ability to serve honorably.

Measure Man
03-10-2009, 09:24 AM
Just because that might needed to be read again.

Right. Because what it amounts to is..."there really isn't any good reason to not allow homosexuals, but I still don't like the idea of it"


Again, think about the post I just highlighted above this one from Variable Wind.

Thought about it some more...


Honest question. Cool, I'll answer -- downrange, deployment, field training, and Basic Training.

...after 25 years of service...I've took more open bay showers in 4 years of High School than I ever have in the military. I did have one assignment to a GSU that had no gym...so the unit paid for our YMCA membership...they had open bays there, too. Gotta wonder how they survive...(village people aside)


Because we are a different fighting force than they are. We operate differently. We are an Expeditionary Force(not a "Defense Force" like most of those countries you named), who are on the most difficult wars and the most difficult missions.

Many of those nations are fighting right along side us. And whether or not they are a Defense force...or how dangerous the missions isn't really the point, is it? What the the difficulty of the missions have to do with whether or not a gay is in your unit? In fact, most research shows that when the shit really hits the fan, people care far less about what religion, race, sexual orientation the guy next to them is, than they do during peace time...


We don't have to be politically correct amongst ourselves; we just have to be efficient. We have to be more than merely effective.

...we go through an awful lot of pain to be "politically correct" for an organization that supposedly doesn't have to.

This is a load of BS...we have to be at least as PC as the rest of the country, probably more...we are a govt. organization in a widely diverse society.


Our societies are different as well, and that has the biggest effect on the whole issue. Unlike Germany, Norway, and everyone else in example, we are America -- a nation founded on by Pilgrims -- people who opted to cover their bodies up because we prefer a higher grade of personal, sexual privacy and space, and those "values" echo into everyday life present day. Simply put, those nations are more open towards sexuality than we are.

Founded by pilgrims? wow, good argument there... What are you talking about? Pilgrims?

So...you mean the only evidence you will accept that allowing homosexuals would not destroy the US military is that if they were allowed int he US military? Let's face it...all of these paranoid scenarios you describe do not happen anywhere that homosexuals are allowed...US corporations, foreign militaries...

C'mon...your argument was that homosexuality will grow through the ranks if allowed...but that isn't the case in other places where it is allowed.

Bottom line is there is no logical argument to ban open homosexuals from the military...you just don't like it.

Variable Wind
03-10-2009, 11:18 AM
“Certain logistical solutions need to be made to various integration problems”. BS That says absolutely nothing! It’s a sidestep, no offense VW but it is….

What you’re really saying is that there are too many prejudice people in the military to accommodate gays at this point in time…..


To me I think that such a move would take the focus away from the mission. Thus, I feel the problem should be solved BEFORE recinding DADT. As I have said before, DADT is a bandaid, and is by no means the solution.

imported_Rabbit69
03-10-2009, 11:42 AM
Why is it deemed a punishment? I like to hear your answer to this. It's a regulation. By your logic, I'm being "punished" for being black because I can't dread my hair.

You won't get discharged for saying you want to dread your hair. Your hairstyle is something you can control, your sexuality is not.


According to why I know, a person is punished in the military for actions taken, not for simply being anything. Example, if a straight person does a homosexual act, they person will maybe have to answer to UCMJ. If a set of "homophobes" went off to gang beat a person in their sleep, for suspecting them to be a gay, then yes, the end result would be UCMJ punishment. Why? Because it punishes the ACTION, not the person's socio-political leanings.

If someone gets discharged for having homosexual reltionships, then they are being punished for being gay. A straight person doesn't have to worry about this. It is called a double standard.


Like how? What examples can you provide? Can you elaborate, please?

If you continually proposition a female troop, it can be called sexual harassment. Why wouldn't the same hold true for a female doing the same?


I underline the part of your logic that I shall reverse back to you -- since the majority is the norm, and this norm is straight, you just might have to deal with how the military is, with DADT in effect, as it is right now.

I am not in yet(leaving for first trip to MEPS today), but the policy will only affect me in that I may have to watch good troops suffer because they weren't born like you and I. If someone is suffering because they are a homophobe then that is their problem, just as it is a racists problem if he doesn't want to bunk with someone of another color.


Can I introduce the new term, Heterophobe?

Just because someone disagrees with something, like finding a certain sex-life disgusting, it doesn't mean they take great joy in seeing you suffer. While I myself personally don't care about the issue of same sex marriage, I do side on the opposing side of that debate concerning you(presumably) because marriage is a religious concept, and most religions recognize marriage as a union between woman and man, not same sex. Some type of legal union that's just like marriage? Civil Union? Sure... But to marry the same sex infringes on the religious beliefs concerning it, which in tern is creating a whole new religion or not abiding by religion at all.

Sorry, you got me wrong. I am a man married to a woman. My marriage is NOT religious and I would prefer if others would keep their religions out of my life. Why can't gays have secular marriages just like I do? What business is it of the Christians what they do in their own PRIVATE lives? It's also against Christianity to eat shellfish or get a divorce, yet I do not see them fighting tooth and nail to get laws made preventing those things. The gay marriage issue is about nothing more than homophobia.

Variable Wind
03-10-2009, 11:49 AM
Sorry, you got me wrong. I am a man married to a woman. My marriage is NOT religious and I would prefer if others would keep their religions out of my life. Why can't gays have secular marriages just like I do? What business is it of the Christians what they do in their own PRIVATE lives? It's also against Christianity to eat shellfish or get a divorce, yet I do not see them fighting tooth and nail to get laws made preventing those things. The gay marriage issue is about nothing more than homophobia.

Actually what you are discussing are civil unions which are recognized in many states. IMHO the term marriage is a religious term and should only be recognized between the different churches at their discretion. The state should not be in the business of facilitation relgious practices or telling religions which unions will and will not be recognized.

Bottom line, the state should only sponsor civil unions for all (gay or straight) and if you want to be married, go to your church for it. I know it may seem like an arguement over semantics but I think it would solve at least a few issues.

imported_Rabbit69
03-10-2009, 12:03 PM
I'm still a little confused over the whole "shower problem". Why is there such an issue with gay people seeing you shower? Does it hurt your feelings?