Gays in military: Do allies' experiences matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
REMINDER

Please charitably discuss the issues and not each other. If you feel someone has violated a forum rule, report the post using the bad post reporting tool (the red triangle in the upper right), indicate the exact forum rule being violated and a moderator will review the complaint. If you lash back at members in the open forum, expect your account to be closed.
 
jerryson said:
For anyone here still opposed to gays in the military, I will repeat the following yet again and would like to hear your answer:
Click to expand...
Hi, jerryson,

I have nothing against gays in the military nor anywhere else. My objection is to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Regards,
Don
 
donsnow said:
Hi, jerryson,

I have nothing against gays in the military nor anywhere else. My objection is to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Regards,
Don
Click to expand...
“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a contradiction, it asks for gays but doesn’t want them in the same breath. There are countries where gays are killed just because of who they are, what better example to show them than that we allow openly gay people to be equal citizens?
 
jerryson said:
So according to bbarrick8383, being a homosexual is equal to cannibalism

stay classy, bbarrick8383
Click to expand...
I have noticed that you still have not responded to my questions. This is my third request. I will repeat the questions:

How do you come up with “99% of actual scientific studies that show gays are born that way” and “…99% of gays who claim they have always held same-sex attractions” and “…99% of those gays who tried to change but could not because it was obviously biologically hardwired into them?”

What’s with this 99%? Can you back this figure up? Or is this just an unfounded assertion?

I would appreciate an appropriate response. Thank you.
 
jerryson said:
So according to bbarrick8383, being a homosexual is equal to cannibalism

stay classy, bbarrick8383
Click to expand...
That is not what bbarick said. He/she never stated that the two acts are equal in any respect.

Basing the morality and/or appropriateness of an act based upon whether it appears in the non-human animal kingdom logically leads to accepting any act that appears in the non-human animal kingdom as being morally correct and/or appropriate.

Argument 1:
Premise 1: What appears in the non-human animal kingdom is moral/appropriate for humans.
Premise 2: Homosexuality appears in the non-human animal kingdom.
Conclusion: Ergo, homosexuality is moral/appropriate for humans.

Argument 2:
Premise 1: What appears in the non-human animal kingdom is moral/appropriate for humans.
Premise 2: Cannibalism appears in the non-human animal kingdom.
Conclusion: Ergo, cannibalism is moral/appropriate for humans.

See? It doesn’t work. If your argument is that because homosexual activity is found in non-human animals it is appropriate, then you must accept that any activity that is found in non-human animals is appropriate. You can’t have it both ways.

With all due respect, how anyone can manage to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is somehow equal to cannibalism is beyond my understanding, because nothing in bbarrick’s post stated anything even remotely like that.
 
LittleSoldier said:
That is not what bbarick said. He/she never stated that the two acts are equal in any respect.

Basing the morality and/or appropriateness of an act based upon whether it appears in the non-human animal kingdom logically leads to accepting any act that appears in the non-human animal kingdom as being morally correct and/or appropriate.

Argument 1:
Premise 1: What appears in the non-human animal kingdom is moral/appropriate for humans.
Premise 2: Homosexuality appears in the non-human animal kingdom.
Conclusion: Ergo, homosexuality is moral/appropriate for humans.

Argument 2:
Premise 1: What appears in the non-human animal kingdom is moral/appropriate for humans.
Premise 2: Cannibalism appears in the non-human animal kingdom.
Conclusion: Ergo, cannibalism is moral/appropriate for humans.

See? It doesn’t work. If your argument is that because homosexual activity is found in non-human animals it is appropriate, then you must accept that any activity that is found in non-human animals is appropriate. You can’t have it both ways.

With all due respect, how anyone can manage to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is somehow equal to cannibalism is beyond my understanding, because nothing in bbarrick’s post stated anything even remotely like that.
Click to expand...
Did you even read what we both said? The conversation was not about whether Homosexuality was morally positive, it was whether Homosexuality was a choice or if someone was born with it, and I argued and showed that it is something people are born with because of a variation in their genetic structure, and used homosexual animals as an example.
 
jerryson said:
Did you even read what we both said? The conversation was not about whether Homosexuality was morally positive, it was whether Homosexuality was a choice or if someone was born with it, and I argued and showed that it is something people are born with because of a variation in their genetic structure, and used homosexual animals as an example.
Click to expand...
I’m not even sure you read it, and if you did, I’m pretty sure you do not understand it.
 
jerryson said:
“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a contradiction, it asks for gays but doesn’t want them in the same breath. There are countries where gays are killed just because of who they are, what better example to show them than that we allow openly gay people to be equal citizens?
Click to expand...
Hi, Jerry,

I consider any “open” sexuality in public provocative and offensive. So, I don’t approve of any sexuality showing out in public. Sexuality is for private sharing.
I tire of gays thinking they’re the only ones being picked on for obnoxious behavior. When they seek attention with hateful behavior (the worst kind of hate speech) they shouldn’t be offended when they receive a type of attention they weren’t seeking.

In closing, I think gays have always had the same civil and criminal rights as any other minority and as the majority. Their attempts to pervert the definition of marriage are not appreciated and are provocative and offensive, imo.

So, for continually being offended by inappropriate public behavior from the militants of this bunch of people; and for noticing that mainline gays don’t call down their offensively militant members; I think I’m fairly reasonable in my regard to gays.

Regards,
Don
 
donsnow said:
Hi, Jerry,

I for noticing that mainline gays don’t call down their offensively militant members; I think I’m fairly reasonable in my regard to gays.
Regards,
Don
Click to expand...
“Mainline” gays–I assume you mean ones in the military who pull their own weight and don’t get involved in gay politics–shouldn’t be called upon to do that any more than anybody else should, because THEY don’t perceive gay people as a whole as an interest group, let alone themselves as part of it. To the extent they control their own behavior and mind their own business, they should not called to book for the actions of political gays. The political gays themselves should be called to book for it.
 
jerryson said:
Did you even read what we both said? The conversation was not about whether Homosexuality was morally positive, it was whether Homosexuality was a choice or if someone was born with it, and I argued and showed that it is something people are born with because of a variation in their genetic structure, and used homosexual animals as an example.
Click to expand...
First things first, please. I believe I read a post in which you used “99%” several times. I think I read that post correctly. You still have not answered my questions. I believe this is now my fourth request. Here are the questions:

How do you come up with “99% of actual scientific studies that show gays are born that way” and “…99% of gays who claim they have always held same-sex attractions” and “…99% of those gays who tried to change but could not because it was obviously biologically hardwired into them?”

What’s with this 99%? Can you back this figure up? Or is this just an unfounded assertion?

Once we get that straightened out we can go on with the unfounded assertions you made in your post quoted above (like when you said you “showed that it is something that people are born with” when you did nothing of the kind.
 
donsnow said:
In closing, I think gays have always had the same civil and criminal rights as any other minority and as the majority. Their attempts to pervert the definition of marriage are not appreciated and are provocative and offensive, imo.
Click to expand...
As far as marriage goes, no marriage of any kind should be the business of the government. The church you belong to and/or you yourself should deal & define these private contracts.

As far as gays being “provocative”, I don’t see gay people torturing straight people because of their orientation foxnews.com/us/2010/10/10/suspects-arraigned-new-york-city-anti-gay-attack/
 
JHow said:
The logic here seems to be that if we (society) all just got over our hang ups and affirmed gay behavior, then gays would cease to be a security risk to the military because then no one could blackmail them or threaten them with exposure or their secret. Openness would make them less of a threat.

The problem I have is that outside the military, we do have an open society, homosexuality is very much tolerated (tolerated by not accepted by all, Gene Robinson - call your office!) and yet many homosexuals (still) choose to hide their proclivities. (It’s like they were ashamed or something? Mark Foley - call your office!). Call me skeptical, but I don’t see this changing - despite orders from Washington that we should all be more accepting.

The counter argument will be that we are not yet “open and accepting” enough - we always need more and more acceptance (just like the soviet union was never really communist, just working towards it). But, this argument seems to me like blaming the rest of us for the homosexual spy’s bad behavior.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality is a sin. To continue in this lifestyle is forbidden by the Lord.
See Rom.1:24–32. These passages also list other sins as well.
1Cor.6:11-13. Lev.18:22
Lets leave the judging to the Lord. Mt.7:1-5

God bless you,
bluelake
 
donsnow said:
Hi, Jerry,

I consider any “open” sexuality in public provocative and offensive. So, I don’t approve of any sexuality showing out in public. Sexuality is for private sharing.
I tire of gays thinking they’re the only ones being picked on for obnoxious behavior. When they seek attention with hateful behavior (the worst kind of hate speech) they shouldn’t be offended when they receive a type of attention they weren’t seeking.

In closing, I think gays have always had the same civil and criminal rights as any other minority and as the majority. Their attempts to pervert the definition of marriage are not appreciated and are provocative and offensive, imo.

So, for continually being offended by inappropriate public behavior from the militants of this bunch of people; and for noticing that mainline gays don’t call down their offensively militant members; I think I’m fairly reasonable in my regard to gays.

Regards,

Don
Click to expand...
don,
You have have made some good points.
A persons sex choices should remain private.
Lets keep in mind, nothing is hidden from God.

Gays are seeking to be accepted by others. I can understand that, but we should be asking the Lord what he thinks about it first.

Lets pray about it.

God bless,
bluelake
 
jerryson said:
Did you even read what we both said? The conversation was not about whether Homosexuality was morally positive, it was whether Homosexuality was a choice or if someone was born with it, and I argued and showed that it is something people are born with because of a variation in their genetic structure, and used homosexual animals as an example.
Click to expand...
Why would God create a person with a sinful lifestyle and then condemn it in His word?
God gives us choices. All sins are listed in the Bible, one of which is Homosexuality.
There are many sins listed along with sexual sins.
Judging others is also a sin. Mt.7:1-5

God bless,
bluelake
 
bluelake said:
Why would God create a person with a sinful lifestyle and then condemn it in His word?
God gives us choices. All sins are listed in the Bible, one of which is Homosexuality.
There are many sins listed along with sexual sins.
Judging others is also a sin. Mt.7:1-5

God bless,
bluelake
Click to expand...
God doesn’t create “lifestyles”. And yes, people are born with defects, just look at many murderers who were born with Double-Y chromosomes.
 
jerryson said:
For anyone here still opposed to gays in the military, I will repeat the following yet again and would like to hear your answer:
Click to expand...
In re paying taxes:
So do most drug dealers, rapists, and murderers. Even racist bigots tend to pay taxes.

Drug dealers do so to avoid being noticed, but every one of the 20+ drug dealers I’ve known pay federal taxes. Most also have day jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top