Adam, Eve, AND Steve

I'm just curious. Why are so many supposedly "straight" men obsessed with gay sex? That's the problem. Either you are in the closet and need to maintain the closet so you can continue to lie and require others to lie too. Or you're out of the closet and both no longer lie about your own authentic sexual identity and no longer require others to lie about it either.

This is a question of honor: Being truthful in all respects. The destruction of the maintenance of good order and discipline demands the utmost commitment to integrity and truthful fidelity to honor.

DADT destroys that integrity for all. One's personal sexual identity is of no one else's business. Period. Stop misusing the biblical quotations. Those ancient words have nothing to do with the actuality of sexual identity. I would never look to the bible for this nor condemn anyone by it -- as Jesus commended all to refrain from.

I do not look to I Kings 7:23 for the value of Pi because it is factually wrong. That's right, wrong, completely. Pi is 1:3.1428 ... not 1:3.0 as stated incorrectly in this text. If G-d wrote this then G-d is wrong. I would think G-d knows it ought to have been written 10 cubits diameter and 31 & 4/10th cubits circumference. Or 43/100th, or 428/1,000th. I would even accept 31 & 1/8th of the 10 cubits or 1/7th of the 10 cubits. This would have reflected the margin of error of the state of the art of the derivation of the time. But it isn't.

I also don't look for the text of Matthew 1:2-17 KJV to be inerrant where the Matthean author[s] don't know how to count because King David is counted twice which is impossible. Taking into account this ERROR there are 26 generations from King David to Joseph. In the Lucan accounting Luke 3:23-31 KJV it is even more problematic for you bible-thumpers. The Lucan author[s] count 41 generations from Joseph to King David -- of completely different fathers. You can't have 26 & 41 at the same time. Period. This is an error of 15 generations between the two "inerrant" texts. There is no way around this. It's in black and white.

Stop beating gay persons over the head with your bible. It demeans G-d. It misses the point completely.

"Congressional Statute Authorizing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Part 1:

Public Law 103-160 – Nov. 30, 1993 – § 546, 107 Stat. 1670 (1993) (codified at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654).

§ 654. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALS IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Findings – Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces. "

This question has not gotten a very big response from either side because it is now a forgone conclusion, that DADT will be repealed and Obama will allow gay people to serve freely in the military.

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

"On December, 2006, a majority vote of the CJLS (13 members for) also adopted a responsum by Rabbi Joel Roth maintaining the traditional prohibitions on homosexual conduct. The Roth responsum maintained that the Dorff responsum was untenable, claiming that virtually all classical authorities hold that the Biblical prohibition extends to a wider range of homosexual conduct. It also claimed that the concept of Kavod HaBriyot , which it translated as "respect" or "honor", permits setting aside rabbinic prohibitions in deference to others' honor, but does not permit setting aside prohibitions set up for God's honor in deference to ones own."

More evidence that Jews no longer follow the rules of god put forth in the Torah/OT?

From: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews

"About one-sixth of the Jews in the USA follow kosher laws."

Yeal9

"Does this mean the followers of Judaism no longer obey god and his/her Torah/OT???"

Kind of a dumb question, isn't it? I would imagine that there is a wide range of Jewish thought on many issues, including this one. Duh!

""The Vedantists would agree....

My zero point reference was really an allusion to the scientific view on origins. Even here, nothingness is a plenum from which all things arise and return - so the Void is empty, but not without infinite potential. Maybe that's what we really are.

My mother always said I had potential :^) ""

Well, that's the point, though.. it's hardly meaningful to say that 'nothingness' is *real* outside our own present continuum, which may be finite, yet unbounded, by certain reckonings, but that hardly means one should be fussed about the existential nature of what's beyond event-based-reckoning....

*looking around.*

You know, I just think sometimes, of all the things we could have been figuring out these past seventeen centuries, while certain people were debating "Does God Know What I Should Do With My Peepee?"

I don't say this lightly, but. Gods dammit.

WTF? :)

test

test

Jude 1:7 (King James Version)

" 7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

And from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

"In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Although the verse appears to most readers to apply only to sexual behavior between two males, at least two Bible translations appear to mistranslate the verse in order to widen its scope to include lesbian sexual activity:

Living Bible: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
New Living Translation: "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

But then we have this:

from Wikipedia:

Israel Defense Forces policies allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation, including special units.[51] Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York City, stated, "It's a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time."

Does this mean the followers of Judaism no longer obey god and his/her Torah/OT???

"Master"mind/FUBAR:

"I'm not talking Marshal Law."

And you are certainly not talking about martial law. In fact, what the fu*k ARE you talking about?

"Can't the Washington Post prevent people from repeatedly writing to each other in comment columns like this one? At least limit people to just one comment."

No more comments for you!

Come back one year!

Can't the Washington Post prevent people from repeatedly writing to each other in comment columns like this one? At least limit people to just one comment.

Paganplace:

'Some might say that all of this manifestation is a cyclical process of the multiverse perceiving Herself... ;)'

The Vedantists would agree....

My zero point reference was really an allusion to the scientific view on origins. Even here, nothingness is a plenum from which all things arise and return - so the Void is empty, but not without infinite potential. Maybe that's what we really are.

My mother always said I had potential :^)

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

""Oddly, science/physics concurs with the view of Eastern philosophy. Everything existing thing in the universe is a zero sum game - and adds up to zero. There really is no material basis to be found, for 'material' reality.""

At risk of sounding too mystical:

"Material" comes from "Mother." :)

What that 'is' or 'isn't' is just that. :)

It doesn't add up to 'zero,' it adds up to Nothing+Everything+All Parts Being Both Of These At Once.

At the very least, you get a kind of metaphorical equation that wasn't there before. ;)

""Nohingness is the origin of somethingness - so what is the real character of that somethingness??

Religion has no answers, and neither does science....""

persiflage

Some might say that all of this manifestation is a cyclical process of the multiverse perceiving Herself... ;)

In part, through us. Actually, 'things' unfold quite interestingly, which, if you aren't limiting yourself to this (illusory) line of time and events, may seem to return to 'nothing,' but that means all of a sudden there's more Everything in nothing.

I think that's really something. :)

Err, Yeal? I know some Christians regularly call LGBT people 'beasts,' but where do you get the idea that "bestiality" is a "homosexual act?"

I think it's the *straight supremacists* who seem to have a problem telling the difference between humans and animals.

Maybe it's the *repression* that has them turn to the ewes and the kids at church camp.

On their own initiative, they decide to include *lesbians* in all these verses and more recent defamations, that are specifically about *men.*

Though the "Conservative Bible" is looking to come up with a new 'translation' to cover up that little 'oversight' in 'God's word, not mine,' cause he seems to have left out that part their agenda.

The Bible's six "clobber" passages:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm

Two of the six texts, one in Hebrew and one in Greek, clearly condemn certain specific homosexual acts:

Men attempting to engage in bestiality -- sexual acts with another species (Jude 1:7), and

Heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts which are against their essential nature (Romans 1:26-27).

Interpretations of four additional "clobber" texts differ among Christians:

Religious progressives have often interpreted these passages as condemning men who sexually abuse boys, men who engage in homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples, men attempting anal rape, etc. They view the Bible as being silent on sexual behavior within a consensual, monogamous committed homosexual relationship.

For example, they might identify the sin of the men of Sodom as explained in Genesis 19 as attempting to rape strangers as an act of humiliation. Alternatively, they might quote other biblical passages mentioning Sodom to show that the main sin of that city was their uncharitable behavior towards strangers, and their uncaring conduct towards the poor, the widows, and needy.

Religious conservatives often interpret all of the Biblical passages that touch on same-sex activity as condemning homosexuality in all its forms.

For example, they generally identify the sin of the men of Sodom to be homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is seen as one of many manifestations of mankind's sinful nature which are a direct result of Adam and Eve's activities in the Garden of Eden. The story in Genesis 19 is interpreted by conservative Christians as describing the one result of the fall of humanity."

Oddly, science/physics concurs with the view of Eastern philosophy. Everything existing thing in the universe is a zero sum game - and adds up to zero. There really is no material basis to be found, for 'material' reality.

Nohingness is the origin of somethingness - so what is the real character of that somethingness??

Religion has no answers, and neither does science....

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

Be there God or naught, there is consequence for any action; even remaining still, immobile, and without thought or decision, is an action with a consequence.

A belief in God does not give purpose or reason for existence, nor for moral guidance, for with or without God, one may follow-up any observaton, belief or insight with the question, "why?"

Even with belief in God, this pesky question "why" keeps comng up.

Religion seeks to give some limited answers, up to a point, and then it, too, must go quiet.

"If there is no God there is no need to love one another."

Yay, we don't have to love one another.

"A world without God is a world whos members have no consequence for actions."

Yay, our actions have no consequences.

"Call it Dogma when you call it civility."

Yay, we... uh... huh?

Spy1

"If there is no God there is no need to love one another."

There is no need for us to love one another, just a compulsion, which we cannot control.

If there is no God there is no need to love one another. A world without God is a world whos members have no consequence for actions. Call it Dogma when you call it civility.

Yeal

What about Israel? They have an effective military and they win wars.

Doesn't that put the stopper back in the bottle, so to speak? All the cuttin' and pastin' in the world can't really argue with real life, can it?

And what about Alexander the Great? Don't cut and past statistics; just answer how such a person as he could have ever existed if being gay would degrade the effectiveness of the military.

Merely dismissing this example as some fluke from long ago is not a good enough argument; it happened; he lived; he was gay; he set the cultural basis for the world we live in now.

Is there any argument with that?

""In the U.S.., includes in Canada, U.K., Israel and other countries that "National Security" is more important, or can become so, than "Civil Rights." I'm not talking Marshal Law.

After much research I discovered how "The Straight-Community" can become the "Gay-Communities" Victims on a National Security Level. Forget Aids for now.

I coined this phenomenon as "SAME-SEXUAL ESPIONAGE PENETRATION." You can find more about this on moderator Colson's page.""

Ok.

Listen.

Christian dudes.

If this is supposed to inform our military command structure, I suspect that two nuclear keys are not sufficient for fail-safe.

Does the XO concur?

""How come heterosexuals get to tell?

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 ""

I'm assured that it's very 'moral.'

How come heterosexuals get to tell?

Cassie:

""I do think that the DADT policy should be removed. I don't think being homosexual affects job performance. Although I disagree with homosexuality on a moral level, I do not think the military should discrimiate based on sexual orientation as being homosexual is not illegal. ""

You do realize, of course, that the Christian Right and a lot of teabaggers simply read that as a mandate to *make* homosexuality criminal again, just like they agitated for in Uganda?

Your 'moral' basis for why LBGT people should be considered 'exempt from moral considerations by some logic of calling them 'immoral' '

Is not Justice.

Civility is certainly-appreciated, but every time an insurance company wants to raise rates, you don't say, "Well, I disagree with gluttons on moral grounds, but I don't believe fat people should be banned from the local Denny's..."

Something else is at play here.

If you want to say, "I believe it pleases my God for people to pretend not to be gay," that's a matter for your own religion.

Not our government.

I do think that the DADT policy should be removed. I don't think being homosexual affects job performance. Although I disagree with homosexuality on a moral level, I do not think the military should discrimiate based on sexual orientation as being homosexual is not illegal.

I think that men and women in our armed forces should have the right to be honest and open. Encouraging lying is not a good policy.

"United States' military policy of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' effect on gay men's health.

Santos AT, Smith DM; International Conference on AIDS (15th : 2004 : Bangkok, Thailand).

Int Conf AIDS. 2004 Jul 11-16;15:abstract no. D12353.

University of California, San Diego, United States

Issues: "There is currently no physician-patient privilege for communications of any kind between service members and their military doctors," according to the United States 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass' (DADTDPDH) Department of Defense policy. Gay men and women are allowed to serve in the U. S. military, but disclosure of their sexual orientation is grounds for discharge from the military. This policy has serious health implications for gay service-members. Description: A retrospective chart review was performed for all visits to the San Diego Gay Men's Health Clinic between June and August 2002 to determine the incidence of active duty service-members seeking care at a Gay Men's Health Clinic and the health care implications of the DADTDPDH policy. This was compared to other countries that allow gay service-members to serve openly.

Lessons Learned: Eleven self-identified active duty service-members presented for care during the study period (9% of clients). All were men who have sex with men (MSM) between the ages of 19 and 42 with a variety of genital tract infection symptoms. All were willing to pay the $20-50 fees for this out-of-military service even though had free access to healthcare within the military system. When questioned why they did not access military healthcare, all expressed fears of being discharged from the military. Four reported that they had subversively refused their mandatory HIV testing because they thought they might be positive, and they did not want the military to find out.

The 'DADTDPDH' policy breeds distrust between MSM service-members and their healthcare provider, which ensures inadequate healthcare with a delay in diagnosis, treatment and preventive counseling. Recommendations: Instituting physician-patient privilege in the military would ameliorate the distrust between MSM service members and their health care provider; however, ultimately, allowing homosexual service-members to serve openly would improve their healthcare, such as through HIV preventive counseling."

I've come to suspect that the rampant homophobia we see displayed on these threads, and often concealed by 'informed' posts full of supporting data, etc. is based on personal fears related to the fundamental transgender nature of our sexual being as humans.

Freud may have been on to something here - and of course there is much literature available on the hypothesis of bisexuality among humans of both genders.

Here we have people in fear of their innermost biological/psychological
nature, and actly in accordance with the typical denial and projection that goes on when we choose to believe that 'other' people are suffering from a malady that we have fortunately 'escaped'.

But the fact is, human nature is universal, if anything in our experience can be said to be so........it just happens to manifest differently, depending on who's doing the looking.

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

""Another problem with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?""

Definitely, Yeal.

It's a problem with homophobia, and the resulting closets and ancillary behaviors, in general.

While HIV is most often used by *anti-gay* bigots, as a way to say,

"LBGT people are diseased, this is a reason to be as anti-gay as possible in all things, God hates gays... "

(While of course ignoring that lesbians are the lowest risk group for HIV out there: She must really love *us,* eh? :) )

...HIV rates are one of the *many* maladies used to denigrate LBGT people:

(Even if straight transmission long since outstripped that in the gay community... One thing they never mention, too, when trying to associate gay people with anal sex and nothing else, is that most straight men like anal sex with *women* just *fine.*)

But... it's the closet: the riskiest behaviors are those of people trying to do what the homophobes *demand* gay men do: pretend to be straight, have a sham of a straight marriage, run off and 'sin' (often under really unsafe and anonymous conditions, often using drugs or alcohol to fend off the internalized shame, which of course makes responsible behavior less likely) ...Then they come home and infect the unsuspecting women that they've been told... By the homophobic culture... To lie to. And now there's kids involved.

The military version has similar problems: people who have to *hide* don't always make the safer choices, and then there's the problem of losing your livelihood since an HIV diagnosis could expose you... As lying, if you tell the truth.

Catch-22.

Another problem with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

"Don't ask, don't tell: patterns of HIV disclosure among HIV positive men who have sex with men with recent STI practising high risk behaviour in Los Angeles and Seattle.

Gorbach PM, Galea JT, Amani B, Shin A, Celum C, Kerndt P, Golden MR.

Sex Transm Infect. 2004 Dec;80(6):512-7.

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Box 951772, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 900095-1772, USA. pgorbach@ucla.edu

OBJECTIVES: A high incidence of HIV continues among men who have sex with men (MSM) in industrialised nations and research indicates many MSM do not disclose their HIV status to sex partners. Themes as to why MSM attending sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics in Los Angeles and Seattle do and do not disclose their HIV status are identified. METHODS: 55 HIV positive MSM (24 in Seattle, 31 in Los Angeles) reporting recent STI or unprotected anal intercourse with a serostatus negative or unknown partner from STI clinics underwent in-depth interviews about their disclosure practices that were tape recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded, and content analysed. RESULTS: HIV disclosure themes fell into a continuum from unlikely to likely. Themes for "unlikely to disclose" were HIV is "nobody's business," being in denial, having a low viral load, fear of rejection, "it's just sex," using drugs, and sex in public places. Themes for "possible disclosure" were type of sex practised and partners asking/disclosing first. Themes for "likely to disclose" were feelings for partner, feeling responsible for partner's health, and fearing arrest. Many reported non-verbal disclosure methods. Some thought partners should ask for HIV status; many assumed if not asked then their partner must be positive.

CONCLUSIONS: HIV positive MSM's decision to disclose their HIV status to sex partners is complex, and is influenced by a sense of responsibility to partners, acceptance of being HIV positive, the perceived transmission risk, and the context and meaning of sex. Efforts to promote disclosure will need to address these complex issues.
"

Politicians on both the right and left praise our military as America's finest men and women, who are fighting to preserve our precious freedoms.
By Herb Silverman | February 9, 2010; 12:02 PM ET

Well that has always been one of the favorite gimmicks of Politicians, to promote enlistings in the Military by Naive youngsters. Who usually don't have much other or better choices.

The real problem is that very few are joining the Military. The AVA have failed to make the necessary numbers time and again. So thought it is a correct "Policy" that could be applied to other situations, like for example DADT if you're a communist, or an anarquist (remember Timothy McVeigh). Because they're in a crisis of body/numbers then there may not be any other recourse, but to accept an undesirable situation like that.

Now; What are the Politicians on the right and left are going to say, if this Policy is finally repealed? Are they going to continue paroting and mouthing that banner slogan? Especially when the reality is there are dozen of other careers like: the Police, firemen, Doctors, nurses where the Real finest of America are in.

.

""During my brief stint in the Army, all of the barracks that I inhabited had communal showers where the gay soldiers showered along side the straight soldiers.

No one ever rubbed up against me while I was showering.

Posted by: PSolus ""

Well, indeed. Contrary to the defamatory depictions, and perhaps unlike some straight guys who feel that only rules and threats from a God could *possibly* prevent men from falling all over anything they can see and which may be the same sex as people they're attracted to...

Gay people are quite *used* to exercising some kind of self-restraint and sensitivity.

They simply aren't like a lot of *straight men* who feel entitled to anything or anyone they see.

Gay people are quite aware of, and generally more adept at 'unit cohesion' concerns than most straight dudes can seem to imagine. ... cause hitting on someone at random a) Only has maybe a ten percent chance of being in the right ballpark to begin with, and b) Is likely to have consequences for friendships, work environments, not having been beaten near to death, fired from their jobs, perhaps, etc etc.

Being able to come out of hiding or bring concerns to the chain of command as necessary.... Doesn't instantly turn gay men into walking 'don't drop the soap' jokes.

Frankly, it's the homophobes who create the problems, and they do that with impunity under the current policies, anyway.

"Congressional Statute Authorizing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Part 1:

Public Law 103-160 – Nov. 30, 1993 – § 546, 107 Stat. 1670 (1993) (codified at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654).

§ 654. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALS IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Findings – Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces."

That being the case, one assumes Congress could simply rule that no gays would be allowed in the US military. Problem solved!!!

See the complete Act at http://www.law.georgetown.edu/solomon/background.html#statute

Yes, but I have known alot of people in the military, in the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines, and they all lived in houses or apartments. So, in some settings, its communal showers, and in other settings, it's at home?

My uncle was in the Battle of the Bulge in Belgium and he said they just put some water in the helmut, and spritzed it on their faces.

CCNL,

What the sexual behavior aspect of the UCMJ boils down to is that soldiers are not permitted to boink other soldiers, regardless of the gender(s) of said soldiers.

Repealing DADT would not change that rule.

BTW, all through high school, the gay students also showered with the straight students after gym class, and I don't recall ever being rubbed up against.

DanielintheLionsDen,

During my brief stint in the Army, all of the barracks that I inhabited had communal showers where the gay soldiers showered along side the straight soldiers.

No one ever rubbed up against me while I was showering.

Does everyone in the military really take showers in one giant communal shower?

Perhaps, during periods of basic training, there is a locker-room-type shower, but generally, I don't think so.

Can any military people enlighten us?

Thanks paganplace

Alot of anti-gay people are basing their arguments on keeping gays out of the militarty; that it would interfere with the effectiveness of the military, and it would embarrass soldiers in the shower.

But the DADT policy already admits gay people to the military, so that is a moot point. We are just arguing about a policy that forces gay people to pretend that they are not gay.

You go, Daniel. :)

"" The reality is that gay people do not bully straight people, but rather, it is the other way around. We do not really need rules to protect straight people from gay people, since it is the straight people who engage in bullying gay people.

People like you always have to turn it around that it is you, who are the object of mistreatment at the hands of gay people.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen ""

Ain't it just so, though. Now the Religious Right... Aren't content to use this to delay justice on DADT and hate crimes laws and social equality... Now they want to use that kind of inverted 'we're the victims here' nonsense to *criminalize* being gay here in America, just like in Uganda. Where does *that* end? Sending us to death-camps again?

"Congressional Statute Authorizing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Part 1

Public Law 103-160 – Nov. 30, 1993 –

§ 654. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALS IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Findings – Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

continued below:

Yeal: There's a certain amount of confusion out there, some of it honest, some of it willful, between the fact that all reputable science...

(not to mention the actual experiences of LBGT people ourselves, though it seems that's the last thing some politicians and preachers want to take into account, ...Almost as if there was some... Oh, I dunno, *bias against us as having real and worthy human experiences and judgment...?* )

....supports the notion that being LBGT is an *inborn and innate* trait, ...as opposed to the idea that it's 'genetic' or 'an inherited trait' specifically.

There are other ways for a human variation to be inborn without it being *genetic.*

This confusion is sometimes exploited by bigots to claim, 'They haven't found a gene'... When it's unlikely to be a single gene anyway.

More likely we *all* carry the capacity to produce gay offspring under certain conditions.

For instance, someone turned up a pretty significant correlation among gay males and the odds that their mothers have had previous male offspring, (whether or not those others were raised with the men or even carried to term) ...Could well be there's a developmental *mechanism* in utero which is simply the result of 'how humans are made: to produce more LBGT offspring under certain conditions'

(We had a good laugh about it when that came out: some of those Quiverfull folks trying to breed an army of Christian Fundies may be in for a surprise. :) )

But it certainly fits together and makes sense this way: after all, certainly attempts to exterminate LBGT people and claims 'You can't breed! have never actually seemed to *work* by now, have they?

So, some may claim, "You haven't proven there's a gene!" to then leap to the convenient bigotry: "Therefore you must all be making a sinful 'lifestyle choice,' which is 'caused' by not obeying *me* even despite the same phenomena appearing in all known cultures and most known mammalian species, under very different contexts and social labels..."

But not all which is *innate* is 'an inherited phenotype' (Nor, in fact, would it *not* being innate justify oppression, anyway, but that's just not the state of affairs anyway.)

(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

continued below:

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Alexander the Great was gay.

Just think, if he had not been gay, what greater things he might have done.

TV's Dr. Phil in a Q & A:

"Christine: My 22-year-old daughter is in a relationship with a woman. I don't believe she is a lesbian. Could this be a form of rebellion and a result of getting in with the "wrong" crowd? Can homosexuality be learned and unlearned?

Dr. Phil: Homosexuality is not a learned behavior. A sexual orientation is inherited; you are wired that way. Certainly some people will experiment with a gay lifestyle, and a gay person might experiment with a heterosexual one. If she is really gay, she will find a place in that life and in that community. The important thing is that you just love her through that. What difference does it make if she is gay? Accept her, support her and do not be judgmental. It is difficult enough for her to live openly and honestly in this society; don't put your judgment on top of that.
"

Of course, TV's Dr. Phil caught a lot of flak for making homosexuality an inherited condition.

And again, there is this bit of wisdom from:

"ddwhitney wrote...

I always assumed
that the primary reason for DADT was for the same reason the men's and women's barracks, Bathrooms and showers are isolated... The military requires it's members to focused on their missions and not be distracted by frivolous social behaviors like dating and mating. Times are changing and it's obvious that the US military will now have Oprah and Dr. Phil deciding what is best for troop moral. Maybe to prepare kids for the possibility of being drafted that we should have co-ed showers in Jr. High?

February 2, 2010 11:16 am"

YEAL9

Instead of having co-ed showers, wouldn't it get to the heart of your concerns to target gay people in high school, and separate them and isolate them all of the normal kids, so then the gay kids would not contaminate the showers with their presence? That is more directly what you are getting at, isn't it?

The reality is that gay people do not bully straight people, but rather, it is the other way around. We do not really need rules to protect straight people from gay people, since it is the straight people who engage in bullying gay people.

People like you always have to turn it around that it is you, who are the object of mistreatment at the hands of gay people.

While I believe that marriage should remain as an institution between man and woman, because it is the fundamental social structure of the human race, DADT is in the top 3 dumbest ideas to come out of the Clinton administration.

Abolish DADT because:

The military needs to reflect the people it protects.

In an era of multinational military operations, the US force must be able to effectively integrate with those of other nations, which by and large include gays and lesbians.

We need the talent lodged in professions and trades that include a large percentage of gays and lesbians.

Episodic evidence indicates DADT is not an effective policy. Disrespect and contempt for one policy, breeds contempt for policies in general.

The campaign against homosexuality is a purely religious. While many religious people attempt to conjure up some semblance of a secular reason to discriminate against the gay community, all they are really doing is attempting to justify their deeply religious conviction that homosexuality is a sin punishable by eternal torture.

The problem is that the majority of Americans believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of the creator of the universe and while many of these Americans have done their best to cover-up, re-interpret, and/or ignore much of what the bible says the fact remains that it does say some pretty horrendous things.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://lnk.ms/5vzHg

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.
-Staks
http://www.DangerousTalk.net

Saw this and it was on the topic so share we will:

"ddwhitney wrote...

I always assumed
that the primary reason for DADT was for the same reason the men's and women's barracks, bathrooms and showers are isolated... The military requires it's members to focused on their missions and not be distracted by frivolous social behaviors like dating and mating. Times are changing and it's obvious that the US military will now have Oprah and Dr. Phil deciding what is best for troop moral. Maybe to prepare kids for the possibility of being drafted that we should have co-ed showers in Jr. High?

February 2, 2010 11:16 am"

Edbyronadams

There is no case for discrimination against gay people. Every argument that is not overtly bigotted is contorted and contrived.

For example, war is not an abomination, just a gay soldier engaged in war.

And then there is this:

"Israel is a special case since the siege mentality trumps all other considerations."

So when the military is engaged in an existential struggle for the survival of the nation, as in Israel, then it is acceptable to have gay soldiers.

But we merely engage in imperialistic adventurism and capricious intervention in the affairs of other nations, so we have the luxury to reject gay people.

Give me a break. This argument is ridiculous. Try again.

edbyronadams,

"Women do not serve in submarine crews."

Since you choose to repeat your mistaken belief, I'll repeat the reality of the situation:

Women currently serve on submarines in the Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Australian, and Canadian navies.

The U.S. Navy is also seriously considering having women serve on submarines.

I'm soooo dyslexic. It's "JHWH" not "JWHW". Sorry.

It's already been studied ad nauseum, edbyronadams. This is an infantile evasion. The Rand Study of 1993 said then that it posed no threat to "unit cohesion" as long as leadership led. But more importantly, if you are actually interested, Nathaniel Frank's 2008 book "Unfriendly Fire" puts all the evidence at your fingertips right now. Read it for yourself.

This is interesting. I love that so many of you are going to Genesis 1 & 2 with current academic thinking on the creation mythologies. This is so much more gratifying than the tired, hackneyed strong theologizing Hellenic-derived creatio ex nihilo schtick. Wonderful. I just wanted to throw my two cents in and give a shout out to Catherine Keller for "Face of the Deep" & John Caputo for "The Weakness of G-d."

I'm working thru both right now. Some of you are struggling for the ancient Hebraic word found in Genesis 2 "Adamah" which more rightly ought to be translated as rich soil/humus. The humility of being close to the rich fecund soil is most poetic. Humus > Humility > Humans. Elohim is the plural Name of G-d of the Elohists author[s] of Genesis. Yahweh - JWHW is the entitative Name of G-d of the Yahwehist author[s] of Genesis 2.

I'll let an academic associate of my acquaintance give a better rendition:

Your -- referring to me -- interpretation of Genesis 2 seems apropos. Of course, in this text YHWH creates humanity ('adam) out of "the dust from the ground" (`aphar min-ha-'adamah). The wordplay of 'adam (human) and 'adamah (ground) clearly has implications for the humility of humankind as ultimately transient. As a professor of mine once remarked, calling the first man "Adam" in Hebrew is rather like calling him "Dusty" in English. The ultimate "dustiness" of humankind is reiterated in 3:19k, "Surely you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (ki `aphar 'attah ve'el `aphar tashuv). Phyllis Trible, in her classic essay on the Eden narrative, likewise makes the connection between "humanity" and "humus," which captures the humble essence of humanity.

The point of all this is it's high time to lighten up on gay people. It's time to stop forcing them to lie when their straight counterparts don't have to and then turn their mendacity upon an unethically oppressed minority where even the lies perpetrated upon them may not be fought thru an arbitrary gag order.

Don't ask, don't tell is a joke. But worse it's a horrid political accommodation that requires the blood of patriots to be immolated upon the alter of idolatrous piety. It needs to go now.

"If evidence matters, we should look at other militaries. In more than 30 countries, including allies like Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, gay Steves and Samanthas serve openly and effectively alongside straight Adams and Eves."

The European nations are hardly examples of effective militaries, demonstrated by the fact that they had to call on the US to deal with a problem in their own back yard. Israel is a special case since the siege mentality trumps all other considerations.

Women do not serve in submarine crews. This is an example of reality trumping political correctness. There may be others. While the case for keeping "don't ask, don't tell" isn't clear, I would like the military to study the effect of open homosexuality in the military on cohesiveness and effectiveness. An efficient, effective military is too important to place secondary to other issues.

If you were to do a literal reading of Genesis chapter 2, you would see that LORD God created an adam clone from the 1st adam. In spite of what people think, "adam" really isn't proper name in Genesis. The Hebrew word meaning "earth creature" when properly interpreted just means "human". "Adam" does does not mean "man" as in adult male.

When YHWH Elohim (LORD God in many Bibles,[Elohim is plural]) decides that the adam is lonely for peer companionship, they say, "It is not good, the adam being alone, we will make a suitable helper for it (pronoun can be neuter, too).

The word translated as "helper" or "help" is "ezer" which is masculine in the Hebrew text. "Suitable" or "meet" is "neged" and in some reliable dictionaries means "comparable to" and even "copy of."

Those with KJV Bible think that "help meet" means "help mate;" but, ezer (aka help) is the word that means "mate."

The word in Hebrew for female helper is "ezerot" or "ezeroth."

The scriptures in Genesis 2 implies that the 2 beings (adam is spelled the same in the plural) were identical. It is not until Genesis 3 where reproduction is mentioned.

I could go on here. One could say, "Adam and Adam created Steve." YHWH Elohim NEVER called the 2nd human "Eve;" they called their name "adam."

I agree with Professor Silverman that the US should be a leader on human rights issues. Sadly, the more secular countries of Europe have shown that, more often than not, as religious fundamentalism decreases human rights are better protected.

I would assume that Steve came from his mother's uterus.

I hardly think that soldiers being shot at in a war zone are going to very worried about catching someone's gay cooties.

There are no credible arguments that hold up to prohibiting military members from honestly stating their sexual orientation. Lesbian women and gay men have just as much to offer the country through military service as do heterosexuals, and the nation will only benefit if we move forward in this country by repealing "Don't Ask,Don't Tell.

Is there a cure on the horizon? Is a cure even possible?

An update:

"Influence of genetic factors on human sexual orientation. Review]

Rodríguez-Larralde A, Paradisi I.

Invest Clin. 2009 Sep;50(3):377-91.

[Article in Spanish]

Laboratorio de Genética Humana, Centro de Medicina Experimental, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, (IVIC), Caracas, Venezuela. arodrigu@ivic.ve

Human sexual orientation is a complex trait, influenced by several genes, experiential and sociocultural factors. These elements interact and produce a typical pattern of sexual orientation towards the opposite sex. Some exceptions exist, like bisexuality and homosexuality, which seem to be more frequent in males than females. Traditional methods for the genetic study of behavior multifactorial characteristics consist in detecting the presence of familial aggregation. In order to identify the importance of genetic and environmental factors in this aggregation, the concordance of the trait for monozygotic and dizygotic twins and for adopted sibs, reared together and apart, is compared. These types of studies have shown that familial aggregation is stronger for male than for female homosexuality. Based on the threshold method for multifactorial traits, and varying the frequency of homosexuality in the population between 4 and 10%, heritability estimates between 0.27 and 0.76 have been obtained. In 1993, linkage between homosexuality and chromosomal region Xq28 based on molecular approaches was reported. Nevertheless, this was not confirmed in later studies.

Recently, a wide search of the genome has given significant or close to significant linkage values with regions 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26, which need to be studied more closely. Deviation in the proportion of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexuals seems to favor the presence of genes related with sexual orientation in this chromosome. There is still much to be known about the genetics of human homosexuality."

If homosexuality is caused by a gene defect(s) and if a defective gene(s) is found in a baby in the womb, should we abort this child??

Should religious views of homosexuality be a factor in such military decisions? NO. Silverman's points are right on. Continued prejudice against gays is rooted almost exclusively in selective interpretations of ancient religious texts. Those same texts say we should stone people to death for working on the Sabbath, and that all men should wear beards. Funny how the fundies don't care to enforce those divine commands.

If God didn't create Steve, then where did Steve come from?