For the love of God.....

In the local paper today, it said that "Due to recent events, especially if we go to war, the Government has declared that during this time, gays and lesbians will not be discharged from the service."

I cannot stand this country, at so many points in time. I stand with my country in light of recent events, but still...

How the f*ck is legislative gay-bashing CONSTITUTIONAL?????????

To all the homophobes who oppose gays serving:
I'd like to quote West Wing, "Let Bartlet be Bartlet," ep. 1.14 (I think)

MAJOR TATE
Sir, we’re not prejudiced toward homosexuals.

FITZWALLACE
You just don’t want to see them serving in the Armed Forces?

MAJOR TATE
No sir, I don’t.

FITZWALLACE
‘Cause they oppose a threat to unit discipline and cohesion.

MAJOR TATE
Yes sir.

FITZWALLACE
That’s what I think too. I also think the military wasn’t designed to be an instrument of social change.

MAJOR TATE
Yes sir.

FITZWALLACE
The problem with that is that what they were saying to me 50 years ago. Blacks shouldn’t serve with Whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I’m an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...Beat that with a stick.

a few scenes later...

OFFICER 1
I’d like to go on record saying that I have no objection to what somebody does in the privacy of their own home. But when we’re talking about schools, when we’re talking about the boy scouts, when we’re talking about an army barracks—

SAM
You know, Ken. There’s something I’d always wanted to ask you. What does being gay mean you can’t keep your hands to yourself? Over what kind of gentlemanly pride of the Armed Forces willing to lay claim the restraint in that area? You want me to get the file on sexual harassment on the D.O.D.? Do you want me to ask these guys about Tailok?


I think Sam (Rob Lowe) is totally right.

Correction -- Tailok = Tailhook

There's somewhat of an irony in Rob Lowe making that speech -- or have you never heard of the "Rob Lowe tape"?

Dang, one post and off-topic already.

OK, which would you rather have in your fighting hole next to you, (for men) a gay guy who volunteered, who quite probably has a significant other back home (just like straights do), or a draftee who definitely doesn't want to be in the military at all?

I did not see the article C-Chick referes to, so I have only her quote to go on, but, unless there is a major typo, I don't understand how the rest of her post follows. The headline(?) says that gays will not be discharged (kicked out). Am I missing something?

What you miss, TomM, is the fact that they had to say that gays will not be discharged implies that until this point they were discharged... thus meaning that the military was discriminating against them.

What sort of simpleton thinks something should ever come before political correctness?! Honestly! It sounds as if some actually believe that in matters of national defence, keeping the nation free from invasion is paramount! What happened to mindless equality eh? If your country is fighting a war, gays should always come before national security. Better to let the Japs conquer America than win World War II with an all-straight force!!

[Liberals] really don't understand or care about military efficiency as long as they can use the armed forces to bring about social uniformity. If that means fighter aircraft being pilotted by 55 year old, visually impaired, black lesbians, so be it.

Peter.

So, in your eyes, being gay or lesbian automatically amkes you incapable of lfying a fighter jet, or captaining a missile cruiser?

Allowing gays into the army will harm military efficiency. That is why I oppose it. It isn't a social club but a force for national defence. I don't want Britain's first ally to have to face the proper all-male forces of her enemies with a politically correct joke of an army of women and gays. Whether they will admit it or not, most sensible people know that the very idea that woman have an equal role to play in fighting wars directly, and defending their country with guns and grenades, is absurd.

Peter.

Peter: Wow. You are so horrorifically wrong! Why should anyone who wants to put their life on the line to protect the home and country they love be banned from doing so? Let me put to you this way. You are alone on the battlefield. Your squad is dead, and the enemy is closing in. Suddenly, a man leaps out, and with his gun he cuts down enough people to allow the two of you to escape. Yous trike up a conversation, and during it he mentions that he's gay and that his lover serves in the RAF. What do you do then? Call him a faggot then leave? Try to get him kicked out of the army? Go back to the battlefield and certain doom cause you'd rather be dead than serve with a homosexual? Having had gay friends before, I cna honestly that no gay man would ever refuse to shoot someone because "he's gorgeous" as homophobic louts like to claim. Gay or straight, a bad guy points a gun at you, and you have the chance, you take the motherfu**er down! Patriotism is patriotism, loyalty is loyalty, service is service, regardless of your significant other's genitalia.

What sort of simpleton thinks something should ever come before political correctness?! Honestly! It sounds as if some actually believe that in matters of national defence, keeping the nation free from invasion is paramount! What happened to mindless equality eh? If your country is fighting a war, gays should always come before national security. Better to let the Japs conquer America than win World War II with an all-straight force!!

No peter you've got it backwards. What we are saying is that since we have a national security emergency we should take whoever is willing and able regardless of sexual orentation. In your mind a straight visualy impaired draftee with a beer belly would be a better soldier than a gay bodybuilder with 20/20 vision.

To put in in perspective when the US segregated the Army back in WWII ("white soldiers won't fight with negros") the first case of blacks and whites fighting togther was the battle of the bulge "We need people with guns to replace the casualties in such-and-such platoon right now, I don't care what color they are"

If you're on the battlefield, with guns shooting at you, bullets whizzing by, explosions all around you, your buddies getting shot up and blown apart, well, that's hardly the time that the guy next to ya's gonna suddenly start touching you in a romantic way and say, "By the way, I find you very attractive and I'm in love with you. What are you doing after the war?" And if that guy got killed before he said anything about being gay then you never would've known that he was to begin with. So if you two were friends it never would've changed your opinion of him cuz you'd have no idea of his sexual orientation.

Peter: I just expressed the views of the liberals in the silliest way possible. They really don't understand or care about military efficiency as long as they can use the armed forces to bring about social uniformity.

You know, Peter, you might find it easier to debate others if you actually had some interest in understanding what their point of view is, rather resorting to the Straw Man argument, where you criticize a distorted version of it. No one wants to use the military to "bring about social uniformity". People like myself simply don’t care for bigotry, period. Anyone who is 1.Willing, and 2.Able to serve, should serve. To deny this because of some aspect of their personal life is bigotry and un-American. Unfortunately, your only way to debate the point is to do so dishonestly. Equating forbidding gays with forbidding 55-year olds or the visually impaired is a false, because the latter would probably not be ABLE to pilot a fighter jet as well as a person in their 20s with 20/20 vision, regardless of whether that person was gay or straight. You falsely infer that we want "everyone" in the military. Wrong. We want those who are able.

Peter: Allowing days into the army will harm military efficiency.

Luigi Novi: No it doesn’t, and there’s no evidence to back this up. This was the exact same argument against integrating blacks with whites in the military. It was a transparent euphemistic argument then, and it’s a transparent euphemistic argument now.

This argument essentially says, "We have to think about the bigots’ feelings." The bigots don’t like it, so if we let blacks/gays in, it’ll disrupt efficiency. Apart from not being true, if you have a bigot saying he won’t serve with a black or a gay, and you have an able and willing black or gay person ready to serve, who is at fault? Simple. The bigot, and he should be kicked out. American has always been about freedom and equality, and if you qualify for a position, that’s all there is to it. I’ve never heard about straights being harassed, beaten or murdered in the military by gays, but I’ve heard the converse, and I think that such behavior on the part of bigots is certainly "disruptive to moral" and "efficiency."

As a wise man once said, "You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight."

And just so you know, Peter, I don’t think actress Hunter Tylo should’ve been awarded the damages she got when she was fired from Melrose Place because she couldn’t play the part of a vixen as it was written because she got pregnant, or that an gay athlete should get damages if a company refuses to hire him as a spokesperson if they have market evidence that their product won’t sell as well under his endorsement, or that fat, old people should get damages for not being hired as strippers, etc.

Peter: Whether they will admit it or not, most sensible people know that the very idea that woman have an equal role to play in fighting wars directly, and defending their country with guns and grenades, is absurd.

Luigi Novi: Well, given how Britain and France did in WWII, should we ban anyone of French or British descent from serving?

Racists have nothing to do with those who are aganst homosexuality. You may as well say all socialists are the same as those who ran Stalin's death camps. It is not bigotry to believe homosexuality is wrong. It is bigotry to call anyone who believes this a bigot.

given how Britain and France did in WWII, should we ban anyone of French or British descent from serving?

I don't understand your point. Britain and France won the Second World War with entirely male armies.

Peter.

Peter,

Why would women be unable to serve in the military and in combat situations as well as men?

Merry

Common sense. For the same reason they aren't body guards and night club bouncers or something. Physical strength and stamina is of paramount importance in the military.

Peter.

Peter: Uh, there ARE women bodyguards Peter. One of Colorado Congressman Mark Udall's guards is a woman. I met her at the Columbine Memorial service at the AMC theater in Littleton. Have you SEEN femal bodybuilders Peter? Holy ••••! If ANYONE was qualified to kick ass on the battlefield it'd be these girls.

Luigi: On your point about black/white military, I just remembered that peter said "55 year old BLACK elsbian." So Peter desn't think Blacks should serve either apparently.

Actually, many women have more stamina than many men. Furthermore, the only real advantage that most men have over women is upper body stregth. A study done a few years ago showed that women, when put throught the same rigourous training as men, performed just as well as men.

Furthermore, many jobs in combat now do not rely on physical stregth as the main component. Unless, of course, the British are still fighting with swords and shields.

Merry

Peter: Whether they will admit it or not, most sensible people know that the very idea that woman have an equal role to play in fighting wars directly, and defending their country with guns and grenades, is absurd.

Tell that to the Israelis.

If Peter's point were that because of "political correctness" it was more important that some of the slots be filled by (to use his words)"55 year old, visually impaired, black lesbians" than that all the slots be filled by qualified personnel, then he might have a valid point. (He would still need to prove that each individual "55 year old, visually impaired, black lesbian" was unqualified.)

However, he simply made his statement in a manner clearly intended to incite a flame war. I suugest we all just ignore him until such time as he is willing to once again join in fruitful and respectful discourse.

Peter's problem is that he thinks that any type in integration of the sexes would have to be done with double standards (i.e. women have to do 20 pushups to a man's 30) That's a load of ••••, if a woman wants to fight in combat she should be welcome to; but she has to pass the same standards as the men (i.e be able to do the same number of pushups, run as many miles, and carry as much stuff as if required of the men).

As for his crack about the black visualy impaired lesbian pilots. Both England and the US have had women fighter pilots for some years now, some have been black, I'd wager some have secretly been lesbians, but I don't think any have been 55, and I know none have been visualy impaired you have to have the eyes of an Eagle to be a fighter pilot and when your vision goes so do you.

Peter: Racists have nothing to do with those who are aganst homosexuality.

Luigi Novi: My point was that the argument against admitting gays into the military ("efficiency") was the SAME ARGUMENT as the one against integrating black and white soldiers, and in both cases, it was a false argument.

Peter: It is bigotry to call anyone who believes this a bigot.

Luigi Novi: Bigotry can be defined as the act of forming an opinion or assumption on something, or committing an act based on information that is incomplete, superficial or impertinent, as opposed to information that is complete, substantial, or pertinent. I don’t think anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong is a bigot, Peter, but wishing to deny homosexuals the rights to do the same things as others, such as work certain jobs, even if they are able to perform them, is bigotry, because the only PERTINENT info regarding someone's admittance is ABILITY.

Whether someone beleives homosexuality is "wrong" is irrelevant, because the military, as you yourself so adroitly pointed out, isn't a social club, where each member can pick out their fellow soldiers according to their personal worldview. If it is acceptable to deny a homosexual admittance because the other soldiers believe homosexuality is "wrong," then by the same token, someone who is pro-choice can be denied admittance if the troop predominantly thinks abortion is wrong.

If you sign up, and you qualify, you end up serving with others who signed up and qualified, period. You're a mere grunt, and you do not pick and choose your fellow soldiers based on esoteric social "beliefs."

Luigi Novi: given how Britain and France did in WWII, should we ban anyone of French or British descent from serving?

Peter: I don't understand your point.

Luigi Novi: Sorry. Was my sentence too long or something? Perhaps you shouldn’t respond to posts you don’t understand.

Peter: Britain and France won the Second World War with entirely male armies.

Luigi Novi: LOL. Well, I guess if the French letting the Nazis march through the Arc de Triomphe can be defined as "winning the war", then I guess our storming the beaches of Normandy were ENTIRELY unnecessary. Thanks for clarifying that, big guy.

Merry: Peter, Why would women be unable to serve in the military and in combat situations as well as men?

Peter: Common sense. For the same reason they aren't body guards and night club bouncers or something. Physical strength and stamina is of paramount importance in the military.

Don Dago: Yeah, Merry, it’s like he said. Haven’t you heard? It takes abs of steel and a rock-hard six pack to pull the trigger of a gun. Don’t you mind these dumb broads, Pete! Dey don’t know squat! Must be her time a duh month, or somethin’.

Brian Webber: Luigi: On your point about black/white military, I just remembered that peter said "55 year old BLACK elsbian." So Peter desn't think Blacks should serve either apparently.

Don Dago: Well, duh, Brian! It’s like that Ernie Einstein guy said. Dem darkies can’t see in da dark. Bad night vision.
Whaddaya gonna do?

Luigi, Peter does have a minor point, Britain single-handedly held off the Nazis until the US got into the act. I did, however, get your joke about the French.

Hehe, someone needs to check your history books (or more likely your anti-British propaganda films like U-751, Saving Private Ryan, The Patriot, Titanic, Braveheart etc. etc. ). Look up D-Day.

Peter.

Would you care to be a bit more specific, Peter?

Peter,

On D-Day there were no French troops. Are you saying there were? That seems like a serious revelation and I like to know your source.

It has been confirmed that some of the passengers on Flight 93 apparently did fight back and are responsible for that plane not reaching its target. There is talk of nominating those heroes for a Congressional Gold Medal. If the medals are awarded, should they skip over Mark Bingham because he was gay? Should the other passengers have checked his credentials and refused his help?

Hehe, someone needs to check your history books (or more likely your anti-British propaganda films like U-751, Saving Private Ryan, The Patriot, Titanic, Braveheart etc. etc. ).

How is Saving Private Ryan and Titanic anti-british?

Brian,

Because Saving Private Ryan did not show those shiftless Americans get their butts saved once again by the valiant Brits. Oh, and Tom Hank's character was gay.

1. Homosexuals are ultimately a lifestyle choice. Not a race, not a ethnic group or even a culture. A lifestyle choice. What defines them as a group? How they have sex. That's a lifestyle. Same as with having a child.

2. The Boy Scouts are a private organization and can discriminate as they see fit.

3. Women can serve in the military, they should not because, 1. Most countries don't have women in the military. 2. Men are genetically designed for fighting and warring. 3. The specter of what would happen to a female POW would consume the army. A solider is only as good as his infrastructure, Roise the riveter won world war two as much as the solders did.

4. Race, gender, and sexual orientation are not the same thing. Race is ultimately skin deep, save a few physical traits. Genders have significant differences, and sexual orientation is a way of life.

5. The Military can discharge a drunkard, they can discharge a adultery. Is the military discriminating against drunkards and adulterers? No.

6. The army rationale for keeping homosexuals out must be among the lines of "We don't want any one to take advantage of an all male environment."

7. Once again, why do we spend so much time moaning over 3% of the population?

Pesti: Wrong. it's not a choice. Adn yes, i ahev been around enough homosexuals and bi-sexuals to make this determination on my own. Two, drunkards and adulterers aren't the same thing. I'm sorry, but when someone is dropping a bomb on a n enemy tha's getting ready to kill thus saving my life, I really don't care if he cheated on his wife. Not then anyway.

But I agree with youa bou the Scouts. In fact, i sometimes wonder why gays and atheists would want to join an organization that despises them so. You don't see me, a confirmed atheist, trying to win a Christain Scientist of the Year Award.

As for women, I think you're wrong. I've been around some strong women (and fell in love with one of them but no one wants to hear my sob story), and any one of them could do just as well in combat. Could all of them do infantry? No, of course not! But some were real computer savvy, savvy enough to launch cruise missiles from battleships. And others had excelletn reflexes, which is a bonus when you're a fighter pilot. Studies have shown that women typically make better pilots then men becuase they can handle G forces better. Why do you think they put women on EVERY space shuttle flight?

But I agree with youa bou the Scouts. In fact, i sometimes wonder why gays and atheists would want to join an organization that despises them so. You don't see me, a confirmed atheist, trying to win a Christain Scientist of the Year Award. Brian

I remember once when Gloria Alred was suing the BSA to force admission of girls, someone asked her why, when there was a sister organization, the GSA, availale. She replied that the "Old Boy Network" valued an Eagle scout or other high Boy Scout honors on a resumé, but didn't reconize the Girl Scout equivalents, or even know what they were.

I assume that gays want in the BSA for the same reason -- access to the perks of the OBN. (Of course, since the old guard of the OBN is made up of the same homophobes that influence the General Council of the BSA, it seems futile. Their status as gays would more than negate any Scouting honors they might win as Scouts.)

Ouch! Type too fast and you drop letters. "Availale" should be "available." "Reconize" should be "recognize."

1. Homosexuals are ultimately a lifestyle choice. Not a race, not a ethnic group or even a culture. A lifestyle choice. What defines them as a group? How they have sex. That's a lifestyle. Same as with having a child.

As for the lifestyle thing. If a guy is not sexualy arroused by women at all, but is sexualy aroused by other men what choice do they have?

2. The Boy Scouts are a private organization and can discriminate as they see fit.

Yes they are, but they recieved a large amount of government funding. They had the choice of saying good-bye to the funding or letting gays in. They stopped taking the money, end of story.

3. Women can serve in the military, they should not because, 1. Most countries don't have women in the military.

So we should just accept that kind of discrimination as the way it is and not try to do anything about it.

2. Men are genetically designed for fighting and warring.

Ever seen 2 girls fight, it can get so vicious that it induces cringes in several of my most macho friends.

3. The specter of what would happen to a female POW would consume the army.

Ever hear of the kinds of things that have happened to male POWs? Check out William Calley's account of how one of his men was tortured to death the day before he destroyed that village.

A solider is only as good as his infrastructure, Roise the riveter won world war two as much as the solders did.

no one is saying that the whole populartion would go to war, people of both genders would remain as part of the infustructure.

4. Race, gender, and sexual orientation are not the same thing. Race is ultimately skin deep, save a few physical traits. Genders have significant differences, and sexual orientation is a way of life.

As you pointed out above, the only diference between homosexuals is how they have sex, how does that interfear with their ability to wage war?

5. The Military can discharge a drunkard, they can discharge a adultery. Is the military discriminating against drunkards and adulterers? No.

discharging on adultery is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but they have done it, although strangly enough I've never heard of them doing it to any of the guys who go overseas and cheat on their wives.

Discharging a drunk is one thing because such a problem can impare their ability to do the job. How can who you have sex with impare your ability to follow orders?

6. The army rationale for keeping homosexuals out must be among the lines of "We don't want any one to take advantage of an all male environment."

Anyone who would try to take advantage of an all male environment where a mojority of the guys are a bunch of conservative macho jocks is so dumb whatever they get. Also their are very few places in the millitary these days where it would be all male.

7. Once again, why do we spend so much time moaning over 3% of the population?

So if someone part of a small group they don't matter? You might not ask that question if you were part of a small group was was being discriminated aginst.

The way I see it whenever you expand your pool of potential people to do anything you get more good people. I am not talking about lowering standards (or double standards) to acheve an artifical balance. For example say that you have 100 people and you have to find the 10 most suited to fighting a war. If you automaticly disqualify 50 of them you now have to find 10 out of 50 (less than 50 if you disqualify gays as well). If you take the origional 100 and try to find the individuals most suited for the job you will inevatably be able to adopt a higher standard because you now have to eliminate 90% of the people. This is not to say that it will be 5 guys & 5 ladies. It may be 7 guys and 3 ladies (or 8 & 2) but the point is when you screen more people to do a job and focus solely on ability you end up with a higher standard of people.

Also someone who volenteered to be their will inevitably fight harder than someone who was froced to be their (drafted). Lets give all the people who want to do it a chance to get in before we start forcing people who don't.

Yes, I know, Scott. When writing my post, I meant to say "France", and somehow, I wrote "Britain and France". In my mind, I confused the fact that Peter's from Britain, and it found its way to my fingers.

Peter, take a pill, and lie down.

Relax.

Matt,

Norway has female sailors. Israel has female soldiers. Norway female soldiers can be discounted because Norway is not a world power, but their navy should be counted because living space upon ships is hardly palatial.

As for the POW problem with women soldiers, there is always a pow problem with any soldiers. Lawrence of Arabia was "buggered" by Turkish guards in WWI and he might not have been gay. (He didn't have sex after that, although he paid several men to whip him in later years.)

Your point equating adultery to drunkenness almost fooled me but Brian makes a valid point. If I'm drunk you may not want me co-ordinating artillery fire over the battlefield. If I just pulled up my pants and finished with the Colonels' wife I should be ok. If (I'm not gay) it was male lover I should also be ok. (BTW if the Colonels' wife was so easy I have a better chance of getting an STD from her than my hypothetical, monogamous male lover.)

1. Homosexuals are ultimately a lifestyle choice. Not a race, not a ethnic group or even a culture. A lifestyle choice. What defines them as a group? How they have sex. That's a lifestyle. Same as with having a child.

As others have already pointed out, having homosexual feelings is not a choice. Engaging in homosexual acts is (arguably) a choice. In much the same way that one "chooses" to eat the chicken salad because he can't stand the taste of tuna.

As for whether it's a culture or not, I recommend you visit West Hollywood, San Francisco, South Beach, Key West, and other predominantly gay neighborhoods before telling me it doesn't have its own distinct culture.


2. The Boy Scouts are a private organization and can discriminate as they see fit.

Brian already addressed this matter appropriately.


3. Women can serve in the military, they should not because, 1. Most countries don't have women in the military.

Most countries don't have Americans serving in their military, either. Should we ban them from enlisting?

2. Men are genetically designed for fighting and warring.

I'd like to see the scientific journal you got this proof from. Have you ever seen the lengths a mother will go to protect her child?

Men (in general) are certainly more physically powerful than women. And much of this is passed down genetically. And if we were engaging in hand-to-hand combat with swords and maces then I could see your reservation. But physical strength has nothing to do with the ability to pull a trigger, push a button, or fly a plane.

Regardless, genetic predisposition should not play a factor in one's actual abilities. There are plenty of weak men and powerful women. If a woman can endure the hardships, why should anyone prevent her from fighting?

According to you, Michael Jackson is "genetically designed for warring and fighting," but is there any doubt in your mind that Roseanne could kick his ass in hand-to-hand combat?

3. The specter of what would happen to a female POW would consume the army.

Sure, if we were living in Camelot and women were dainty things. I think the army would be just as affected by male POW's as women.

A solider is only as good as his infrastructure, Roise the riveter won world war two as much as the solders did.

The notion that women should stay at home while men go off to war is male chauvinism, pure and simple.


4. Race, gender, and sexual orientation are not the same thing. Race is ultimately skin deep, save a few physical traits. Genders have significant differences, and sexual orientation is a way of life.

You're correct. They're not the same thing. But the discrimination against people for race, gender, and sexual orientation is the same thing. There are externally physical traits that distinguish people of different races and genders. Homosexuals may have (as some physiologists argue) physical traits that make them attracted to others of the same gender, they're just not externally visible.

But regardless, the discrimination of people because they're deemed different and, thus, inferior is identical.

The fact that someone engages in sexual relations with someone of the same gender has absolutely nothing to do with his or her ability to fight. To acknowledge that it might bother some soldiers because of their prejudices only serves to validate those prejudices, an act the government is definitely not allowed to make.


5. The Military can discharge a drunkard, they can discharge a adultery. Is the military discriminating against drunkards and adulterers? No.

If you engage in acts which exposes your team to risk, particularly when put in a life-threatening situation, then the armed services have every right to discharge you. A drunkard puts his unit at risk. An adulterer does not. Discharging a soldier for cheating on his wife is silly.


6. The army rationale for keeping homosexuals out must be among the lines of "We don't want any one to take advantage of an all male environment."

You know, last night I went out with some friends to a gay club, an overwhelmingly predominantly male environment. These men were drinking and dancing and wanting to be taken advantage of. Yet most (myself included) went home alone. So much for that argument.


7. Once again, why do we spend so much time moaning over 3% of the population?

Why do we spend so much time moaning over the deaths in the WTC attacks (which comprise less than 1% of the population)?

Perhaps because however small a group is, they're entitled to be heard. Perhaps because however small a group is doesn't mean it should be ignored. Perhaps because no matter how small a group is, they're entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Perhaps because no matter how small a group is, other groups acknowledge that they're deserving of the same basic rights.

BTW, that argument can also be applied with the protection of endangered species: Why should we protect the humpback whale? Who cares what happens to the white Bengal tiger?

Does the size of the group affect the importance of the issue?

As for the size of the group, keep this in mind: The statistics on the number of gays (and for the moment I am going to accept your 3% figure) only acknowledge those individuals who acknowledge their homosexuality openly. Just a year ago I would have openly considered myself a part of the 97%. Now, I am proud to be in the 3%. I am sure there are a lot of others out there who simply don't openly acknowledge their homosexuality for countless reasons.

There are more of us than you want to acknowledge.

Wow. I'm amazed at the overwhleming support I've received for my thoughts on the Scouts. Usulaly I get yelled at for that. That was part of the reason I quit the Democratic party and went to a 'third party.'

Wow Webber and I agree on something. The Home For Infinite Losers has frozen over again.

1. No other country uses women: This is important. Co ed submarines, for example, would require extra bathrooms, extra bunks and other things that cram up ships. Women have different needs from Men, and camps, barracks would have to be set up differently.

2. Women have been the traditional prize of war, particularly to these backwards Muslim countries we are going to be fighting soon. Why should we deliver them to the enimy. Second Men don't get pregnant. Women do. You scream about abortion needing to be legal so that the 1% of women who have abortions pregnacies resulting from rapes don't have to give birth to their attackers child. Why are you pushing them in their way.

3. Sorry, Who you have sex with is a lifestyle choice. I don't have sex. Biology or lifestyle choice? Transsexuals push this point forward.

4. For people who talk so much about the importance of evolution, this would be self edvindent. Men fight wars, over time, men who fight wars poorly died, while those who didn't lived, and passed war fighting ability on. Better fighters had more children than weaker fighters. Since women don't fight wars, they would not evolve this way. Why do you think women worry? Because women who worried about their children had higher sucess rates. It's all in natural selection. As for pushing buttons and pulling triggers, I see no reason why women can't play video games. But combat infantry requires strenght. Second, ever notice how women in the army look like MEN. There is a reason for that.

5. Adultury is conduct unbecoming an officer of the Armed forces. West Point cadets aren't allowed to marry at all. I've been in all male environments, the mere intursion of women is disconcerning to say the least, I also remember outings being just as disconcerning. The current rules read that if you keep your personal life personal, nonthing will happen to you. In fact, their is real edvindence suggesting drunkeness is a disability.

6. The most accurate statisics indiacate that 3% of the population is Homosexual. Why should we alter institutions with (UC) concerning 3% of the population.

7. If a library is a institution that allows others free expression, it must allow the Klan to use it in the same way.

Sailors operate a ship. That is hardly front line combat, and their is no reason can't do that, save space requirements. However, their will be a lot of sex going on, and during combat, feelings are not a good idea.

The current rules read that if you keep your personal life personal, nonthing will happen to you. In fact, their is real edvindence suggesting drunkeness is a disability.

Drunkeness is a disability but you wouldn't want a guy with no legs, or poor eyesite fighting you wars either.

1. No other country uses women:

Pesti you idiot! We just proved youw rong! Twice! Norway and israel! And several other countries allow women in the armed services! Are you blind, or just obsessed with being right?

The military has always discharged gays because of their sexuality. Yes, the military discriminates.

Oh, and Peter, sexuality has as much to do with ability as much as height has to do with intelligence.

My bad.

1. I know what Norplant is. It is a form of chemical contraception. However, it gets to close to forced sterialization to have all female soldiers implanted with one.

2. Modern Naval Warfare, if memory serves, consists mostly of serving as a platform for Airplanes. A lot has changed since world war 2.

3. Isreal has a different military with a different service. One could argue that every Isreali is a soldier already. In times of great emergency women can serve in combat. However, I don't think anyone has made the claim that women not in combat hurts American national security.

4. Norway hasn't been to war recently either. Is is a navy, or a coast guard for Svlavald, Faeroe and the Southern Ocean territories? If someone told me, "China uses women for combat", or "India uses women for combat" that would be good argument that would force me to reconsider my 1st claim.

India uses women for combat, as seen on TV.

Expanding on my last post:

Peter, saying that gays and women are not 'good enough' to serve in our military is the thinking that belongs in the dark ages.

Saying that is like saying because I'm rather short (17, about 5'2) means I'm not intelligent.

Well, guess what? I'm only a junior in HS, but my guidance counselor (a joke in the school system today) said if I wanted, she could send my records to Yale or any other school I wanted.


So nyah. :p

For all those who argue against gays at all, let alone in the military, I'd like to ask you something: why are you guys waaaay too focused only on the sex in homosexual? All you think about when you think about gays is the sex part. You don't focus on them as people first, as individuals who have feelings, likes, dislikes, goals, fears, wants and needs just like straights do. All you think about is them having sex! Hell, you think about them having sex more than any of them probably even have sex. And you not only think about them having sex more often than they have sex but you probably also think about them having sex more than you have sex, if you even have sex to begin with. Those who are the most against sex in any form are those who think about it the most, as much as or more than those having it, most likely. What does that say about you? And if you think about gay sex more than gays are actually having sex, then gosh, that just might mean that--*gasp!*--you could be gay! Egads! What an awful thought that must be for you, huh? Oh, the horrors of it all! So from now on, before you go on so vehemently against gays, for whatever reason you might do so, just remember that you're thinking about them doing it more than they probably are doing it, so you're just as bad about thinking of them doing it as you think they are about doing it. Irony. Ain't it a b¡tch?

As I've said before gays aren't any worse as people just for the fact of being gay, regardless of why they're gay, than straights, so get off of your high horses and start looking at them as people first. Anything else about them is secondary, and frankly none of your goddamned business. No, I'm not gay, but I've known many, worked with and for some and I can say from personal experience that they're no better or worse than anyone else just for being gay. Any so-called straight person who hates them, discriminates against them or harms them is much, much worse than the gays they're so against are. But of course they wouldn't believe that.

The US had to introduce politically correct hand grenades because the women soldiers were too weak to carry the real ones. Their explosive power is of course much less. Let gays in and the only thing your army will be carrying into the machine guns brandished by the all male troops of the Taliban and Saddam are bondage whips.

Peter.

Document that grenade thing, Peter, or we'll assume you're just making it up.

Peter::i{Let gays in and the only thing your army will be carrying into the machine guns brandished by the all male troops of the Taliban and Saddam are bondage whips.}

I've never been whipped by a guy, but chicks can whip hard.

Being gay does not mean automatically make one think of BDSM. (I know "vanilla" gay people through non-BDSM channels.)

I'm posting as anonymous for obvious reasons.

I heard it on the radio months ago, Scott (if you really are him), on a radio debate about women serving in the British front lines. It is the truth, and you can think what the hell you like. Why you assume everyone is as nasty and untrusting a person as you though I do not know.

Peter.

Peter, why did I assume that was false?

Because I have 17 years experience as an adult in dealing with the US Army. I believe that's longer than you've been alive. As a former defense contractor, who worked with low level officers and enlisted soldiers, I can tell you that what you just said about the grenades is BS.

Um, don't most hand grenades fit into the palm of your hand? How heavy are they really? Isn't that why they are called HAND grenades?

Merry

Well as soon as I finished making my last post I went to check for a link, but I waited before posting to see what you'd say. I wonder if you are man enough to apologise.

Peter.

Peter,

I'm sorry. Quoting this person does not prove the point. For it to be an acceptable source (to me) it needs to be from a well-established source, i.e. a newspaper, the Army, someone with proven credentials in the Army.

It is obvious from the tone of this piece that the author dislikes Clinton and the Democrats to a large degree. The author cites no source for this "fact." It would be the same as if a liberal asserted that Cheney took bribes from the oil companies without citing any sources or facts.

In short, please find a legitmate source of this assertion.

Thanks,

Merry

Check out the disclamer on Peter's link.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

That means that anyone can post whatever they like and thei ris no fact checker for any of it.

BTW women are not aloud to fight on the ground front lines in the US military. That means that they may work as a base, or fly a jet but they will not be doing the carry a gun and some grenades work. So why would the milltary introduce lighter gernades for them to carry when they don't have to carry any in the first place?

Merry, that article was originally published in the Mail on Sunday in January 2001, and was written by Peter Hitchens, respected journalist and author of two books. That was where I read it first. Thankfully, I found it online too. Therefore, it meets your criteria.

LOL. I love the suggestion that it is just some random wacko posting his ideas on a bulletin board.

Peter.

Okay, Peter. Where does Peter hitchens get his facts? I mean, I can accept that the United States Army has switched to lighter weight grenades, but where is the evidence that the reason was because women could not throw the heavier ones? Again, it's just an assertion, not a source.

Merry

I see you have been studying:

The Mark Morgan way of arguing.
Opponent: This is atrocious, really. How can you support this?
You: It didn't happen.
Opponent: Of course it did. Are you calling me a liar?
You: Not at all. I just want proof.
Opponent: Here is the proof.
You: That man can't document his claims.
Opponent: So now HE is the liar?
You: No, no. He just can't provide proof.
Opponent: Here is that man's source.
You: What is the proof that his source was telling the truth?

You get all the grapes of being able to accuse your opponent of lying without ever saying it. It is a •••••• and pointless waste of time to pretend you are really interested in all these sources. It happened. The article more or less says it happened for the reason I gave. A radio programme I heard said it that it happened for that reason. Have the courage to say I am a liar even after I prove what I am saying if you want. But I am not going to play your semantics games.

Peter.

Peter,

Perhaps you don't understand what PROOF means. For example, I could say, "the world is flat." The proof that the world is flat is that an expert from teh flat earth society has stated repeatedly that the world is flat. So, that's proof? No. Proof would be mathematical cacluations, pictures from outer space showing the shape of the earth, etc. Just because someone has asserted that the earth is flat is not proof.

Stating that the United States Army has switched to lighter weight grenades for the reason that women can't carry heavy weight grenades could be proven the followig ways: a press release from the United States Army stating that this is the case; a newspaper ARTICLE, not an editoral, stating times, dates, facts, figures, quotes, that this was done, internal army documentation showing this.

All you've provided is an EDITORAL by a man who obviously inteprets things from a decidely conservative viewpoint ASSERTING that the United States army has done this for this reason. Assertions are not evidence.

And, I hold the other side to the same standards. When I read Salon.com I ask myself, "How does this person know this is true?" "What evidence does the author have to support his conclusions?" "How credible are the sources used in the article?"

BTW, I have never called you a liar. I simply think that you are incorrect in your belief that you have posted proof of your assertion.

Merry

"Opponent: Here is that man's source." - Peter

"Merry, that article was originally published in the Mail on Sunday in January 2001, and was written by Peter Hitchens, respected journalist and author of two books. That was where I read it first. Thankfully, I found it online too. Therefore, it meets your criteria." - Peter


You did not provide Hutchins' source. All you provided was where he spoke of lighter grenades. We do not know where he got his information. All we have still is his say-so that the Army are using lighter grenades.

Talk about playing games with semantics.

Pardon me. Let me clarify my previous statement. That the US Army changed grenades for the stated reason is BS.

The Army may have changed grenades to lighter ones. I don't know. If they did, however, the rationale was most likely the fact that they were trying to go towards a lighter, more rapidly deployable, more flexible force, rather than for any PC reason.

Peter: ***Let gays in and the only thing your army will be carrying into the machine guns brandished by the all male troops of the Taliban and Saddam are bondage whips. ***

Ah... so the non-acceptance of gays in the military no longer has anything to do with disrupting the morale and integrity of the other soldiers, it has to do with your fears that gays may conform to your stereotypes.

Oh! And this is another thing to remember when you claim you never say anything hurtful or insulting to anyone.

Sometimes I want to give you a swift kick with my six-inch stiletto heel.

"Merry, that article was originally published in the Mail on Sunday in January 2001, and was written by Peter Hitchens, respected journalist and author of two books. That was where I read it first. Thankfully, I found it online too. Therefore, it meets your criteria." - Peter

That definition could apply to Rush Limbaugh (assuming that respected is a reletive term) and he has a history of telling out-and-out lies with every broadcast of his radio program.

Yeah, Brian, and the fact that he's suddenly completely deaf now unfortunately won't stop him, either, but at least it's still good to know that there are some Republican idiots (big, fat and otherwise) who get their comeuppance once in awhile. It's just too bad that it's nowhere near as often as it should be. If it was then other idiots like Helms and Thurmond would never have had such long political careers.

Peter, I was using an analogy. <condescending tone> You see, an analogy is a comparison between two things. </tone>

Your saying that gays and women can't serve in the Armed Forces because they "aren't as strong" or "because they're gay" and other stuff is like saying that a small person, like myself, cannot be intelligent.

"You're a woman, so you can't be strong/serve in the military."

"You're gay, so you're unfit for service because of your lifestyle, no matter if you're capable."

"You're short, so there's no way you're intelligent."

Oh, and regarding women and strength? In my weightlifting class at school last year, I was stronger than a lot of the guys (who were pretty •••• good themselves). I can bench 120 10 times, or 135 5 times.

Oh, and making fun of us liberals? Come on, you can do better than sinking to political lows like that.

Yes there is a difference between Racism and Homophobia. Racism is the fear and hatred of people who's skin color is different. Homophobia is the irrational fear and hatred of those few (and it is a relatively small number when you consider the population of this planet is 6 Billion+) people who were born with sexual proclivity towards the same sex, or towards both sexes (like my sister is). So you see, there is a small difference.

I'd like to pose a question to all homophobic louts like some people on here:

Who the hell are YOU to say what is right and what is wrong? Or what people can or can't do? In their own homes, for Christ's sake! America has always been about freedom and equality (bs--20th and 21st centuries, it's about thievery and ruthlessness, cutthroat businesses), and you say you can date/marry whomever you want. Yet you deny this to other couples that are in love, simply because they are different from you?!!

It's wrong, because it's not what you do, so you make laws to regulate and ban it? Yet you preach on about how you believe in freedom and equality?

Fricking hypocrite bastards...

And there's my personal favorites on so many issues, especially homosexuality: Bible-thumping Holy Rollers. Especially the religious right--idiot bigots like Falwell and Robertson, who preach bigotry, hatred, homophobia, anti-Semitism, etc., and claim it as "God's word." (hmm..sound familiar, americans? little thing called "manifest destiny")

Here's a brilliant summary of it by Aaron Sorkin (writer) "West Wing," which was lifted from an anonymous forward:

(this was the President and a radio talk show host)

Josiah 'Jed' Bartlet: I like how you call homosexuality an abombination.

Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.

Josiah 'Jed' Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

Josiah 'Jed' Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophmore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

First of all, let's be clear here. We both have a moral view and we both want to impose it on society. You believe in gays doing anything they like and I believe in marriage and the family being particularly important: the cornerstone of society and the basis of civilisation. I believe that marriage is the hardest and most selfless relationship possible. It means argument, it means sharing everything, it means loyalty and commitment. It is by far the best way to rear the next generation. People enter such relationships knowing they will be hard and difficult, and in return society respects them particularly. I will never believe that alternative forms are equally good, equally valid, and I do not believe society should tell people otherwise. What reason do people have to marry if the more selfish, simpler relationships like gay and straight co-habitation are viewed as equally? Why should they be told they are doing nothing better than a couple of gays living together when they make such a big sacrifice?

Everything you said in your first post applies above. Who are you to say what is right and wrong? Why should we pick your (im)moral views to run society?

I understand why some liberals cannot understand why gays in particular are bad. And their reasoning is quite logical: if normal couples are having sex for pleasure only with contraception, then why are they morally superior to gays? Why is heterosexual sterile sex any better than homosexual sterile sex? Logically, it is not. It is heterosexual marriage that is superior to homosexual fornication. That is why makes it different. It is nothing to do with people being different from me, and I think you know that.

Homosexuality is wrong, and it is not equal to marriage. Most people, religious or not, would agree with this. They would rather their son be straight than gay. They would rather the neighbours were John and Amanda than Julian and Humphrey. You want to impose your morality on a hostile public, yet you offer no reason to assume it is any better than what we have.

Peter.

Peter: ***You believe in gays doing anything they like and I believe in marriage and the family being particularly important***

OK. These two things are not opposing views. How does believing that gay sex is acceptable (or at least tolerable) equate with a belief that the family structure and marriage is not important?

Gays are just as capable of committing to monogamous relationships as heterosexuals. Gays want to marry. They want families. But society is preventing them from doing that.


Peter: ***It is heterosexual marriage that is superior to homosexual fornication. ***

Again, you are comparing to very different things.

I could just as validly argue then that you believe that homsexual marriage (where such a thing is allowed) is superior to heterosexual fornication.

Yes, homosexuals engage in sex outside of the bonds of marriage. But when marriage is not allowed, what choice do they have? Homosexuals want that same right within the bounds of the law, not necessarily the bounds of religion (as there should be, at least in this country, a separation of church and state).

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that if homosexual marriage were legalized that extra- or pre-marital homosexual relations wouldn't happen, just as you recognize there is no way to prevent heterosexuals from engaging in the same thing.


Peter: ***Homosexuality is wrong, and it is not equal to marriage. ***

No, it's not equal to marriage. Nor is heterosexuality equal to marriage. Both in religion and in the law, marriage is the union of two individuals. It is two people announcing to the world that they are One. And in the eyes of the law, it should make no difference if they're of the same gender or not.


Peter: ***Most people, religious or not, would agree with this. ***

Probably. But the fact that the majority agree with this doesn't make it right. The majority of the world isn't Christian. Does that make them right? Fifty years ago, the segregation of blacks was considered acceptable by the majority. That didn't make them right.

But the fact of the matter is that I don't think that there are that many people with an opinion one way or the other. I think that the majority are rather ignorant on the subject, mostly because it has remained a buried, unmentionable subject for so long. There are a lot of people who will tell you homosexuality is wrong, not because of their views on morality but "just because."

Which usually translates to "just because it doesn't concern me and I have no opinion on the subject but I don't want to seem like I have an opinion, plus I don't want to say yes and have people believe that I am that way, too."


Peter: ***They would rather their son be straight than gay.***

Again, probably so. I think you would also find that most people would rather their son marry their own kind (whether it be race, religion, etc. Sometimes this is because of personal embarassment. Oftentimes it's because they know how difficult it is to survive in a seemingly intolerant and unjust society and don't want their sons to suffer. It's been my experience that it's rarely because they believe their sons are acting immorally.


Peter: ***They would rather the neighbours were John and Amanda than Julian and Humphrey. ***

Again, I think that this has a lot to do with misperception of gays.

I am Latino. My family moved to a white, middle-class, suburban, all-American neighborhood in Connecticut when I was six. I distinctly recall how our neighbors treated us when we moved in. How the neighbor's children were not allowed to play with us, or at least play with us unsupervised. One of the neighbors was a police officer who never allowed us to play with their kids.

There was this misperception that spics had moved into the neighborhood and we were going to brings crime or drugs or what-not. Believe me when we first moved, in our neighbors would have preferred us to be they considered the norm. And a similar thing happened when a black family moved in across the street and my mom had reservations about my playing with them.

Does that make it acceptable?


Peter: ***You want to impose your morality on a hostile public, yet you offer no reason to assume it is any better than what we have. ***

On the contrary, we simply don't want your morality imposed on us. You have offered no reason (other than your religious views) for why what we want is unacceptable.

I understand that you believe homosexuality to be wrong. And I am not asking you to change that view. I know you won't. Just as you are going to be incabable of convincing me of your rightness on this issue. But that's a religious debate.

In the world of politics (at least American politics), religious convictions should play no part in law. Murder is not wrong legally because the Bible tells us it's wrong. It's wrong because it robs another person of his right to live.

Homosexual acts do not infringe on anyone else's rights.

You are not being asked to accept it. You are being asked to tolerate it. In much the same way you tolerate heterosexuals engaging in pre-marital sex.

First of all, let's be clear here. We both have a moral view and we both want to impose it on society.

Thank you, for finally admitting this.

You believe in gays doing anything they like and I believe in marriage and the family being particularly important:

The difference between out two moral views is this: Our moral view doesn't stand in any innocent people's way.

If you let gays get married (in the eyes of the law, you can believe whatever you want about God's eyes. I'm talking about being married in the eyes of the state i.e. inheritance, survivor status and all) it doesn't effect you and your life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If you impose your morality on others. In this case gays can't get married it stands in their way (i.e. they can't file taxes jointly, make the decision to pull the plug or not to, have to pay the death tax).

Letting them do what they want doesn't hurt you. Weather or not they can marry or not, you can still marry a woman because that is what you want to do.

As for marriage in the eyes of God. Since you are sure you are right and they are wrong why do you care? When they die (and when you die) God will make his judgement on wether or not they lived a moral life. Why do you have to make judgment now. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else why not let them do what they want here on Earth and let God handle the righteous judgment when they die.

**First of all, let's be clear here. We both have a moral view and we both want to impose it on society. You believe in gays doing anything they like and I believe in marriage and the family being particularly important: the cornerstone of society and the basis of civilisation. I believe that marriage is the hardest and most selfless relationship possible. It means argument, it means sharing everything, it means loyalty and commitment. It is by far the best way to rear the next generation. People enter such relationships knowing they will be hard and difficult, and in return society respects them particularly. I will never believe that alternative forms are equally good, equally valid, and I do not believe society should tell people otherwise. **

Many gay couples wish to marry. According to social conservatives like yourself, you comment on marriage as above. Why should this--happiness, legal benefits--apply only to heterosexuals? Do gays not deserve the right to happiness? (Predicts his response, lays large sums of money on it)

**What reason do people have to marry if the more selfish, simpler relationships like gay and straight co-habitation are viewed as equally? Why should they be told they are doing nothing better than a couple of gays living together when they make such a big sacrifice?**

Once again, you make assumptions. Gay is NOT a synonym for promiscuous! I am friends with a number of gays, and they are in monogamous relationships. How do I know? I know them very well, and they are as loyal, committed, and honest as any straight couple.


**Everything you said in your first post applies above. Who are you to say what is right and wrong? Why should we pick your (im)moral views to run society?**

Because it is based on equality and freedom to be with whomever you want.

**I understand why some liberals cannot understand why gays in particular are bad.**

Because not all of them are.

**And their reasoning is quite logical: if normal couples are having sex for pleasure only with contraception, then why are they morally superior to gays?**

They aren't. I was raised to believe that my country was based on freedom, personal and otherwise. [IMO: In the 20th century, it became evident that we are based on the power of the all-mighty dollar and ruthlessness, among other things]. My country promotes equality and freedom. This applies TO ALL CITIZENS, REGARDLESS.

**It is heterosexual marriage that is superior to homosexual fornication. That is why makes it different.**

No. Homosexuals are not permitted to marry. If they were married, they would be the same as any married couple.

**It is nothing to do with people being different from me, and I think you know that.**

No, that's what it's all about. It's different from what you practice, so it's "inferior" and "immoral."

**Homosexuality is wrong, and it is not equal to marriage. Most people, religious or not, would agree with this. They would rather their son be straight than gay. They would rather the neighbours were John and Amanda than Julian and Humphrey. You want to impose your morality on a hostile public, yet you offer no reason to assume it is any better than what we have.**

When have I not? I believe in equality and personal freedom.

As has been stated by another poster, you need to see them as humans first. Anything else about them is secondary, and frankly none of your goddamned business.

This is a good article; I believe everyone should read it, especially Peter, considering the arguments you gave me here, I highly suggest you read this:

Why Gay Couples Deserve the Right to Marry.

Interesting article.

Two things that really jumped out at me, perhps because of my recent soul-searching on the subject:

Leaving aside the undeniable facts that heterosexual marriage is certainly not immune to infidelity, and that a divorce rate hovering at 44 percent is the hallmark of an already troubled institution, the only evidence currently available is that most gay couples take marriage vows considerably more seriously than many straight people do. Writing in the Aug. 13 issue of The New Republic, Andrew Sullivan points out that "In Denmark, where de facto gay marriage has existed for some time, the rate of marriage among gays is far lower than among straights, but, perhaps as a result, the gay divorce rate is just over one-fifth that of heterosexuals."

Further, Sullivan observes, during the first six years in which gay marriage was legal in Denmark, straight marriages increased 10 percent, and straight divorces decreased 12 percent. So far from diminishing the stability of heterosexual marriage, then, legalizing gay marriage seems actually to have strengthened it.

and

Biblical scholars note, however, that the language of condemnation is found primarily in English translations; the original Hebrew and Greek texts use much more neutral terms.

Since they touch on the very concerns I mentioned in my post, it would seem that as I continue to refine my position, these considerations will be important factors in that refining process. In particular I'd be interested in the true meanings of the original Hebrew word translated "abomination in Leviticus 18:22 and the Greek word translated "unseemly" in Romans

Thank you for the link

I looked up the two words in their original languages, and looked at other occurances of those words in the Bible. The word translated as "unseemly" in Romans occurs four other times. In two it refers to what we would term "indecent exposure," inappropriate nakedness, and in the other two it seems to refer to something embarrassing and awkward

The word translated "abomination" in Leviticus is translated as "abomination" in my Hebrew lexicon and in all the other occurences in the Bible, but the context in those cases with a clear context does not seem so harsh. In some, it seems to be that the "abomination" is something that is ritually unclean or impure. In others, the implication is that it is something for which a person should be shamed -- which is a great deal more serious than modern embarrassment, but falls short of the punishments prescibed for many other transgreessions.

It is certainly suggestive, but still not conclusive.

All right, the article has moved:

http://archives.nashvillescene.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?story=Back_Issues:2001:November_15-21_2001:News:Cover_Story

In my public speaking class, a friend did a "persuasive" speech on why homosexuality should not be accepted. It was all stereotypes. Pedophilia, heavy drug & alcohol use, promiscuity, etc. She also stated that children have thoughts that they might be gay, and we should tell them "you might not be. It's wrong, and you shouldn't be." I was surprised the teacher didn't make her sit down for bigotry; that's one of the things she will make you sit down for.

Everyone agreed with her [after a persuasive speech, the class debates], and I was the only dissenter. They gave me arguments, and I shot each down in flames. Here's something I wrote to say to them:


You know, there’s something I’d always wanted to ask you. What does being gay mean you can’t keep your hands to yourself?

I’m sorry, but the things said about homosexuals yesterday really disgusted me. I had hoped that the future of this country wouldn’t be so bigoted and resort to stereotypes like drugs, alcohol, and pedophilia.

As a matter of fact, research has proven over and over and over that the majority of pedophiles and child molesters are heterosexual. I’m going to let that sink in.

As for the drugs...You stated that they turn to drugs because society rejects them. Well, in your argument, you were stating that society SHOULD reject them!!! Please, folks, tell me I’m not the only one who sees a logical flaw there.

There is only the assumption that gays are inherently promiscuous. Given that many heterosexuals are promiscuous....Also, most gays are not. I have spent time around gay friends of mine, and I know that they are very committed.

As for whether it’s wrong...you guys focus way too much on the sex in homosexual. You need to see them as humans first! They’re as human as you are, as much as you like to deny it.

Now, how do you feel when you’re in love? Wonderful and indescribable, isn’t it? Well, love is a HUMAN emotion that we all feel--black, white, Asian, gay, or straight. Love is love, and you are not God! You are not the one to tell people ‘you can’t love him, it’s not right’!!

God created many types of people. He created different races, religions, different orientations. It’s called being “open-minded.”

As for teaching your children homosexuality is wrong, I say: How DARE you? I want my children to be as open-minded as I am. I accept that people have different lifestyles than I do. If they want to do something, that’s their prerogative. It’s not any of my business. I want my children to learn that, and I wish yours would, but it sounds as if you want us to pass along hate, bigotry, and prejudice towards stereotypes to our future generations.

Yes, BIGOTRY. Hate to burst your bubble, but homophobes are on par with racists.

Let me tell you a tale of bigotry, homophobia, hatred, and violent murder.

A young gay college student from Wyoming, who was 21, was in a bar one night. Some guys lured him into their truck. They beat him mercilessly, calling him “fag,” “queer,” and other names. They literally beat him near death, and after they were through, they tied him up to a fence post in the middle of nowhere, threw beer bottles and other objects at his head, and robbed him. The young man was not found for almost 36 hours. Matthew Shepard was dead when he got to the hospital.

Similar cases, although not so notorious, have happened since.

THIS is what your holier-than-thou attitude type towards gays causes. How much do you want to bet that those boys’ parents told them things identical to what I heard all of you say? This is what your hate and close-mindedness causes.

(read some of above article)

There’s also this matter: You are with your boyfriend/girlfriend. Whatever may take place between you two is no one else’s business, right? As long as it doesn't harm anyone or society? So why are gays undeserving of the human right to privacy? Just because it’s different than what you do? That’s primitive and gross.

There’s also the matter of rights. Many of you said things along the lines of that the rights of gays should be taken away. Before you can interrupt and deny it, yes you were. I’m talking about human rights and Constitutional rights, which apply to everyone in this country. Why do you deserve these rights and they don’t? I want a solid answer, not one based on stereotypes and homophobia.

Letting them do what they want doesn't hurt you. Weather or not they can marry or not, you can still marry a woman because that is what you want to do.

Since you are sure you are right and they are wrong why do you care? When they die (and when you die) God will make his judgment on whether or not they lived a moral life. Why do you have to make judgment now. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else why not let them do what they want here on Earth and let God handle the righteous judgment when they die?

I’d like to remind you that God will take a person who lived their life clean, and did not put themselves on a pedestal while judging others before He will accept a bigot.

I’d also like to remind you that your attitude towards gay couples is the exact same attitude towards interracial couples from not too long ago.

I was surprised the teacher didn't make her sit down for bigotry; that's one of the things she will make you sit down for.

That is like banning someone from the airwaves for disagreeing with free speech. Her words do not sound like bigotry at all; she was simply taking a very different view of sexuality than you, a view enshrined in a faith that has arguably done more good than any belief in human history. It deserves respect.

They gave me arguments, and I shot each down in flames.

As a general point, how exactly does insulting people who take a certain view help your argument? What is the purpose of it? It may make you feel good that you have perhaps upset a few people with whom you disagree, but it is not going to persuade anyone. All insults do is put the other people on the defensive. Most people will be interested to hear what you have to say at first, but as soon as you start to attack them, they will be defensive and angry and will not consider what you say or be persuaded by it. Not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage and special "gay rights" is "homophobic" or bigoted, and you know that as well as I. Deliberately making out that they are weakens your whole argument and alienates even some people who do agree with you, but who can see the absurdities of that particular idea. Generally based insults, aimed at ordinary people who simply hold a different view from you do you no favours at all. They simply make you look like an extremist, whether or not you are one. Let me look at your post and show you what I mean:

You know, there’s something I’d always wanted to ask you. What does being gay mean you can’t keep your hands to yourself?

Did anyone actually say that it did mean that? I doubt it.

As for whether it’s wrong...you guys focus way too much on the sex in homosexual. You need to see them as humans first! They’re as human as you are, as much as you like to deny it.

I have never heard anyone deny the humanity of gays, and I am sure no one in your class did either. You need to see that just because it makes it easier to attribute a certain view to your opponents does not mean that they hold that view. Of course it would be nice to be arguing with a group of loonies who think that all gays are inhuman rapists and so on, but if they do not think that there is no point in condemning them for that view.

God created many types of people. He created different races, religions, different orientations. It’s called being “open-minded.”

Being open-minded means being accepting and tolerant of different views. It means condeming no one simply for what they believe or who they are. It is a lesson you would do well to learn.

Yes, BIGOTRY. Hate to burst your bubble, but homophobes are on par with racists.

Says who? You? "Homophobe" is a meaningless phrase, but if you mean it in the way it is usually used, then this is offensive nonsense, and you would do well to edit it out before you show this to anyone. Quite frankly, you will only make a fool of yourself.

THIS is what your holier-than-thou attitude type towards gays causes.

Ditto. If believing it is better to be straight than gay causes murder, then Islam caused September 11th, Christianity caused the Spanish Inquisition, and Liberals cause children to be raped by NAMBLA members. You should be ashamed to use a brutal murder of an innocent man simply to make a political point.

This is what your hate and close-mindedness causes.

I can't for the life of me see how their view demonstrates closed-mindedness. It is merely different from your view. Closed-mindedness is clear throughout your rant, though I doubt you can recognise it.

I’d like to remind you that God will take a person who lived their life clean, and did not put themselves on a pedestal while judging others before He will accept a bigot.

Again, the abuse of a serious word simply to insult those you seek to persuade. Needless and rude.

Normally, I must admit, I'd simply have laughed at your post and dismissed it as extremist garbage, but I am in a good mood and I actually don't think you are so bad, so I am trying to help you. I am sure you are sincere and mean well. You have some distinct views and want to campaign for the sort of country where they dominate. But you are a very poor debater, and you will need to change that if you want to be successful. An ambition to be President is a noble and worthy one, but you will never achieve it unless you change your attitude and learn to argue with what people actually say, in a moderate and thoughtful, tolerant way. I haven't read any of the responses to your post yet, as it is taking some time to type out this one, but I suspect they are pretty much all along the lines of "great stuff", "well said" and so on. You should be pleased that you can phrase posts in such a way as to appeal to those who already agree with your very radical, very liberal views. But if you ever want to appeal to a greater number, if you ever want someone who didn't already agree with you before you spoke to cheer you, you will need to make some of the changes I advised. Your opponents are good people, like you. Their views are mainstream, moderate, tolerant and fair. They don't mean anyone getting hurt. In short: they are deserving of respect, and so are their views. If you think they are wrong, tackle them on it. Show them where they are mistaken. If logic alone doesn't work, then adding insults will not help you one bit. I hope you'll at least think a little about this post, as it is a lesson I have had to learn also, and it is an important one. I have never been quite as dismissive of dissent as you, but I know that it is very easy to find a set of beliefs and to stick to them no matter what. No harm will ever come from you considering what others say, looking for the merit within it, and then accepting or rejecting their ideas on that basis. Good luck.

Peter.

Anyway, I didn't give my own views on that post, so I will do so now. If you want to insult me, and call me a bigot and a "homophobe" it is up to you. I have better things to do than to get involved in another flame war, so if this is going to be your answer than knock yourself out, because you'll get no response.

As for the drugs...You stated that they turn to drugs because society rejects them. Well, in your argument, you were stating that society SHOULD reject them!!! Please, folks, tell me I’m not the only one who sees a logical flaw there.

There is no logical flaw. Some people say that opposing abortion while opposing high benefits for unmarried mothers is inconsistent. They are wrong. You can be opposed to homosexuality and drugs together just as much as you can be opposed to unmarried births and to abortion together. It may be bad that some gays turn to drugs when their sins are condemned, but that doesn't mean we should accept one sin more readily to prevent another.

There is only the assumption that gays are inherently promiscuous. Given that many heterosexuals are promiscuous....Also, most gays are not.

This is most certainly untrue. The average gay has more sexual "relationships" in a year than the average normal person has in a lifetime.

you are not God! You are not the one to tell people ‘you can’t love him, it’s not right’!!

Indeed, but God did say that it is wrong to be gay.

There’s also this matter: You are with your boyfriend/girlfriend. Whatever may take place between you two is no one else’s business, right? As long as it doesn't harm anyone or society? So why are gays undeserving of the human right to privacy?

I believe homosexuality does very strongly harm society, especially when it is promoted as a fine "lifestyle" no television. Even so, I do believe that it should be legal for one man to sodomise another in his own home. I very much doubt there are many people who do not believe in this. I oppose gay marriage being legal, and gay adoption being legal, for example. I certainly don't oppose legal gay sex, even though it is wrong. That is an important distinction you should make.

There’s also the matter of rights. Many of you said things along the lines of that the rights of gays should be taken away. Before you can interrupt and deny it, yes you were. I’m talking about human rights and Constitutional rights, which apply to everyone in this country. Why do you deserve these rights and they don’t?

Gays do have the same rights as normal people. They can marry any woman they choose and have children with her, just like a straight man. What you want is extension of rights to everyone, to turn marriage into something that is about any form of sexual relationship. I believe that is wrong because marriage and the family is the basis of society and to diminish it by putting it on the same level as all the less valid, less difficult relationships would harm everyone. It would mean more divorce, more kids who never see their fathers, more unhappiness and more sin.

Since you are sure you are right and they are wrong why do you care? When they die (and when you die) God will make his judgment on whether or not they lived a moral life. Why do you have to make judgment now. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else why not let them do what they want here on Earth and let God handle the righteous judgment when they die?

It depends very much on what you call hurting someone else. I would maintain that gays relationships harm society in general, gay marriage would further that, and gay adoption would harm every child who had two mothers or two fathers.

I’d also like to remind you that your attitude towards gay couples is the exact same attitude towards interracial couples from not too long ago.

No, it is not. That was based on a belief in the inherent inferiority of other races simply on basis of their skin colour. Opposition to homosexuality is based on a faithful belief in a God who wanted men to be with women and women to be with men and that society is best served by the family. Many were wrong about inter-racial weddings. That doesn't mean others are wrong about gay weddings any more than it means they are wrong about child weddings.

Peter.

Peter, I'm not going to dignify your last two posts with a well thought out response. Why? You won't listen to it. Suffice it to say, if you, as you claim, are not a bigot, why do you refer to gays as abnormal? Why do you wnat the entire world to base it's laws off of a 2000 year old book? That is the height of delusion if you ask me. And you aslo offer no proof that 'gays are more promisucous' other than basless propaganda and stereotypes.

No, peter, the arguments she gave were all stereotypes. All gays abuse drugs heavily, gays have 251 different sex partners in a year, and other "points" without base.

Oh, and the teacher says it all the time: If you use stereotypes, bigotry, and slander for your speech, she will make you sit down.

As for the Bible, it's being debated as to whether "abomination" is the right translation.

Also, do we still stone children who talk back to their parents? Do we burn people at the stake for wearing clothes made of two different threads? Do we still sell our daughters into slavery?

I am a student, so I work the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states I should be put to death. Hmm?


Gays do have the same rights as normal people. They can marry any woman they choose and have children with her, just like a straight man. What you want is extension of rights to everyone, to turn marriage into something that is about any form of sexual relationship. I believe that is wrong because marriage and the family is the basis of society and to diminish it by putting it on the same level as all the less valid, less difficult relationships would harm everyone. It would mean more divorce, more kids who never see their fathers, more unhappiness and more sin.

For my reply, read this.

And read the whole article.

Gays do have the same rights as normal people. They can marry any woman they choose and have children with her, just like a straight man. What you want is extension of rights to everyone

Hmm..does anyone else see it?

No, gays are denied many rights.

I believe that everyone is equal, no matter what, and should not be denied any right. For any reason.

And just who the hell are you to say "we should deny them rights, because I don't like it"?

No, peter, I respect that other people have different points of view. One of my favorite things to do is DEBATE. Intelligently, so I can state my side. Debates have changed my feelings on a few different subjects.

You have insulted me, so I insult you. If you want me to stop, then you stop.

Marriage is the union of two individuals wishing to show the world their love and commitment to each other. Why can't gays do this? They are perfectly capable of monogamous relationships.

The average gay has more sexual "relationships" in a year than the average normal person has in a lifetime.

Where did you find that statistic; what proof do you have?

Gays do have the same rights as normal people. They can marry any woman they choose and have children with her, just like a straight man.

So by that logic if interracial marriage was illegal it would be OK because everyone had the same rights, the right to marry someone of the same race?

An open letter to President Bartlet

Dear President,
I'm not sure if you exist or not. Granted, a lot of people here seem to belive you, which is really all that matters. Your understanding of bibilcal law amazes me. Are aware that God is not mocked? Perhaps if the Bible condones slavery, it is you who are at fault, not God. Are really placing ideological concerns that will be forgoten in 20 years, or tribal loyalities before the Law of God? I ask you Mr. President, in the words of the poet Jewel, "Who will save your soul?".

Perhaps you should also notice that in the entire bible, the laws demanding purity of crops and slavery are never repeted. However, St. Paul drills the entire notion that Homosexual actions are wrong. Not just once, but again and again. But of course, you may not reconize Paul and his law, because it tells women to not dress like whores, and to ask questions after church, and to not be pastors. So what do you belive Mr. President? That any part of the bible that conflicts with liberal ideology should be discarded? Just who is your God, Mr. President? What will save your soul? I realize your writters have never allowed to hear a intellegent conservative argument. I'm sure whatever black pastor your hiding behind tells you exactly what you want to hear for answers, and I'm really sure you belive that you are creating progress. Take care Mr. President.


CC: Have you actually ever watched the 700 Club?

No.

1. It comes on while I'm at school
2. Did I ever say I was Christian?
3. I can't respond to most of this, as I am not.


I'm sure whatever black pastor your hiding behind tells you exactly what you want to hear for answers, and I'm really sure you belive that you are creating progress.

Ahh...so now you think blacks have no place as Priests?

'Sigh', Did I say blacks have no place as preists? Did I even say Priests? I was refering to Bill Clinton's practice of surrounding himself with black leaders (Jesse Jackson) who were more political than religious, during the last 5 to 6 years of his presidentcy. It saved him on more than one occasion.

While you are not required to respond to anything on this board, thank you for declining.

Gays do have the same rights as normal people. They can marry any woman they choose and have children with her, just like a straight man.

Well, they have no feelings or emotional or soul connection with that woman, why would they marry and have children with her?

If they fall in love with someone of the same sex, and their heart tells them that this is "the One," and you have no part in any of it or you don't know them, what business of yours is it?

What you want is extension of rights to everyone

Yes, I want equal rights for everyone. What gives you the right to take away their God-given rights? And their Constitutional rights? If you don't think everyone deserves basic human rights, BRING IT ON.

I could go on about this for a long time, but since you don't bother to read posts...

to turn marriage into something that is about any form of sexual relationship.

No, it is the same •••• thing as heterosexual marriage--the union of two peoples who want to spend the rest of their lives together because they have found a soulmate. So only straights can have a true love? Its only difference is the gender of one of the partners.

I believe that is wrong because marriage and the family is the basis of society and to diminish it by putting it on the same level as all the less valid, less difficult relationships would harm everyone. It would mean more divorce, more kids who never see their fathers, more unhappiness and more sin.

You know what? Since neither you nor peter take the time to read well-thought out posts, •••• it.

Oh, Pesti, Peter, and all who oppose homosexuality because of the Bible:

Did God not say "Judgment is Mine and Mine alone"?

Hmm?

I have seen the 700 club quite a few times. I watch it with the same morbid curiosity that pulls me to watch/listen to/read Jerry Springer, Rush Limbaugh, www.capalert.com, or a train wreak; don't want to stare but can't look away. They present their cases in a much more honest way than the likes of Rush Limbaugh but I don't agree with them because I don't share the same core beliefs as they do. For example if they present the fact that Disney extends benefits to same-sex partners they reach the conclusion that the company is at fault for doing something wrong. I look at those same facts (same sex benefits) and don't see anything being done wrong.

Are aware that God is not [to be] mocked?
If you believe in that stuff.

Perhaps if the Bible condones slavery, it is you who are at fault, not God.

How's that? I see words in that sentence but I haven't the foggiest clue what logical leap is needed to get from the first part of that sentence to the second.

Are really placing ideological concerns that will be forgoten in 20 years, or tribal loyalities before the Law of God?
Which ideological concerns will be forgotten in 20 years? What tribal Loyalty? Which law of God? The 10 commandments (don't recall anything about homosexuals in those) The ones about eating pork that the Jews still follow. The ones that the much of the current church has disregarded because it's not compatible in the modern age (woman preachers, men having more than one wife)? Or the ones that they still cling to for some arbitrary reason?

I ask you Mr. President, in the words of the poet Jewel, "Who will save your soul?".
For that one all that you have to know that while every world religion has their own beliefs about right and wrong, heaven and hell, good and evil you know that the one you were born into is the correct one and all the others are wrong.

BTW since President Bartlet isn't the only West Wing character who gets quoted around here who gets quoted perhaps you could address your next letter to Aaron Sorkin the brilliant creator/executive producer/writer of The West Wing.

From what I have seen of it, The President in the west wing is is catholic. The questions are targeted to a Judeo Christian worldview.

And yes I will never quite Jewel again. Very painful

The NRO Corner brought up a good point. Look at what the Catholic Church in Boston is going through now because of homosexuals in the ranks. The scouts want to protect themselves from scandal. Again, why should we inconvience ourselves for three percent of the population?

Error type 11: The Catholic Church is having a crisis because they knowingly harbored dangerous pedophiles, not homosexuals. Homosexual != child molester, and I'll thank you to never make that comparison again. Your idea for keeping gays out of the Scouts is, therefore, invalid.

You know, that little girl in San Diego (Danielle Van Damm) was allegedly killed by a heterosexual man. Megan (of Megan's law fame) was killed by a heterosexual man.

Etc...

Hey Scott N. did you know that 33% of Child molesters are homosexuals? Did you know that almost all child molestors are male? Did you know that boy comprise 33% of the molested? Did you know that homosexual's own research found that 73% of the Gay male population has had sex with a minor?

Document those, Matt.

Did you know that homosexual's own research found that 73% of the Gay male population has had sex with a minor?

Um... putting aside the issue of documentation of these statistics for the moment...

Could it not be that all this means is that 73% of the gay men surveyed were sexually active when they were under the age of 18, with other men under 18?

Family Research Council: Insight: Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse

DISCLAIMER: This material is from a Think Tank and therefore, while scholarly in nature, factually accurate, and well written, still comes in a ideological wrapper.

Why is it "factually inaccurate," Matt? Because you disagree with it?

If you were to read court reports (ones *not* filtered by a Conservative-biased news article) or scientific research, the vast majority of pedophiles are straight.

Don't like it? I'm sorry.

Does it distort your views of gays? Does it take away from your ammo to gay-bash? I'm sorry.

y Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger."}

Quoted from the Family Research Center's horribly biased report.

Again, "at some time?" Like, when *they themselves* were "sixteen to nineteen years of age?" And when did 18-19 year olds suddenly become minors? I just can't see why this is relevant at all, because it doesn't address the actual issue, i.e. what was the age gap between the partners? Was it a 17 year old having sex with a 16 year old? Or was one 16 and the other 50? *That* would make this datum germane to the report. The fact that something like it apparently isn't included isn't surprising, given the ideological bias of the Family Research Center, but it is quite misrepresentive nonetheless.

Not a bad piece of presentation by the FRC. They are at least straightforward enough to cite the primary literature, and provide references. Three problems jump out immediately:

• They discuss underreporting of boy victims. Is there a similar underreporting of female victims? Some of their conclusions are based on crime statistics, the same statistics they slam as biased earlier on.
• There's no way of knowing if the research they quote is representative of the literature or hand-picked for their agenda. They beat into me in grad school the importance of finding counter-research, and accounting for it in your piece. Called a literature review, that is woefully lacking.
• The reports they cite may have more information than the specific details the FRC deigns to point out.

If that's true then I'm dismayed. But there's no way I'd discriminate against gay people who don't abuse because of it.

Any more than I'd use the allegation that most abusers are male to justify discriminating against men as a group.

Could this be an example of the old principle that driving something underground encourages criminal activity? I'd be interested to know how the statistics would vary between areas where there was an open and active gay community, vs areas where gay people were criminalised and isolated.

On a more positive note, a few weeks ago I (a hetero ex-homophobe) went to the annual gay Pride festival in Birmingham. You don't have to be gay to go - it's a celebration and a spectacle.

I had a wonderful time.
There was a marvelous procession of floats through the city, past cheering crowds. Being jubilee weekend, many floats were dedicated to the Queen. You never saw so many queens in one place! (Their word, not mine.)

It was a liberating experience to be in the surrounded by so many gay people and be not the least bit uncomfortable. I imagine some people here would be freaked out, but take it from an ex-homophobe, you don't have to have that reaction, guys!

It was a terrific, warm-hearted experience.

I also consider myself to be an ex-homophobe (if you can call reacting violently when some retarded school kid calls you a fag homophobic anyway), and I agree with you. I used to work at a movie theatre with several gay men, and one bi-sexual male. The relation ship with him was a little awkward becuase we both had feelings for the same girl, but cool dude that he was he let me get rejected first.

Anyway, only one of them made me uncomfortable, but mostly becuase he was a walking stereotype AND he was sleeping with the Assistant Manager (who was engaged to another man, that cheating -----!). Gay or straight that kind of thing is just WRONG!

Vermont debate brings out the haters

Sunday, April 30, 2000

By SHARON UNDERWOOD

For the Valley News

As the mother of a gay son, I've seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be.

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk of have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was six.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life with no dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

No Choice

At the core of your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I can't tell you. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it.

For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will?

If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

Principles?

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending.

My 83-year-old grandfather fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.

You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the priveleged majority, and God knows my son has commited no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of stiving...to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?

**********

Taken from a now-defunct Open Diary.

Oh, yes, this is ALLLL just "liberal propaganda"... bite me. After reading this, bite me.

You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings.

A bit of a tangent here: I know I've seen this quote before. I also think I've read this article before. I don't, however, know if this article was the first place I saw that sentiment expressed. Does anyone know if the quoted portion comes from somewhere else, or if it's original to Sharon Underwood? (If so, mad props to her. It's one of the better quotes I've seen, and something I hope never happens to me.)

CC: ?

Patterson: Agreed it's a vauge point. Your answers might be obtained from consulting the original source. And I think the report was intentionally biased. It's up to you to discern the facts.

Mark Morgan: A good point.

Sophie: Pride is bad. What? It's a deadly sin.

CC: Once again, we are one step closer to understanding how your worldview operates.

And I think the report was intentionally biased. It's up to you to discern the facts.

Then... what exactly was I supposed to get out of reading the report? Some people think there's evidence to suggest that homosexuals are preying on children? Heard that one before. Serves as a good guide to sources, maybe, but even so I'd still prefer to go out and find them on my own, just on general principle.

Cynical Chick,

I'd like to congratulate you on your good grades and intelligence!! (Mentioned quite some time before, but I only got here now..)

To put a few thoughts along the original topic: I thought that in the US army, women are allowed? I read with interest (I think in crichton novel, but surely there are more reliable sources out there) that women were preferred on submarines because they were smaller, used less air and, most important, could stand the stress much better. Also, according to what I have heard about the astronauts, mixed crews of male and females are psychological more stable than all-male crews.

Oh, and for all those, that like peter, doubt the fighting strength of gays: The old greek thought that homosexual love was the real thing, heterosexual was only to have children to carry on the family, and the women looked after the housework, but the soul-mate and real love was for another man, as only he could really understand you (this was because most of the ancient greeks didn't value women much). These very macho guys were gay!

When plato wrote about love, he said that originally, there were no humans, but some kind of spheres, whole entitities, which then split up. In order to make a whole again, there is man-man, which he preferred and thought superior, man-women, which is acceptable for some reasons (see above), and women-women, which doesn't count. So, when talking about platonic love, people mean not a relationship without sex, they originally meant a relationship between males.

Also, the thebians had a whole army of esp. lovers, because they reasoned that lovers would fight much harder to protect each other than two "grunts". (A couple could protect each others back better than single soldiers.)

And the spartan, the most feared soldiers of that time, were homosexual most of the time. The spent some time with women to father children, then they were together with their comrades again. When the spartan boys reached puberty, there was an oldier friend to guide them along and introduce them into everything, weapon training as well as sleeping with each other, and they stayed friends during the whole time while they learned to be soldiers.

So, how would the army suffer because of gays?

To put a few thoughts along the original topic: I thought that in the US army, women are allowed? I read with interest (I think in crichton novel, but surely there are more reliable sources out there) that women were preferred on submarines because they were smaller, used less air and, most important, could stand the stress much better.

As I understand it the Navy didn't allow Women on subs for quite a while after going co-ed on surface ships. The reason was because they only had one bathroom/shower facility and space is at such a premium they couldn't do like on an Aircraft carrier (which houses 6000 people) and say these 2 bathrooms and sets of bunks are for women.

Blue Berry,

I wasn't trying to respond to peter, but to everybody else who is interested in this discussion and maybe would be interested in a new viewpoint or argument, that several hundreds of years ago, a society where many of our ideals come from embraced homosexuality as the normal thing. (If you tell me that everybody here knows that stuff already and has been bored, I apologize for taking up so much time and space.)

Cynical chick was comparing the "gay cant fight" prejudice to "short people aren't intelligent" and told that she would be accepted to yale or any other college, although she is only junior. I think thats sth. special and wanted to congratulate her.

Oh, in germany, the green party finally made it a law that gays can legally marry. There are still parts of the law and the daily life which the gay organisations would like to improve, but its a step forward. (and the country hasn't fallen in ruin in the last year
Although I'm ashamed to say that bavaria, where I live, tried to block the law by calling upon the Court of Constitution, delaying the law and making the couples go to the attorney instead of the normal office (which is more expensive and time-consuming.) Bavaria got thrown out of the court - same rights for everybody, and protecting marriage and the family in the constitution isn't endangered by gay couples. Serves stoiber et al right.

I suppose you're hoping, constanze, that Stoiber gets trounced at the polls in a few weeks then.

Josh,

you bet. But a trouncing is unlikely: In the polls, the conservative CSU/CDU is almost level to the democratic SPD, both between 37 and 40 %.

Oh, I hope not only for the polls, but for the elections, which are the sunday after next.

A great opinion piece I found on the Kevin Smith issue that Brian Webber posted on the website for people who think Nitcentral is too rough., I really have no idea. It's for a Mature Audiance only, Children under 18 should not read this due to it's profanity, and suggestive dialouge.

Actually Pesti's first link was correct. But the site it links to is dicey. it only fully downloaded correctly once out of three tries for me in IE and not at all in Netscape.

Note 1: This is a continuation of a thread that began in Religious Musings, but as the focus narrowed down to the legality of same-sex marriage, and since my religious views of homosexuality and my political/legal views of "gay rights" are so different, I feel more comfortable moving my response over here.

Note 2: I'd like to thank Mark Morgan. Your response: "Therefore, "It's in the Bible that it's wrong" is not a good enough reason for the federal government* to oppose homosexual marriage.
*Under the depressingly oft-ignored concepts of federalism, states can supposedly do otherwise."** helped to clarify (or perhaps it inspired) my thoughts on the issues so that I can respond more confidently.
(** That was only true until the Supreme court's interpretations of the 14th amendment brought the dealings between the States and the people under the protections of the First Amendment.)

-------

First off, Christians do not take marrige for granted. It is a hallowed and sacred union, to be celebrated.
But if Christians believe that Homosexuality is a sin, no matter who commits in, then how can they in good conscience do anything to support such sin?
As for basic rights, once again you must remember that to Christians, marrige is a basic right between one man and one woman. So they're not trying to deny Homosexuals any basic rights. They are trying to deny a special privelege that to them is highly sinful. Zarm Rkeeg

If a marriage contract is a special privelege, then either it should be repealled or it should be opened up to all.

Legally, marriage is a contract between two people which has a major effect on their finances and certain legal obligations, and almost nothing more. In this sense it is similar to a partnership or a corporation. The details of what exactly are affected are greater than most other partnerships, and there are severe restrictions on who can contract for this partnership.

The traditional reasons for excluding couples from entering into marriage contracts are all based on the concept that society has a vested interest in creating "families" and producing children. So it has been restricted to couples percieved as ready and willing to fulfill society's mandate. And it has traditionally been difficult to dissolve the contract.

Society no longer needs for as many couples as possible to be involved in child-bearing marriages, so it has eased the process of disolving the marriage contract.

At the same time, partnerships that do not qualify for the marriage contract have found reasons for seeking many of the legal benefits, but while a marriage contract may be filed for only a nominal license fee, obtaining the equivalent priveleges through alternate legal instruments involves many documents, and multiple court costs. And even then some priveleges are still not granted.

Society has no legal reason to continue to withhold the right to file a marriage contract to such people. And such people do not just include gay and lesbian sex partners, they could just as easily be purely financial partnerships, for example two widowed or spinster sisters sharing their family homestead.

Religiously, one can still declare homosexual practices to be sin and within the Church keep a distinction between marriage and the legal contract, but it should be recognized that the special legal benefits can no longer be supported by appeal to tradition, but only by appeal to the Bible, and so should not be a part of a pluralistic society.

Queer isn't a slur in all contexts (in most contexts, the word means strange). Queer Theory and Queer Studies are both commonly used pharases by homosexuals to describe the academic study of homosexuality.

Examples
Queertheory.com

UK Site

another site.

To say one used it for Queer social experiments is to refer to Clinton's reckless act of eliminating the policy agaist gays in the military.

BTW

Sax- Since we are talking about what the law should be rather than what the law is now, it would probably fit better in PM, except that I could not start a new conversation there. (Somehow it didn't seem appropriate to put it at the end of the Gays In the Military thread.) If you want to move the thread over there, I'm fine with it.

Matt: Why is it reckless? Should the only requiremtns for serving in the U.S. military be a willingness to serve, and the physical ability to do so? It's a dirty stinkin' shame that we won't let gays serve their country, when even Hitler let gays fight. Granted, he always sent them on suicide missions, but geez! And people wonder why I compare Ultra Conservatives to Nazis. Take your homophobia elsewhere Matt. Despite what you may hear, gay people aren't evil.

The bible argument shouldn't matter. Like the Lord God is pleased with the state of marriage in this country to began with. I just ask whats the point? It's not like gays are going to produce children or anything.

Matt never said gay people were evil, Brian. He simply disagrees with allowing gays in the military.

Brian W: It was reckless. The issue isn't whether or not gays should serve in the military. The question was it a wise policy to implement. Clinton angered a lot of military people earlier in his presidentcy. He allowed himself to be painted as a liberal when he was trying to postition himself as a moderate. He put his own head on the line for a action of intrest group politics. He even backtracked, and created the don't ask, don't tell policy, which is utterly ridicolous. Clinton's actions were reckless because it took the demands of a small special intrest group, and enforced them without question upon a large, politically connected segment of the population. That is foolish.

Think of it with this gay marriage thing. If the gays were smart, they would push for civil unions in a few sympathetic liberal states. But, their actions seem to be to push for "same sex marriage" in all fifty states by judical fiat. This action will polarize the issue, eliminate the moderates, and will most likely result in a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage et al, a gutting of the judical powers that are dependent on, and a grassroots revolt agaist them and the court. To act in a manner in which one ignores all the potential and probable consquences of one's actions is reckless.

As I said, society no longer has a vested interest in producing as many children as possible. We no longer need to grant couples special priveleges and awards for breeding them. Either government should get out of the marriage game altogether, making them entirely religious affairs (Although it should still enforce child support and other basic obligations of parents to minor children.), or it should make the legal contract known as marriage available to other kinds of partnerships.

Oh, come on. If same sex marriages are legal, then we wouldn't have people like Britney Spears showing us what a sacred institution marriage really is!

Maybe, but then again they said the same thing about Blacks and Women in military service. And franklly I'm amazed very little stink has been raised about the bias against Wiccans in the military. And you're right to a certain extent about CLinton. If I was him I wouldn't have backed down. I would've reminded them ever so politely *cough* what I mentioned above, about Blacks and Women.

Poor analogy Brian. Blacks have always served in the military. They may have served in segregated units, or have been excluded from certain positions but they have always served.

Women don't serve in frontline combat positions, and it is illegal to draft them. Except of course, when Clinton changed the rules so that America's daughters could get raped more often near battle zones so feminists would overlook his "indiscretions." How many more women have to be raped before your ideology is satisiated?

Because I can, are you saying Brian that you are against Abstinence education programs because teenagers are going to have sex anyways, but are for gays in the military, because teenagers who shower together are not going to have sex anyways? No sexual tenstion whatsoever? Cause you know, fraternization is punishable in the army.

Building from Scott's point;

My sister and her girlfriend have been together for11 years.

Rush Limbaugh has been married four times, none of which lasted more than a decade.

Bob Dole's current wife, Liddy, was a stewardess he started shtuping while still married to wife #1.

Newt Gingrch cheated on Wife 1 with Wife 2, and sued Wife 1 for divorce while Wife 1 was dying from cancer (she eventually recovered). Newt is on marriage #3. Wife 3 is a staffer he started porking while still married to Wife 2.

Ann Coulter accuses us Liberals of having a Marquis De Sade lifestyle. Again, let me mention that my sister's same sex relationship has just begun it's second decade. Ann meanwhile is over 40, has never been married, and has the personality of a Dominatrix. Who's kidding who?

To (mis)quote Al Franken from his seminal work, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, don't you find it funny that every Repuiblican who attacks Bill Clinton for violating the sanctity of marriage have been married at least twice?

The End of Marriage in Sweden.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling Tuesday that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. CNN.com

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices wrote, as reported by the Associated Press.San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center.

As we stated above, in Goodridge the court was asked to consider the constitutional question "whether the Commonwealth may use its formidable regulatory authority to bar same-sex couples from civil marriage." The court has answered the question.

We have now been asked to render an advisory opinion on Senate No. 2175, which creates a new legal status, "civil union," that is purportedly equal to "marriage," yet separate from it. The constitutional difficulty of the proposed civil union bill is evident in its stated purpose to "preserv[e] the traditional, historic nature and meaning of the institution of civil marriage."

Preserving the institution of civil marriage is of course a legislative priority of the highest order, and one to which the Justices accord the General Court the greatest deference. We recognize the efforts of the Senate to draft a bill in conformity with the Goodridge opinion.

Yet the bill, as we read it, does nothing to "preserve" the civil marriage law, only its constitutional infirmity. This is not a matter of social policy but of constitutional interpretation.

As the court concluded in Goodridge, the traditional, historic nature and meaning of civil marriage in Massachusetts is as a wholly secular and dynamic legal institution, the governmental aim of which is to encourage stable adult relationships for the good of the individual and of the community, especially its children. The very nature and purpose of civil marriage, the court concluded, renders unconstitutional any attempt to ban all same-sex couples, as same-sex couples, from entering into civil marriage Opinions Of The Justices To The Senate

Thank the goddess and goddesses for the supreme court of massechuesets. let shope that the rest of the country learns that intolerance and discrimination are not right or good no matter what you call it.

The new mayor of San Francisco is not waiting for the California court system to declare the marriage law discriminatory. He has simply ordered the city clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples anyway.

Whether his reason was mainly to honor his campaign promise, or mostly because he wanted "the capital of gay America," rather than "bluenose" Boston to have the distinction of being the first city in which two men or two women were officially married, by taking action only one week after the Massachusetts court's ruling, he ensured that the story would get the greatest national exposure.

And since 2004 is an election year, that means it will become a campaign issue.

Oh no Matt you're not getting away with this one. That comment that Clinton wanted Ameircan women to get raped borders on libelous. And to suggets that I want it to happen to "satisfy my dieology" is DEFINATELY libelous! I could sue you you for that awful comment if I wanted, and and you'd have in court to back you up is propaganda and ideology. The only ideology I want to serve by allowing women and gays into the military is a good one, unlike you who wants us back in the days of "This Man's Army." ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RISK THIER LIFE TO DEFNED THEIR COUNTRY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO UNLES THEY ARE PHYSICALLY OR EMOTINAL INCAPABLE OF DOING SO! What's so bad about that? If anything it makes me more patriotic than just about anyone who supported the War in Iraq. And of course there will be sexual tension, but I think it's increidbly insulting and homophobic on your part to assume that gay men and women aren't capable of holding in their desires. I mean, because straight officers are so much more in control *cough*Tailhook*cough* right? My bestest best friend in the whole wide world is a Bi-Sexual woman and I can assure that there is no sexual tension between us whatsoever. Even some of your own fellow Conservatives agree with me here. As WAR HERO John McCain once said, and I'm paraphrasing cause I don't have the exact quote with me, "Far as I'm concerned all you have to do is shoot straight." Honestly, I seriously doubt that a soldier in trouble is going to refuse to be saved by a fellow soldier becuase he's gay.

Sax, if you want, go ahead and move this over to Gays in the Military.

Women don't serve in frontline combat positions, and it is illegal to draft them. Except of course, when Clinton changed the rules so that America's daughters could get raped more often near battle zones so feminists would overlook his "indiscretions." How many more women have to be raped before your ideology is satisiated?

That reminds me of a story I once heard about Israel. Someone in that government wanted to pass a law that women couldn't leave the house without a male escort after a certain time. The reason was because most rapes happen after a certain time at night. I assume most people can see the illogic in both the proposed law your position on letting women do more in the military opening them to rape, and that being the fault of people who gave them more freedom to advance and not the problem of the men who raped them.

Your logic seems to be that military men are a bunch of rapists who will always be that way so women should not be allowed near them.
Because I can, are you saying Brian that you are against Abstinence education programs because teenagers are going to have sex anyways, but are for gays in the military, because teenagers who shower together are not going to have sex anyways? No sexual tenstion whatsoever? Cause you know, fraternization is punishable in the army.

What does abstinence education have to do with any of this. BTW the reason we liberals are against abstinence only education is because it doesn't work. I remember a few years ago I did a spread sheet that compared states teen pregnancy rates with their planed parenthood scores. The ones who got the lowest marks from Planned parenthood (meaning ones who teach only abstinence and what have you) the higher the teen pregnancy rate.

Brian W: Soldiers exist to service the military, not the military to service soldiers. Your assumptions are based on the latter.

Why is it Libel to ask you how many Jessica Lynchs will it take to get you to change your mind on this issue?

Brian F: Not our military. More the Iraqi military, which missed the diversity training video to go gas Kurds.

It's the whole "Teenagers are uncontrolable sex fiends so we can't tell them not to have sex, we have to give them condoms" Vs. "Gay 18 year olds could control their behavior until shore leave."

Brian, I basically agree that anyone who wants to join should be allowed in...but I do recognize that there could be problems sexually speaking.

Why is it Libel to ask you how many Jessica Lynchs will it take to get you to change your mind on this issue?

Bad analogy since Lynch herself claims she wasn't raped. And your attempt to sway my opinion to the hradliner Conservo side by trying to appeal to an archaic attitude that women can't take care of themelves, or even worse, the BS notion the the men who do the raping are not at fault, isn't winning you any brownie points. When I read stuff like that I temporarily hpe there is a Heaven, and I hope I'm there when St. peter starts reading of your life story.

St. peter: OK, I have to ask, where did you come up with some of this cr@p?
Me: Hey guys, who wants popcorn?!? This is gonna be great!

Ah, and that isn't libel...

No, it's irony. I'm very good at that stuff. So good that apparently you are the only Conservative (albeit mildly) person in America, if not the whole world, who can actually tell when I'm joking.

"Gay 18 year olds could control their behavior until shore leave."

Are you implying that they will do stuff with eachother or to straight guys? Gay 18 year olds will control their behavior toward straight guys in the millitary because they know good and well that if they tried anything on a straight fellow soldier they'd get a hard beatdown. I'm not saying that's right but it is still a macho group, and macho guys even those who don't have a problem with gay people don't want that stuff directed toward them.

Oh and the reason that everyone keeps compairing it to the black/white issue is because the reasons that detractors always come up with are almost the same as what people said about integrating the millitary back in WWII and before.

Brian: Gosh, men have the ability to do acts of great horror agaist women, such an old fashion notion of mine.

---

Quote:

And your attempt to sway my opinion to the hradliner Conservo side by trying to appeal to an archaic attitude that women can't take care of themelves,

---