General Wants Gay Ban Lifted

[Pale Rider]

General Wants Gay Ban Lifted



Military.com | January 03, 2007

In an op-ed published in Tuesday's New York Times, John M. Shalikashvili, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Congress should give "serious reconsideration" to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on openly lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. Shalikashvili, who supported the ban on open service in 1993, writes that "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," and goes on to say that "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is out of step with both the American public and those within our armed forces," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "The counsel of military leaders increasingly supports repeal of the law. Congress must, as General Shalikashvili urges, consider the overwhelming evidence of the past fourteen years. If they do, the clear answer is that we must lift the ban."

Shalikashvili, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 1993 to 1997, joins other senior retired military officers who have called for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." In May 2006, Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Ret.), the first female three-star officer in Army history, called the law "a hollow policy that serves no useful purpose." Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, former superintendent of West Point, recently told The New York Times that "It is clear that national attitudes toward this issue have evolved considerably in the last decade. This has been led by a new generation of service members who take a more relaxed and tolerant view toward homosexuality." Retired Admiral John Hutson, who currently serves as Dean of Franklin Pierce Law School, also recently wrote that "It would be a great tragedy if we didn't take advantage of (the) chance to correct a flawed policy."

In 2003, two retired generals and an admiral 'came out' in the New York Times, and in November 2006 fourteen senior retired military officers urged the First Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ban. They wrote that the law "undermines the military's ability to fulfill its primary mission of providing national security by discouraging the enlistment of gay persons qualified to serve their country and by expelling from the military those who have served with honor."

In today's op-ed, General Shalikashvili writes that "Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."

A December 18th Zogby poll also found that 73% of military personnel polled were comfortable with lesbians and gays.

"General Shalikashvili's statement is the first by a Joint Chiefs Chairman to call for repeal, and as such is enormously significant," said Osburn. "The Pentagon has dismissed more than 11,000 men and women under this law. It is clear that enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is arbitrary. We continue to lose critical personnel who happen to be gay. As General Shalikashvili points out, continuing to keep this law on the books is detrimental to our national security."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121509,00.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

[KarlMarx]

Don't ask don't tell is a pretty good policy in general, not just the military

In another post, I said how much I hate those rainbow stickers on cars. Like I really want to know who is gay.

But, since some people insist on telling us what their sexual preferences are... let me suggest a few of my own (this should be fun!)

BONDAGE
ZOO-PHILE (this one could have a picture of a pony)
SCAT LOVER (a white bumper sticker with a brown streak down the middle)
FETISH
FOOT WORSHIPPER

but here's the one that would offend people the most

S T R A I G H T

[dirt mcgirt]

In today's op-ed, General Shalikashvili writes that "Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."
I honestly don't have a problem with gays serving in the military but this doesn't make sense...a policy is still a policy. How can someone in the navy be openly gay? :dunno:

(I know the majority of sailors are gay but didn't know they could do it openly. :2up:)

[retiredman]

good question....I think it is a matter of applying "don't ask don't tell" as literally as possible.... and that means that "don't act" is not part of the equation. A sailor can act "openly gay", as long as he keeps the sexual aspect of it private and off the ship.... and commanding officers may "know" that a sailor is gay, but until the sailor comes out and says so, the skipper will not ask the question....especially if the sailor knows his job and does it well.

[dirt mcgirt]

good question....I think it is a matter of applying "don't ask don't tell" as literally as possible.... and that means that "don't act" is not part of the equation. A sailor can act "openly gay", as long as he keeps the sexual aspect of it private and off the ship.... and commanding officers may "know" that a sailor is gay, but until the sailor comes out and says so, the skipper will not ask the question....especially if the sailor knows his job and does it well.
True, but the article said an openly gay sailor. Plus how did the General meet with gay military personnel?

"Any military personnel who is maybe gay but not really sure, please report to the Inspector General's office for an interview."

[retiredman]

the general is retired.... again...if the service does NOT want to get rid of quality service members who might also be gay.. even announcing that a meeting of members interested in talking with the retired CJCS about gay issues would be ok... and the active duty chain of command would make sure not to take attendance or have any representation at the meeting.

[darin]

I'd like an article showing how many senior leaders are FOR the policy. I bet those against openly (mentally unstable) homos-in-uniform outnumber those FOR, by a margin of 10:1.

[retiredman]

I'd like an article showing how many senior leaders are FOR the policy. I bet those against openly (mentally unstable) homos-in-uniform outnumber those FOR, by a margin of 10:1.

well...with an enlightened attitude like that, I have no doubt you would feel that way. I think that you would find that military commanders, by and large, care a lot more about how well a person does his job when he's on duty than who he sleeps with off duty.

[Pale Rider]

well...with an enlightened attitude like that, I have no doubt you would feel that way. I think that you would find that military commanders, by and large, care a lot more about how well a person does his job when he's on duty than who he sleeps with off duty.

Can you make ONE COMMENT, to a person with an opinion that differs from your's, WITHOUT THE OPENING SLAP IN THE FACE?!

I'm getting sick of it. I'm asking you to cool it.

__________________________________________________ _____


There's only one way to incorporate homo's into the military, and that would be to put them one by one into a girl basic training squadron. If you put them in with men or together to themselves, that's the same as putting straight men and women in together. You'd have to put them in with a sex they weren't attracted to, since the whole group is naked and showers together. As far as on the job, sure, let them go fight if that's what they want.

[retiredman]

Mr. Pale Rider, sir. I would suggest that referring to gay people as "mentally unstable homos" might be construed as a slap in the face to a great number of people, and even though I am not gay myself, I am offended by such references. It seems that you are willing to condone slaps in the face when they originate from your side of the aisle.

Just respectful food for thought

[retiredman]

There's only one way to incorporate homo's into the military, and that would be to put them one by one into a girl basic training squadron. If you put them in with men or together to themselves, that's the same as putting straight men and women in together. You'd have to put them in with a sex they weren't attracted to, since the whole group is naked and showers together. As far as on the job, sure, let them go fight if that's what they want.

I also must say that I am quite leery of suggestions that there is "only one way" to do nearly anything. I think such a pronouncement is profoundly presumptious. I served in the Navy and there was no question in my mind that numerous sailors and officers I served with over the years were gay. I knew it...They knew that I knew it and I knew that they knew... and damned near every one else on the ship knew. There was NEVER one single problem with ANY of those men during all those years.

[dirt mcgirt]

Mr. Pale Rider, sir. I would suggest that referring to gay people as "mentally unstable homos" might be construed as a slap in the face to a great number of people, and even though I am not gay myself, I am offended by such references. It seems that you are willing to condone slaps in the face when they originate from your side of the aisle.

Just respectful food for thought

I agree with MFM on this one. Generally speaking, you can't say the shit you guys say and then not expect to get a response like that. His response was mild at best.

[darin]

well...with an enlightened attitude like that, I have no doubt you would feel that way. I think that you would find that military commanders, by and large, care a lot more about how well a person does his job when he's on duty than who he sleeps with off duty.

Do you know any Military Commanders? There IS no 'off duty' for soldiers. Being on Active Duty in the military is a lifestyle. A lifestyle which is NOT compatable with open homosexuality. Should homosexual relationships be allowed, commanders would have to also sanction relationships between enlisted and commissioned soldiers. I mean, 'off duty hours' belong to the people, RIGHT?

Wrong. That's simply NOT how the Army (specifically) works.

Homosexuals, by their very acceptance of their lusts, show lack of good judgement, lack of mental toughness, and lack of discipline - off the top of my head. Homosexuality is a treatable affliction for those who have the good sense to seek help. It's probably tougher to kick than alcoholism - but people can be restored from the deviant behavior.

[darin]

I agree with MFM on this one. Generally speaking, you can't say the shit you guys say and then not expect to get a response like that. His response was mild at best.



Thanks for your input - but this is not a debate. When a Moderator asks a member to change the tone or direction of their post, the member needs to comply - rightly or wrongly. The member is encouraged to take up the issue with the moderator via PM; if they don't get the results they want, they can speak to an Administrator about the problem.

Thanks :)

[dirt mcgirt]

Thanks for your input - but this is not a debate. When a Moderator asks a member to change the tone or direction of their post, the member needs to comply - rightly or wrongly. The member is encouraged to take up the issue with the moderator via PM; if they don't get the results they want, they can speak to an Administrator about the problem.

Thanks :)


And I totally respect your need to police the board and keep civility. But IMO it's being done selectively. I've already complained to the admins about some of the behaviors of the mods. MFM might be wrong in how he comes off sometimes but he's correct in that this board is slanted to the right. I've seen Pale Rider and OCA engage in personal flame fests and then flaunt the fact that they were mods during those exchanges. Some of PR's posts might be offensive in nature despite being his personal opinion, just as MFM's might be offensive in nature despite being his personal opinion. It's unacceptable for the admins and mods to say that generalizations are okay but personal attacks aren't because it's in the eye of the beholder.

Example: If I say that homos are sick fucks then you guys would consider that acceptable because it's a personal opinion. But if I say conservatives are sick fucks some of the mods, admins, and posters would consider that trolling.

The admins and mods need to apply the rules equally if you want the board to grow. Either put every thread that devolves into a flame fest in the steel cage area or don't put any of them in there. But one thing's for sure, it's not acceptable for mods to engage in mud slinging but then appeal to decency when they get it back. I have more people that are interested in registering, but they're not going to participate if they're not going to get a fair shake. I really do want the board to grow, but my participation is dependent on how objective you guys are. My 2 cents.

[darin]

And I totally respect your need to police the board and keep civility. But IMO it's being done selectively. I've already complained to the admins about some of the behaviors of the mods. MFM might be wrong in how he comes off sometimes but he's correct in that this board is slanted to the right. I've seen Pale Rider and OCA engage in personal flame fests and then flaunt the fact that they were mods during those exchanges. Some of PR's posts might be offensive in nature despite being his personal opinion, just as MFM's might be offensive in nature despite being his personal opinion. It's unacceptable for the admins and mods to say that generalizations are okay but personal attacks aren't because it's in the eye of the beholder.

Example: If I say that homos are sick fucks then you guys would consider that acceptable because it's a personal opinion. But if I say conservatives are sick fucks some of the mods, admins, and posters would consider that trolling.

The admins and mods need to apply the rules equally if you want the board to grow. Either put every thread that devolves into a flame fest in the steel cage area or don't put any of them in there. But one thing's for sure, it's not acceptable for mods to engage in mud slinging but then appeal to decency when they get it back. I have more people that are interested in registering, but they're not going to participate if they're not going to get a fair shake. I really do want the board to grow, but my participation is dependent on how objective you guys are. My 2 cents.


Take it to PM.

[dirt mcgirt]

Take it to PM.
Done.

[retiredman]

Do you know any Military Commanders? There IS no 'off duty' for soldiers. Being on Active Duty in the military is a lifestyle. A lifestyle which is NOT compatable with open homosexuality. Should homosexual relationships be allowed, commanders would have to also sanction relationships between enlisted and commissioned soldiers. I mean, 'off duty hours' belong to the people, RIGHT?

Wrong. That's simply NOT how the Army (specifically) works.

Homosexuals, by their very acceptance of their lusts, show lack of good judgement, lack of mental toughness, and lack of discipline - off the top of my head. Homosexuality is a treatable affliction for those who have the good sense to seek help. It's probably tougher to kick than alcoholism - but people can be restored from the deviant behavior.

I actually spent a little time in the Navy and I AM, a Commander, as a matter of fact. It is my opinion that your views on homosexuality are dated, bigoted, borne of hatred and ignorance, and insulting. ANd the issue with officer-enlisted is completely different in that it potentially impacts the officer enlisted command structure and may compromise the officer's authority over that enlisted person. For that reason, gambling, while not sanctioned, is politely ignored except in instances where officers and enlisted are jointly involved.

[MtnBiker]

http://www.mccoy.army.mil/vtriad_online/07272001/images/Golden_Medic_foxhole.jpg

"Hey Bruce lets keep an eye out for the enemy. Gee Joe I'm having a hard time focusing on that, I keep thinking about your butt."

[darin]

I actually spent a little time in the Navy and I AM, a Commander, as a matter of fact. It is my opinion that your views on homosexuality are dated, bigoted, borne of hatred and ignorance, and insulting. ANd the issue with officer-enlisted is completely different in that it potentially impacts the officer enlisted command structure and may compromise the officer's authority over that enlisted person. For that reason, gambling, while not sanctioned, is politely ignored except in instances where officers and enlisted are jointly involved.


But your point FOR homos in service was "What's done in the soldiers OFF time is THEIR business." I submit to you what's done in the soldier's off time (dating between enlisted and commissioned, for example) is very much the business of the "Command".

You were an O5 in the Navy? Thank you for your service.

In my opinion, your views on homosexuality in uniform are blissfully-ignorant of cold-hard facts of the practice. Homosexuality not ONLY hurts people physically (THE highest risk group of HIV/AIDS is homosexual males, they have a drastically-lower life expectancy, just to name two), it hurts them EMOTIONALLY. Homosexuality is a symptom of a person in pain - a person struggling to find something missing from their life. Some turn to alocohol - some turn to drugs - others, to same-sex relations. You are seeming to BLINDLY follow the flow of a small-but-vocal part of society who claims "If it FEELS good, it IS good!". By your opinion, I'd guess you'd let your kids eat Ice Cream three times a day - Bfast, Lunch, Dinner. I mean - honestly, MY kids were BORN wanting IceCream. They can't be CURED of their like for IceCream, can they? I mean, who is it HURTING? Not me!! :dunno:

By your expressed opinion, I gather lack of compassion for people afflicted with a propensity for homosexual acts. You rant against me for 'hatred' and 'fear' when you don't have the first fucking clue who I am, or what experiences I've had which have lead me to my conclusions.

B-b-but I'm against special treatment for those who like to have sex with members of their same gender!! I MUST be a bigot!

:vomit:

[retiredman]

But your point FOR homos in service was "What's done in the soldiers OFF time is THEIR business." I submit to you what's done in the soldier's off time (dating between enlisted and commissioned, for example) is very much the business of the "Command".

You were an O5 in the Navy? Thank you for your service.

In my opinion, your views on homosexuality in uniform are blissfully-ignorant of cold-hard facts of the practice. Homosexuality not ONLY hurts people physically (THE highest risk group of HIV/AIDS is homosexual males, they have a drastically-lower life expectancy, just to name two), it hurts them EMOTIONALLY. Homosexuality is a symptom of a person in pain - a person struggling to find something missing from their life. Some turn to alocohol - some turn to drugs - others, to same-sex relations. You are seeming to BLINDLY follow the flow of a small-but-vocal part of society who claims "If it FEELS good, it IS good!". By your opinion, I'd guess you'd let your kids eat Ice Cream three times a day - Bfast, Lunch, Dinner. I mean - honestly, MY kids were BORN wanting IceCream. They can't be CURED of their like for IceCream, can they? I mean, who is it HURTING? Not me!! :dunno:

By your expressed opinion, I gather lack of compassion for people afflicted with a propensity for homosexual acts. You rant against me for 'hatred' and 'fear' when you don't have the first fucking clue who I am, or what experiences I've had which have lead me to my conclusions.

B-b-but I'm against special treatment for those who like to have sex with members of their same gender!! I MUST be a bigot!

:vomit:

who a sailor sleeps with, as long as it is not an officer is his business, as far as the vast majority of naval officers I have ever known care about it.

I respectfully disagree with your viewpoints on homosexuality and find them uninformed in the extreme. I am not asking that anyone get special treatment...and no gay soldier/sailor/airman/marine is either...only that they be allowed to serve their country like anyone else. What, pray tell , is special about that?

[darin]

who a sailor sleeps with, as long as it is not an officer is his business, as far as the vast majority of naval officers I have ever known care about it.


I suppose you'd have no problem then, with a soldier who had intercourse with his Dog or cat? Or a child?



I respectfully disagree with your viewpoints on homosexuality and find them uninformed in the extreme. I am not asking that anyone get special treatment...and no gay soldier/sailor/airman/marine is either...only that they be allowed to serve their country like anyone else. What, pray tell , is special about that?

Because I am prevented from having relations with WHOMEVER I wish, too. Straight soldiers are not allowed to sleep with ANY woman they claim to 'love' or even 'lust after'. Both straight and Gay soldiers are prevented, according to the UCMJ from sex with minors, sodomy, and other harmful practices.

You'd have those who are afflicted with homosexuality be coddled, instead of treated.

[retiredman]

kind sir, we need to agree to disagree... your attitudes about homosexuality are so troglodytic and abhorrent to me that I really find continued communication with you on this subject impossible.

[retiredman]

Straight soldiers are not allowed to sleep with ANY woman they claim to 'love' or even 'lust after'. Both straight and Gay soldiers are prevented, according to the UCMJ from sex with minors, sodomy, and other harmful practices.



and here's a tip...if you dishonorably discharged every soldier who got a blowjob from the service, the Iraq war would be over tomorrow.

[darin]

kind sir, we need to agree to disagree... your attitudes about homosexuality are so troglodytic and abhorrent to me that I really find continued communication with you on this subject impossible.

I'm sorry you can't back-up your position. What I'm speaking about morale and service and homosexuality are absolutely, fundamentally correct. Live in your rainbow-colored world. I'll stick to the realities of existance. :)

[darin]

and here's a tip...if you dishonorably discharged every soldier who got a blowjob from the service, the Iraq war would be over tomorrow.

That's besides the point now, isn't it?

[retiredman]

I'll stick to the realities of existance. :)

like your "homosexuality is a symptom of a person in pain" whppoer?

you could try backing that up with some peer reviewed research.

But I won't hold my breath.

[retiredman]

bringing minors into the discussion is disingenuous....just like bringing sodomy.... heterosexual couples have anal sex too... are you suggesting that we throw men from the military for doing their wives up the butt?

the fact is.... Straight soldiers are allowed to sleep with ANY woman they claim to 'love' or even 'lust after' in any way that civilians are. Gay soldiers should not be discrimiated against.

and here we have a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who shares MY opinion on one side, and you who think that homosexuality is merely a "sympton of a person in pain" ....

I think I'll stick with the general's opinion over yours

[OCA]

And I totally respect your need to police the board and keep civility. But IMO it's being done selectively. I've already complained to the admins about some of the behaviors of the mods. MFM might be wrong in how he comes off sometimes but he's correct in that this board is slanted to the right. I've seen Pale Rider and OCA engage in personal flame fests and then flaunt the fact that they were mods during those exchanges. Some of PR's posts might be offensive in nature despite being his personal opinion, just as MFM's might be offensive in nature despite being his personal opinion. It's unacceptable for the admins and mods to say that generalizations are okay but personal attacks aren't because it's in the eye of the beholder.

Example: If I say that homos are sick fucks then you guys would consider that acceptable because it's a personal opinion. But if I say conservatives are sick fucks some of the mods, admins, and posters would consider that trolling.

The admins and mods need to apply the rules equally if you want the board to grow. Either put every thread that devolves into a flame fest in the steel cage area or don't put any of them in there. But one thing's for sure, it's not acceptable for mods to engage in mud slinging but then appeal to decency when they get it back. I have more people that are interested in registering, but they're not going to participate if they're not going to get a fair shake. I really do want the board to grow, but my participation is dependent on how objective you guys are. My 2 cents.

No actually you haven't seen me do that, nice try though.

[OCA]

http://www.mccoy.army.mil/vtriad_online/07272001/images/Golden_Medic_foxhole.jpg

"Hey Bruce lets keep an eye out for the enemy. Gee Joe I'm having a hard time focusing on that, I keep thinking about your butt."

HAHAHA! :2up:

[OCA]

kind sir, we need to agree to disagree... your attitudes about homosexuality are so troglodytic and abhorrent to me that I really find continued communication with you on this subject impossible.

In other words "i'm getting my as kicked on homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists and i'm getting out of the conversation". There I fixed it for ya.

[retiredman]

In other words "i'm getting my as kicked on homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists and i'm getting out of the conversation". There I fixed it for ya.

not quite. I have a fundamental disagreement with this person about whether or not homosexuality is a sickness or a regularly occurring human condition. So, I tell you what.... you don't put words in my mouth and I won't put words in yours....

how's that work for you, big shooter?

[darin]

not quite. I have a fundamental disagreement with this person about whether or not homosexuality is a sickness or a regularly occurring human condition.

ALL Sickness is 'regularly occurring in the human condition'...Ever get a flu shot? Know anybody with Cancer? Homosexuality probably kills as many people as Cancer.

[OCA]

not quite. I have a fundamental disagreement with this person about whether or not homosexuality is a sickness or a regularly occurring human condition. So, I tell you what.... you don't put words in my mouth and I won't put words in yours....

how's that work for you, big shooter?

Well fundamentally you are wrong. You do realize that the APA in 1973 removed homosexuality from its list of treateable disorders not because they disagreed with it being treatable but because of enormous political and financial pressure from queer rights groups.

Do you think its normal to want to bugger your buddy in his bunghole?

BTW you do know that an overwhelming percentage of Americans disagree with your view as witnessed by the vote tallies in states that voted on queer marriage, right? But I guess we are all bigoted and misinformed.....what a friggin elitist!

[Grumplestillskin]

MFM

Don't worry too much and Darin and OCA...their distain for homos borders on th pathelogical and makes you wonder if there are underlying reasons for it..

[retiredman]

Well fundamentally you are wrong. You do realize that the APA in 1973 removed homosexuality from its list of treateable disorders not because they disagreed with it being treatable but because of enormous political and financial pressure from queer rights groups.

Do you think its normal to want to bugger your buddy in his bunghole?

BTW you do know that an overwhelming percentage of Americans disagree with your view as witnessed by the vote tallies in states that voted on queer marriage, right? But I guess we are all bigoted and misinformed.....what a friggin elitist!

gosh...I wonder how you are so aware of the inner deliberations of the APA over a third of a century ago.

And please recall, kind sir, that one of the foundations of our form of government is not only the RULE of the majority, but the rights of the minority.

I have no idea what it might feel like to be a gay man. I have no idea if I were a gay man, what I would think about the various ways of expressing intimacy with my partner...but I certainly think that, if I were a gay man, that I would consider those sorts of decisions to be abso-fucking-lutely NONE of YOUR business. That's pretty clear.

[darin]

MFM

Don't worry too much and Darin and OCA...their distain for homos borders on th pathelogical and makes you wonder if there are underlying reasons for it..

that wasn't necessary, was it? Seriously...that's the shittiest conclusion I've ever read. I've never stated anything like "I hate homosexuals".

[OCA]

gosh...I wonder how you are so aware of the inner deliberations of the APA over a third of a century ago.

And please recall, kind sir, that one of the foundations of our form of government is not only the RULE of the majority, but the rights of the minority.

I have no idea what it might feel like to be a gay man. I have no idea if I were a gay man, what I would think about the various ways of expressing intimacy with my partner...but I certainly think that, if I were a gay man, that I would consider those sorts of decisions to be abso-fucking-lutely NONE of YOUR business. That's pretty clear.

And I would agree that if people CHOOSE to be queer and just want to live their lives as they see fit then so be it......but thats not what its all about, is it?

Its about legitimization of their perversion of choice.

[OCA]

MFM

Don't worry too much and Darin and OCA...their distain for homos borders on th pathelogical and makes you wonder if there are underlying reasons for it..


Another brilliant and educated post by Gomer. That argument is the last refuge of the illiterate.

[Grumplestillskin]

that wasn't necessary, was it? Seriously...that's the shittiest conclusion I've ever read. I've never stated anything like "I hate homosexuals".

Your posts drip with venom in that regard. You're only fooling yourself and those that think like you, if you don't see what you are saying...

[Grumplestillskin]

Another brilliant and educated post by Gomer. That argument is the last refuge of the illiterate.

You haven't even got a decent argument. It basically comes down to "I hate fags"...(shrug)

[Gunny]

General Wants Gay Ban Lifted



Military.com | January 03, 2007

In an op-ed published in Tuesday's New York Times, John M. Shalikashvili, retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Congress should give "serious reconsideration" to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on openly lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel. Shalikashvili, who supported the ban on open service in 1993, writes that "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," and goes on to say that "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is out of step with both the American public and those within our armed forces," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). "The counsel of military leaders increasingly supports repeal of the law. Congress must, as General Shalikashvili urges, consider the overwhelming evidence of the past fourteen years. If they do, the clear answer is that we must lift the ban."

Shalikashvili, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from 1993 to 1997, joins other senior retired military officers who have called for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." In May 2006, Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Ret.), the first female three-star officer in Army history, called the law "a hollow policy that serves no useful purpose." Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, former superintendent of West Point, recently told The New York Times that "It is clear that national attitudes toward this issue have evolved considerably in the last decade. This has been led by a new generation of service members who take a more relaxed and tolerant view toward homosexuality." Retired Admiral John Hutson, who currently serves as Dean of Franklin Pierce Law School, also recently wrote that "It would be a great tragedy if we didn't take advantage of (the) chance to correct a flawed policy."

In 2003, two retired generals and an admiral 'came out' in the New York Times, and in November 2006 fourteen senior retired military officers urged the First Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ban. They wrote that the law "undermines the military's ability to fulfill its primary mission of providing national security by discouraging the enlistment of gay persons qualified to serve their country and by expelling from the military those who have served with honor."

In today's op-ed, General Shalikashvili writes that "Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers."

A December 18th Zogby poll also found that 73% of military personnel polled were comfortable with lesbians and gays.

"General Shalikashvili's statement is the first by a Joint Chiefs Chairman to call for repeal, and as such is enormously significant," said Osburn. "The Pentagon has dismissed more than 11,000 men and women under this law. It is clear that enforcement of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is arbitrary. We continue to lose critical personnel who happen to be gay. As General Shalikashvili points out, continuing to keep this law on the books is detrimental to our national security."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121509,00.html?ESRC=airforce.nl

The General obviously forgot where he came from, and doesn't know what he's talking about.

[OCA]

You haven't even got a decent argument. It basically comes down to "I hate fags"...(shrug)

Lol, you're lying to yourself. My shit is airtight, you just have zero rebuttal.

I still love how you follow me around the board, why don't you start a fan club, call it "OCA's bitches".:laugh:

[retiredman]

yeah...the general and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an idiot and the gunny sargeant is freakin' Einstein.

that makes shitloads of sense.

[Grumplestillskin]

Lol, you're lying to yourself. My shit is airtight, you just have zero rebuttal.

I still love how you follow me around the board, why don't you start a fan club, call it "OCA's bitches".:laugh:

As long as you start one "MainfromMaine bitches"...:laugh:

Your shit is shit. You are nothing but a bigot when it comes to homos. Not liking something that has no affect no you is simpleminded to say the least.

[OCA]

yeah...the general and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an idiot and the gunny sargeant is freakin' Einstein.

that makes shitloads of sense.

Maybe he sucked his way to the top? Could be why he wants the ban lifted.

[Pale Rider]

http://www.mccoy.army.mil/vtriad_online/07272001/images/Golden_Medic_foxhole.jpg

"Hey Bruce lets keep an eye out for the enemy. Gee Joe I'm having a hard time focusing on that, I keep thinking about your butt."

LMFAO!!!!

[retiredman]

Maybe he sucked his way to the top? Could be why he wants the ban lifted.


or....trying to be serious.... or, maybe he knows what he is talking about and knows that gay men and women are perfectly capable of serving their country with honor... and now, especially now, when we are issuing stop gap orders and holding soldiers after the end of their enlistments and when we are keeping soldiers from retiring on time and when we are sending national guard units made up of weekend warrior citizen soldiers back into the Iraqi meatgrinder for the third time and when we are having to lower our recruiting standards to make our quotas....maybe we should think about letting those capable and qualified soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines who are also gay continue to serve and "get over" our irrational homophobia.

Just a thought.

[darin]

Your posts drip with venom in that regard. You're only fooling yourself and those that think like you, if you don't see what you are saying...

You're having trouble Grump. Really. I have known and loved-as-brothers gay men. Same as I've known and loved people with other mental-emotional disorders. Talk about closed minded - you honestly can't see valuing somebody as a human being, yet being disgusted by their behavior?

Here's what you like to do: You like to brand people who don't agree with you in the MOST extreme way as a means to somehow validate your point of view. It's silly.

[darin]

or....trying to be serious.... or, maybe he knows what he is talking about and knows that gay men and women are perfectly capable of serving their country with honor... and now, especially now, when we are issuing stop gap orders and holding soldiers after the end of their enlistments and when we are keeping soldiers from retiring on time and when we are sending national guard units made up of weekend warrior citizen soldiers back into the Iraqi meatgrinder for the third time and when we are having to lower our recruiting standards to make our quotas....maybe we should think about letting those capable and qualified soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines who are also gay continue to serve and "get over" our irrational homophobia.

Just a thought.


It's a fallacy to think that 1%? less? of the population would translate into enough qualified recruits to make a difference in our manning strength.

[retiredman]

You're having trouble Grump. Really. I have known and loved-as-brothers gay men. Same as I've known and loved people with other mental-emotional disorders. Talk about closed minded - you honestly can't see valuing somebody as a human being, yet being disgusted by their behavior?

Here's what you like to do: You like to brand people who don't agree with you in the MOST extreme way as a means to somehow validate your point of view. It's silly.

not many people who treat mental-emotional disorders consider homosexuality to be one. I am not gay, but I, too know and am friends with many gay men and lesbian women. None of them consider themselves to have any mental-emotional disorders either. Did the gay men that you loved as brothers feel as if they had such a disorder? Were they aware that a guy who claimed to love them as brothers was, nonetheless judging them thusly?

[retiredman]

It's a fallacy to think that 1%? less? of the population would translate into enough qualified recruits to make a difference in our manning strength.


it is a fallacy to think that only 1% of our armed forces is gay..it is a fallacy to think that only 1% of our population is gay.

[retiredman]

from wikipedia:


"In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports."

Which, given your expressed point of view, would explain your citing a 1% figure.

why am I not surprised?

[darin]

from wikipedia:


"In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports."

Which, given your expressed point of view, would explain your citing a 1% figure.

why am I not surprised?



Because I believe 1% is closer-to-accurate. Unless you count Prison. Or maybe the navy, it seems.

(shrug).

:)

[darin]

it is a fallacy to think that only 1% of our armed forces is gay..it is a fallacy to think that only 1% of our population is gay.

If you want to believe Kool-Aide from Homogroups demanding special rights, then you're welcome to believe a lie. :)

[retiredman]

If you want to believe Kool-Aid from Homophobic groups demanding discriminatory treatment for people that frighten them, then you're welcome to believe a lie.

[retiredman]

Because I believe 1% is closer-to-accurate. Unless you count Prison. Or maybe the navy, it seems.

(shrug).

:)

and you whine about personal attacks?

wow.

in what branch did you serve, by the way?

[darin]

If you want to believe Kool-Aid from Homophobic groups demanding discriminatory treatment for people that frighten them, then you're welcome to believe a lie.


What makes 'you people' think people with rational and common sense are somehow AFRAID of homosexuals is beyond me. We CARE about homosexuals - we want to see them get help! :)



and you whine about personal attacks?

wow.

in what branch did you serve, by the way?

Personal attacks? Are you INSULTED by my inter-service-barb about the navy being gay? Is being Gay somehow Bad???Wha??? :)

Go Army!

[retiredman]

Do you know that the class of 2007 at Annapolis NEVER saw Navy lose to Army in football?

maybe the nancy-boys are at West Point?

[darin]

Do you know that the class of 2007 at Annapolis NEVER saw Navy lose to Army in football?

maybe the nancy-boys are at West Point?

I'll let 5StringJeff defend West Point. :)

Of COURSE you wouldn't be saying that being 'gay' somehow makes somebody a nancy-boy, right? ;)

The two gay men I served with were pretty tough. Except for the whole gay thing.

:D

[retiredman]

of COURSE not ;)

[5stringJeff]

Do you know that the class of 2007 at Annapolis NEVER saw Navy lose to Army in football?

maybe the nancy-boys are at West Point?

The class of 1997 (the class prior to my own) never saw Army lose to Navy in football. So I'd say the nancy-boys get spread around equally.

Squid. :)

[retiredman]

The class of 1997 (the class prior to my own) never saw Army lose to Navy in football. So I'd say the nancy-boys get spread around equally.

Squid. :)

I would have to agree Woop ;)

as I think I told you earlier....my class lost three of four

[Missileman]

Because I am prevented from having relations with WHOMEVER I wish, too. Straight soldiers are not allowed to sleep with ANY woman they claim to 'love' or even 'lust after'.

Since when? If the woman consents, is an adult, and the relationship doesn't violate military fraternization rules, how exactly are you prevented from a relationship with whomever you wish?

[darin]

Since when? If the woman consents, is an adult, and the relationship doesn't violate military fraternization rules, how exactly are you prevented from a relationship with whomever you wish?

I'd be forbidden from having a relationship with a married woman. I'd be forbidden from having relations with a girl who has not reached the age of 16. I'd be forbidden from having a relationship with another man.

Same as homosexuals.

[Missileman]

I'd be forbidden from having a relationship with a married woman. I'd be forbidden from having relations with a girl who has not reached the age of 16. I'd be forbidden from having a relationship with another man.

Same as homosexuals.

You said that YOU are prohibited from having a relationship with WHOMEVER YOU wish. Unless your beef is that you can't get it on with a girl under 16, a married woman other than your spouse, or another man, why did you raise the argument? You ARE allowed to enter into a relationship with any adult female of your choice as long as it's her choice also.

[darin]

You said that YOU are prohibited from having a relationship with WHOMEVER YOU wish. Unless your beef is that you can't get it on with a girl under 16, a married woman other than your spouse, or another man, why did you raise the argument? You ARE allowed to enter into a relationship with any adult female of your choice as long as it's her choice also.

Yes. My point is ALL soldiers have the SAME restrictions on their mates. Gay men are welcome to marry and have relations with a consenting FEMALE who meets the age and occupation and marital-status guidelines.

[Missileman]

Yes. My point is ALL soldiers have the SAME restrictions on their mates. Gay men are welcome to marry and have relations with a consenting FEMALE who meets the age and occupation and marital-status guidelines.

Somehow I doubt that a female would meet any male homosexual's definition of choice.

[darin]

Somehow I doubt that a female would meet any male homosexual's definition of choice.

Sure it does. They can chose ANY willing female...who meets those guidelines. Same as me.

[Missileman]

Sure it does. They can chose ANY willing female...who meets those guidelines. Same as me.

While based on your posts I doubt that you would exercise it, should they pass a law legalizing gay civil unions, you too will have the right to enter into a relationship with a willing adult male, same as them. Identical rights...sounds fair to me.

[darin]

While based on your posts I doubt that you would exercise it, should they pass a law legalizing gay civil unions, you too will have the right to enter into a relationship with a willing adult male, same as them. Identical rights...sounds fair to me.

Let the voters decide! :)

[retiredman]

Let the voters decide! :)

why should voters decide who someone can fall in love with? I thought you conservatives wanted government out of the lives of individuals?

What goes on between consenting adults should be no business of the state.

[Gaffer]

why should voters decide who someone can fall in love with? I thought you conservatives wanted government out of the lives of individuals?

What goes on between consenting adults should be no business of the state.

That's right but the fags want to make it the states business.

[darin]

why should voters decide who someone can fall in love with? I thought you conservatives wanted government out of the lives of individuals?



What the hell does falling in love have to do with anything? That's simply crazytalk. It's romanticizing the issue to appeal to people's sense of compassion.

Mary Kay Laterno. There's NO law against her falling in love with a 6th grade boy. But for the sake of society, there are rules against sexual contact between them. Homosexuality - well, sanctioned homosexual relationships - have typically been illegal because they are bad for society. They are bad for the participants. GOD FORBID they have influence over children.

Again - homosexuals can be TREATED and recover from their affliction if they pull their head out of their 4th point of contact and realize they have an illness. The first step is admitting the problem.



What goes on between consenting adults should be no business of the state.

To what ends? If you and I sign a contract, as consenting adults, should the state not enforce the terms, if need be? I'll grant you probably meant 'what goes on of a ROMANTIC nature is no business of the state. Keep it in the bedroom. Don't make the rest of society HURT because men want to have sex with eachother. Keep it private. Or better, seek treatment. :)

:D

[Gunny]

yeah...the general and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an idiot and the gunny sargeant is freakin' Einstein.

that makes shitloads of sense.

Look. I realize you have that holier-than-thou, elitist, officer mentality, but it's nothing more than delusion.

So the general thinks it's a good idea to take a bunch of nancy boys and stick them in with a bunch of alpha males? Sheer genius on his part. Let's tell LCpl Schmuckatelli the machine gunner we're going to put FagBob Squarepants in HIS two-man fighting hole.

The general, and you by agreeing with him, are letting your alligator mouthes overload your bumblebee asses, and you have NO idea what you're asking for.

But then, neither of you have to live with the consequence of your dumbass ideas, do you? I can't really say I expect better from you.

[retiredman]

Look. I realize you have that holier-than-thou, elitist, officer mentality, but it's nothing more than delusion.

So the general thinks it's a good idea to take a bunch of nancy boys and stick them in with a bunch of alpha males? Sheer genius on his part. Let's tell LCpl Schmuckatelli the machine gunner we're going to put FagBob Squarepants in HIS two-man fighting hole.

The general, and you by agreeing with him, are letting your alligator mouthes overload your bumblebee asses, and you have NO idea what you're asking for.

But then, neither of you have to live with the consequence of your dumbass ideas, do you? I can't really say I expect better from you.

like I said.. the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff thinks one way and a washed up retired gunny sargeant who could never quite pass the E8 exam and now sits on his computer acting tough all day thinks the other way.

This has nothing to do with rank... it has everything to do with intelligence and wisdom. I give the nod to the general on both counts.

[darin]

like I said.. the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff thinks one way and a washed up retired gunny sargeant who could never quite pass the E8 exam and now sits on his computer acting tough all day thinks the other way.

KNOCK that shit off. You are NUTS if you think you can sit there in your palace and say that kind of stuff to a LONG TIME valued memeber of this board AND a Veteran who served honorably. Admin status be damned - you've crossed the line, man.

[retiredman]

Look. I realize you have that holier-than-thou, elitist, officer mentality, but it's nothing more than delusion.

So the general thinks it's a good idea to take a bunch of nancy boys and stick them in with a bunch of alpha males? Sheer genius on his part. Let's tell LCpl Schmuckatelli the machine gunner we're going to put FagBob Squarepants in HIS two-man fighting hole.

The general, and you by agreeing with him, are letting your alligator mouthes overload your bumblebee asses, and you have NO idea what you're asking for.

But then, neither of you have to live with the consequence of your dumbass ideas, do you? I can't really say I expect better from you.


what line does THIS cross? This is more of the goofy double standard that this board has.... my word.... this guy says shit like that and you don't say BOO?

[Grumplestillskin]

You're having trouble Grump. Really. I have known and loved-as-brothers gay men. Same as I've known and loved people with other mental-emotional disorders. Talk about closed minded - you honestly can't see valuing somebody as a human being, yet being disgusted by their behavior?

Here's what you like to do: You like to brand people who don't agree with you in the MOST extreme way as a means to somehow validate your point of view. It's silly.

No I can't re behaviour. If a person's behaviour disgusts me, the chances of me being disgusted by them generally, is pretty high. I am not the close-minded one, you are. I you truly did love your homo brothers you'd accept them for what they are and put no caveats on their behaviour.

BTW, your "I can marry a women so can they" argument is so piss-weak it borders on teh laughable. Ever hear about the persuit of happiness? As for voters deciding, as long as somebody's behaviour doesn't affect you, it is none of your business. The number of times I've said this to you beggar's belief. Are you hard of hearing? :dev:

[Gaffer]

like I said.. the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff thinks one way and a washed up retired gunny sargeant who could never quite pass the E8 exam and now sits on his computer acting tough all day thinks the other way.

This has nothing to do with rank... it has everything to do with intelligence and wisdom. I give the nod to the general on both counts.

As a former grunt myself I'll take word of a Gunny over a general or elitist naval officer like you any day. After 25 years in the navy you only made O-5. That tells me you didn't have what it takes. Your right it has nothing to do with rank it has everything to do with your elitist condisending attitude.

You are a washed up retired officer who is a disgrace to the officer corps.

[darin]

No I can't re behaviour. If a person's behaviour disgusts me, the chances of me being disgusted by them generally, is pretty high. I am not the close-minded one, you are. I you truly did love your homo brothers you'd accept them for what they are and put no caveats on their behaviour.

I love my kids, but don't love when they misbehave. I love my wife, but I don't love when she hurts me. I'm applying COMMON practices of NOT approving of behavior of those one cares about.



BTW, your "I can marry a women so can they" argument is so piss-weak it borders on teh laughable. Ever hear about the persuit of happiness? As for voters deciding, as long as somebody's behaviour doesn't affect you, it is none of your business. The number of times I've said this to you beggar's belief. Are you hard of hearing? :dev:



But-but Homosexual behaviour DOES affect me; that's the problem. Their doctrine gets shoved down the throats of people who would have NONE of it. If they'd just continue to stay in the closet, and practice their deviant behaviour behind closed doors, all would be good. :)

[Grumplestillskin]

Youse fellas should head off to the cage..

Why I'm doing Darin's job for him is beyond me.

BTW, Darin, MFM is right of course. Gunny's last to him was just as insulting. Either put your admin's hat on fairly or not at all...:eek:

[OCA]

Ever hear about the persuit of happiness? As for voters deciding, as long as somebody's behaviour doesn't affect you, it is none of your business.


Ahh but in 20 some odd states now voters did get to decide and overwhelmingly they rejected queer marriage. You are DEEP in the wrong on this one, read up.

[OCA]

Youse fellas should head off to the cage..

Why I'm doing Darin's job for him is beyond me.

BTW, Darin, MFM is right of course. Gunny's last to him was just as insulting. Either put your admin's hat on fairly or not at all...:eek:

You will not comment in public on ANY mod's job being done or whether they are treating others fairly or not. Take it to pm.

Your cooperation which i'm sure i'll receive is appreciated.

[Grumplestillskin]

I love my kids, but don't love when they misbehave. I love my wife, but I don't love when she hurts me. I'm applying COMMON practices of NOT approving of behavior of those one cares about.

Homo behaviour is neither misbehaving OR hurting anybody. Only in your mind's eye - and that's your problem, not their's..



But-but Homosexual behaviour DOES affect me; that's the problem. Their doctrine gets shoved down the throats of people who would have NONE of it. If they'd just continue to stay in the closet, and practice their deviant behaviour behind closed doors, all would be good. :)

I could say the same about people driving crappy cars. Why is their doctrine shoved down your throat? I hear about their agenda occasionally, but it hardly all over the news. It's called civil rights. I wish Mazda drivers would cover their cars when driving along the street. They are visual pollution dammit...:2up:

[Grumplestillskin]

Ahh but in 20 some odd states now voters did get to decide and overwhelmingly they rejected queer marriage. You are DEEP in the wrong on this one, read up.

Ya think if Alabama was allowed to vote on keeping slavery in 1865 they would have voted it down? You think they would have done the same re Jim Crowe laws in the 1960s? You are a constitutional republic for a reason OCA....protection from the tyranny of the majority remember...

[Gaffer]

I love my kids, but don't love when they misbehave. I love my wife, but I don't love when she hurts me. I'm applying COMMON practices of NOT approving of behavior of those one cares about.





But-but Homosexual behaviour DOES affect me; that's the problem. Their doctrine gets shoved down the throats of people who would have NONE of it. If they'd just continue to stay in the closet, and practice their deviant behaviour behind closed doors, all would be good. :)

I agree dmp. I don't want to see it and I don't want to hear about. That's the problem. They want to make it a public exhibition. If you put it in my face don't be shocked if I cut it off.

[Grumplestillskin]

You will not comment in public on ANY mod's job being done or whether they are treating others fairly or not. Take it to pm.

Your cooperation which i'm sure i'll receive is appreciated.

I'll take it under advisement. Thank you for your input...

[OCA]

Ya think if Alabama was allowed to vote on keeping slavery in 1865 they would have voted it down? You think they would have done the same re Jim Crowe laws in the 1960s? You are a constitutional republic for a reason OCA....protection from the tyranny of the majority remember...

Each vote has been challenged on constitutional grounds and up till now none has been overturned, tell ya anything?

[Grumplestillskin]

I agree dmp. I don't want to see it and I don't want to hear about. That's the problem. They want to make it a public exhibition. If you put it in my face don't be shocked if I cut it off.

Maybe if people just treated them how you wish to be treated it wouldn't be such a big deal. You think motel owners willing put in ramps for wheelchair bound people, or did pressure from disability groups get things like that done?

[Gaffer]

Ya think if Alabama was allowed to vote on keeping slavery in 1865 they would have voted it down? You think they would have done the same re Jim Crowe laws in the 1960s? You are a constitutional republic for a reason OCA....protection from the tyranny of the majority remember...

What about protection from the tyranny of the minority that keeps trying to force thing down our thoats we don't want. If they can't get the legislature to do it they get the courts to make the laws.

[darin]

Homo behaviour is neither misbehaving OR hurting anybody. Only in your mind's eye - and that's your problem, not their's..



Are you honestly arguing that homosexuality is perfectly healthy; physically and mentally? WOW.

Do some research, brother.



I could say the same about people driving crappy cars. Why is their doctrine shoved down your throat? I hear about their agenda occasionally, but it hardly all over the news. It's called civil rights. I wish Mazda drivers would cover their cars when driving along the street. They are visual pollution dammit...:2up:

Again, you're being silly. At least TRY to make honest arguments :)

[Gunny]

Ya think if Alabama was allowed to vote on keeping slavery in 1865 they would have voted it down? You think they would have done the same re Jim Crowe laws in the 1960s? You are a constitutional republic for a reason OCA....protection from the tyranny of the majority remember...

Protection from tyranny of the minority does not mean the majority must suffer the tyranny of the minority.

[Pale Rider]

Getting back to fags in the military, I've offered my opinion of that, and that is that basic training presents a problem. Where do you put them? If you put them in with other men, that would be THE SAME as putting a group of men in with women. Homo's are sexually attracked to men, and that won't work. And if you put them all together, well, that won't work either. They're all attracked to each other. Same thing as putting men and women in together again. So do put them in with women? Yes. That's the only solution. One by one put them in with women.

[Gunny]

Getting back to fags in the military, I've offered my opinion of that, and that is that basic training presents a problem. Where do you put them? If you put them in with other men, that would be THE SAME as putting a group of men in with women. Homo's are sexually attracked to men, and that won't work. And if you put them all together, well, that won't work either. They're all attracked to each other. Same thing as putting men and women in together again. So do put them in with women? Yes. That's the only solution. One by one put them in with women.

No, they'd force them on the men, and come up with some outrageous punishment for even looking at one of the precious little things the wrong way.

Once out in the fleet, there'd be LOTS of "accidents."

There are more than a few Army vets, and I'm a Marine vet, on the board. It isn't quite the same as the USAF. We have to live with each other in the field. I wouldn't get into a two-man fighting hole with a fag, nor would I occupy a two-man tent with one. I don't trust them. Simple as that.

And I damned sure don't trust the judgment of a man who thinks he's supposed to be with another man instead of a woman. That's just what we need in a combat zone.

[Pale Rider]

No, they'd force them on the men, and come up with some outrageous punishment for even looking at one of the precious little things the wrong way.

Once out in the fleet, there'd be LOTS of "accidents."

There are more than a few Army vets, and I'm a Marine vet, on the board. It isn't quite the same as the USAF. We have to live with each other in the field. I wouldn't get into a two-man fighting hole with a fag, nor would I occupy a two-man tent with one. I don't trust them. Simple as that.

And I damned sure don't trust the judgment of a man who thinks he's supposed to be with another man instead of a woman. That's just what we need in a combat zone.

I hear ya Gunny. But there's even the issue of where they'd live. In the barracks? What barracks? With the girls? With the men? With themselves? I sure hell wouldn't live with one. I don't trust them either. One mention of sex and I'd knock his teeth down his throat. So again, the ONLY place you could put them is in with the women, one by one.

The whole idea is just bad, all the way around.

[Gunny]

I hear ya Gunny. But there's even the issue of where they'd live. In the barracks? What barracks? With the girls? With the men? With themselves? I sure hell wouldn't live with one. I don't trust them either. One mention of sex and I'd knock his teeth down his throat. So again, the ONLY place you could put them is in with the women, one by one.

The whole idea is just bad, all the way around.

The whole premise is WRONG. They would be "separate but equal." The same as they're trying to do in the civilian world, you would have a segment of the military identified solely by their aberrant sexual behavior.

Not so fast though .... they may be onto something ..... First Wave of the next amphibious assault anyone?:lmao:

[Grumplestillskin]

Are you honestly arguing that homosexuality is perfectly healthy; physically and mentally? WOW.

Do some research, brother.

I did research. In fact, one of my first posts on the USMB was a rebuttal of some so called "research"..It was a long rebuttal - one I'm not going to repeat, but I handed the person their arse to them on a platter.



Again, you're being silly. At least TRY to make honest arguments :)

You mean your argument is honest? hhhmmmm

[Grumplestillskin]

Protection from tyranny of the minority does not mean the majority must suffer the tyranny of the minority.

And what is the tyranny? Are you forced to wear pink tutus on a Monday?

[darin]

I did research. In fact, one of my first posts on the USMB was a rebuttal of some so called "research"..It was a long rebuttal - one I'm not going to repeat, but I handed the person their arse to them on a platter.



No you didn't. There exists mountains of non-biased research showing the dangers of homosexual activity. (shrug). :)

[Gaffer]

No, they'd force them on the men, and come up with some outrageous punishment for even looking at one of the precious little things the wrong way.

Once out in the fleet, there'd be LOTS of "accidents."

There are more than a few Army vets, and I'm a Marine vet, on the board. It isn't quite the same as the USAF. We have to live with each other in the field. I wouldn't get into a two-man fighting hole with a fag, nor would I occupy a two-man tent with one. I don't trust them. Simple as that.

And I damned sure don't trust the judgment of a man who thinks he's supposed to be with another man instead of a woman. That's just what we need in a combat zone.

I'm with you on that Gunny. I don't want a faggot in my fighting hole.

[Grumplestillskin]

No you didn't. There exists mountains of non-biased research showing the dangers of homosexual activity. (shrug). :)

I absolutely did so. Show me the non-biased research...

[Gaffer]

The whole premise is WRONG. They would be "separate but equal." The same as they're trying to do in the civilian world, you would have a segment of the military identified solely by their aberrant sexual behavior.

Not so fast though .... they may be onto something ..... First Wave of the next amphibious assault anyone?:lmao:

:lmao: You may be on to something here. Kills two birds with one stone, so to speak.

[Gunny]

And what is the tyranny? Are you forced to wear pink tutus on a Monday?

As it pertains to this issue, I would be forced to accept something abnormal as normal.

Let me pose this to you this way ....

In the Corps, if I walked in and started talking about what-all I did with Suzy Rottencrotch, or my wife, it would be considered improper conduct. Sexual preference or conduct is not a topic for discussion in a professional military environment.

Gays already exist in the military. They just keep their behavior and inclination to themselves. That's as it should be.

So what is the purpose of "allowing gays into the military?" So they can flaunt their aberrant lifestyle. The ones who don't flaunt it, nor want to, are ALREADY there.

[Grumplestillskin]

As it pertains to this issue, I would be forced to accept something abnormal as normal.

Let me pose this to you this way ....

In the Corps, if I walked in and started talking about what-all I did with Suzy Rottencrotch, or my wife, it would be considered improper conduct. Sexual preference or conduct is not a topic for discussion in a professional military environment.

Gays already exist in the military. They just keep their behavior and inclination to themselves. That's as it should be.

So what is the purpose of "allowing gays into the military?" So they can flaunt their aberrant lifestyle. The ones who don't flaunt it, nor want to, are ALREADY there.

What makes you think because somebody is gay they are gonna start talking about their sex life all the time. And the military guys I've been around CERTAINLY talk about Ms Rottoncrotch...high fiving each other all the time.

I know quite a few gays, and none of them flaunt it. I think you're using a big brush...

[Pale Rider]

As it pertains to this issue, I would be forced to accept something abnormal as normal.

Let me pose this to you this way ....

In the Corps, if I walked in and started talking about what-all I did with Suzy Rottencrotch, or my wife, it would be considered improper conduct. Sexual preference or conduct is not a topic for discussion in a professional military environment.

Gays already exist in the military. They just keep their behavior and inclination to themselves. That's as it should be.

So what is the purpose of "allowing gays into the military?" So they can flaunt their aberrant lifestyle. The ones who don't flaunt it, nor want to, are ALREADY there.

We had a little black fag in our basic training flight. He was a seam'stress... or, seam'ster... whatever. So we made him sew all our pant cuffs or we'd turn him in. He gladly did it. I made sure to shower when he WASN'T in there though. He gave me the creeps.

[Pale Rider]

I know quite a few gays, and none of them flaunt it. I think you're using a big brush...

They don't FLAUNT it? What do they do, WAIT FOR THE PARADE? :uhoh:

[Roomy]

It must be comforting to all you vets knowing there were no homos when you were serving eh, they just invented them recently and now they have decided they all want to join the armed services at the same time, perhaps they could have their own branch of 'Homo corps' or something similar?:D

There are some tough homosexuals out there you know, serving in the military for very many different countries, including yours.

[retiredman]

What about protection from the tyranny of the minority that keeps trying to force thing down our thoats we don't want. If they can't get the legislature to do it they get the courts to make the laws.

force what down your throats? If you don't want to marry a man, no one is suggesting legislation that forces you to.

[Grumplestillskin]

They don't FLAUNT it? What do they do, WAIT FOR THE PARADE? :uhoh:

Ah, right...so you see militant gays on the gigglebox and think "ah, all gays are like that"...So when I see some Klucker in a white hood from Hicksville, Mississippi I assume every SOB living their is a Klucker...Great logic.

As an aside, I agree re gay parades. Not in public...

[The Slayer]

I would like to know what this "affliction" is? It is ridiculous to beieve homosexuality is a treatable illness. It is not a disease, it is not something you can go to the doctor and get a prescription for. It is in my best interest to inform anyone with the belief that homosexuality can be cured that they are riddled with fallacious lies. I encourage you to go out and meet a few homosexuals, there is nothing wrong with them. It is fine to not agree with anyone's lifestyle, but to ridicule and judge that which you do not understand is very ignorant and petty, and in the long run will just show how small minded you can be.
And don't worry I am ready to be attacked by those who do not see eye to eye with me.

[CockySOB]

I would like to know what this "affliction" is? It is ridiculous to beieve homosexuality is a treatable illness. It is not a disease, it is not something you can go to the doctor and get a prescription for. It is in my best interest to inform anyone with the belief that homosexuality can be cured that they are riddled with fallacious lies. I encourage you to go out and meet a few homosexuals, there is nothing wrong with them. It is fine to not agree with anyone's lifestyle, but to ridicule and judge that which you do not understand is very ignorant and petty, and in the long run will just show how small minded you can be.
And don't worry I am ready to be attacked by those who do not see eye to eye with me.

It is customary for those who espouse a position to provide evidence supporting their position, especially when that opinion is phrased as "fact."

Why are homosexual tendencies not treatable? Why are they not a disease?

Support your position please.

[Grumplestillskin]

It is customary for those who espouse a position to provide evidence supporting their position, especially when that opinion is phrased as "fact."

Why are homosexual tendencies not treatable? Why are they not a disease?

Support your position please.

It is customary for those who espouse a position to provide evidence supporting their position, especially when that opinion is phrased as "fact."

Why are hetrosexual tendencies not treatable? Why are they not a disease?

Support your position please.

[CockySOB]

It is customary for those who espouse a position to provide evidence supporting their position, especially when that opinion is phrased as "fact."

Why are hetrosexual tendencies not treatable? Why are they not a disease?

Support your position please.

Excuse me, Grump. When did I make either assertion: that homosexuality or heterosexuality, was not a treatable condition? Oh yeah, I didn't. Slayer made the assertion that homosexual tendencies are not a treatable condition; and, you questioned why heterosexual tendencies are not treatable, even though such has not been asserted in this thread.

So by all means, support your assertion. But do not put words in my mouth.

[The ClayTaurus]

Excuse me, Grump. When did I make either assertion: that homosexuality or heterosexuality, was not a treatable condition? Oh yeah, I didn't. Slayer made the assertion that homosexual tendencies are not a treatable condition; and, you questioned why heterosexual tendencies are not treatable, even though such has not been asserted in this thread.

So by all means, support your assertion. But do not put words in my mouth.I think the point was that its rediculous both ways.

[Grumplestillskin]

I think the point was that its rediculous both ways.

Bingo...

[retiredman]

it really is rather fruitless to discuss this topic when there is NO common consensus on any part of the issue from which to begin. I, for one, find it an exercise in annoying futility to try to discuss the fact that gay servicemen have been serving with honor and valor and courage for centuries..they were in foxholes with straight soldiers and no one was the wiser... to discuss this with people who proclaim that homosexuality is a disease or a mental deficiency is really a non-starter. It is like trying to talk to a blind man about the colors of the sunset.

[CockySOB]

I think the point was that its rediculous both ways.

Hence my original question to Slayer to support his assertion. In other words, Grump (failing once again to add anything substantive to the conversation), chose to try to put words in my mouth rather than address the post from Slayer which contained the original "ridiculous" assertion.

“When you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.” - Winston Churchill

[The ClayTaurus]

Hence my original question to Slayer to support his assertion. In other words, Grump (failing once again to add anything substantive to the conversation), chose to try to put words in my mouth rather than address the post from Slayer which contained the original "ridiculous" assertion.

“When you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.” - Winston ChurchillNevermind. ;)

[darin]

I would like to know what this "affliction" is? It is ridiculous to beieve homosexuality is a treatable illness. It is not a disease, it is not something you can go to the doctor and get a prescription for. It is in my best interest to inform anyone with the belief that homosexuality can be cured that they are riddled with fallacious lies. I encourage you to go out and meet a few homosexuals, there is nothing wrong with them. It is fine to not agree with anyone's lifestyle, but to ridicule and judge that which you do not understand is very ignorant and petty, and in the long run will just show how small minded you can be.
And don't worry I am ready to be attacked by those who do not see eye to eye with me.



How do you explain 'ex-gay' groups? (shrug). Homosexuality is an addiction to a perversion of biology and nature. It happens. People can recover and lead productive lives. :)

[The Slayer]

I do not have a problem joining in a circle jerk of disagreement, that is what debate is all about. I do think that part of debating is opening ones mind to all sides and trying to understand where the other person is coming from. You dont have to like my stance on homosexuality but I have all rights to assert it.
As for state my case with facts not a problem.
I have personally known two "recovering gays" as some would like to label. One was a gay man who was put on heavy doses of lithium and intense therapy first through the church, then through an in-patient facility. He stuggled for 3 years with his identity as a gay man. He was then, as per his therapist taken off lithium and left to sink into an awful depression. He played straight for all of 2 minutes only to find out he was not happy he did not enjoy women in a relationship sense. He is now 12 years later still gay, and very happy to be himself. I have a lesbian friend who was placed in shock therapy over the course of 6 years, also placed on lithium. Guess what she is still gay. Also had the pleasure of having the shit shocked out of her over and over again. So I do not have scientific data to back up my knowledge just a large amount of gay friends and some personal history with people who were treated to become non-gay.. Does that help you understand where I am coming from. I also have a few gay friends that served in all branches of the military, 2 Marines, 1 Navy, and 3 Army, none in the Airforce that I know of.

[neener]

WTF is an "ex-gay" group?

[jillian]

How do you explain 'ex-gay' groups? (shrug). Homosexuality is an addiction to a perversion of biology and nature. It happens. People can recover and lead productive lives. :)

Er... because it's a sham.

Productive lives? What are we talking about here, the disabled? Unbelievable.

You do know that homosexuals have one of the highest demographics, income-wise, right? I'd say that's fairly productive. How 'bout you? :D

[neener]

I do not believe that being gay is a disorder of any kind. My facts to back this up? Let's start with the American Psychiatric Association.

:read:


POSITION STATEMENT

COPP Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies)

Approved by the Board of Trustees March 2000

Approved by the Assembly May 2000

Preamble

In December of 1998, the Board of Trustees issued a position statement that the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation (Appendix 1). In doing so, the APA joined many other professional organizations that either oppose or are critical of "reparative" therapies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers (1).

The following Position Statement expands and elaborates upon the statement issued by the Board of Trustees in order to further address public and professional concerns about therapies designed to change a patient's sexual orientation or sexual identity. It augments rather than replaces the 1998 statement.

Position Statement

In the past, defining homosexuality as an illness buttressed society's moral opprobrium of same-sex relationships (2). In the current social climate, claiming homosexuality is a mental disorder stems from efforts to discredit the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. Consequently, the issue of changing sexual orientation has become highly politicized. The integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society is opposed by those who fear that such integration is morally wrong and harmful to the social fabric. The political and moral debates surrounding this issue have obscured the scientific data by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue. This document attempts to shed some light on this heated issue.

The validity, efficacy and ethics of clinical attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation have been challenged (3,4,5,6). To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments. There is sparse scientific data about selection criteria, risks versus benefits of the treatment, and long-term outcomes of "reparative" therapies. The literature consists of anecdotal reports of individuals who have claimed to change, people who claim that attempts to change were harmful to them, and others who claimed to have changed and then later recanted those claims (7,8,9).

Although there is little scientific data about the patients who have undergone these treatments, it is still possible to evaluate the theories, which rationalize the conduct of "reparative" and conversion therapies. Firstly, they are at odds with the scientific position of the American Psychiatric Association which has maintained, since 1973, that homosexuality per se, is not a mental disorder. The theories of "reparative" therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both (10-15). In recent years, noted practitioners of "reparative" therapy have openly integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologies homosexuality with traditional religious beliefs condemning homosexuality (16,17,18).

The earliest scientific criticisms of the early theories and religious beliefs informing "reparative" or conversion therapies came primarily from sexology researchers (19-27). Later, criticisms emerged from psychoanalytic sources as well (28-39). There has also been an increasing body of religious thought arguing against traditional, biblical interpretations that condemn homosexuality and which underlie religious types of "reparative" therapy (40-46).

Recommendations:

1. APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians. APA recommends that the APA respond quickly and appropriately as a scientific organization when claims that homosexuality is a curable illness are made by political or religious groups.

2. As a general principle, a therapist should not determine the goal of treatment either coercively or through subtle influence. Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or "repair" homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

3. The "reparative" therapy literature uses theories that make it difficult to formulate scientific selection criteria for their treatment modality. This literature not only ignores the impact of social stigma in motivating efforts to cure homosexuality; it is a literature that actively stigmatizes homosexuality as well. "Reparative" therapy literature also tends to overstate the treatment's accomplishments while neglecting any potential risks to patients. APA encourages and supports research in the NIMH and the academic research community to further determines "reparative" therapy's risks versus its benefits.



http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

Now please feel free to present your own "facts" on why you believe homosexuality to be a treatable mental disease.

[Bubbalicious]

I do not believe that being gay is a disorder of any kind. My facts to back this up? Let's start with the American Psychiatric Association.

:read:

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm



The APA concluded that back in the 1970s I think. Maybe earlier. But some hack from Bob Jones University or something pulls some idiotic nonsense out of his bum, like gays are so many times more likely to be child molesters, and people take that as bible.

[dirt mcgirt]

I also have a few gay friends that served in all branches of the military, 2 Marines, 1 Navy, and 3 Army, none in the Airforce that I know of.
Hey wait a minute those stats are skewed. You probably only knew 1 Navy guy in your whole life. If you lived near a Naval Base, I bet you'd say you knew hundreds. :D

[darin]

Er... because it's a sham.

Productive lives? What are we talking about here, the disabled? Unbelievable.

You do know that homosexuals have one of the highest demographics, income-wise, right? I'd say that's fairly productive. How 'bout you? :D

You're saying people who claim to be formerly gay are liars? Wha?

Income has little to do with being a 'productive' member of society. :)

[The Slayer]

Damn dirt why you gotta call me out this early in the game?????

[dirt mcgirt]

Damn dirt why you gotta call me out this early in the game?????
What are you talking about fag? I didn't call you out. Nobody knows that you live in a trailer park or work at a brothel.

[Grumplestillskin]

Hence my original question to Slayer to support his assertion. In other words, Grump (failing once again to add anything substantive to the conversation), chose to try to put words in my mouth rather than address the post from Slayer which contained the original "ridiculous" assertion

WTF? Clay says both scenarios are ridiculous, and you say "hence my original question to Slayer". So you think Slayer's assertion was ridiculous? Why not just say so...

[CockySOB]

Er... because it's a sham.

Productive lives? What are we talking about here, the disabled? Unbelievable.

You do know that homosexuals have one of the highest demographics, income-wise, right? I'd say that's fairly productive. How 'bout you? :D

Got a link? I'd like to see that statistic. It might be true, but then again, the statistic is probably biased in part because the more affluent homosexuals are more likely than those struggling economically to "come out" as it were. I would like to see the sources for your citation, please.

[jillian]

Got a link? I'd like to see that statistic. It might be true, but then again, the statistic is probably biased in part because the more affluent homosexuals are more likely than those struggling economically to "come out" as it were. I would like to see the sources for your citation, please.

I'm not sure where your assertion comes from. I'm sure you can substantiate it, right... I mean the part about struggling homosexuals.

As for statistics. You can start with this.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_16_39/ai_n13652053

And this:


Surveys by gay publications and the U.S. Census Bureau show that gay people have a collective $514 billion in yearly expendable income and take vacations more than any other single demographic group

(MORE)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=990CEFDC1438F936A35751C0A963958260

[jillian]

You're saying people who claim to be formerly gay are liars? Wha?

Income has little to do with being a 'productive' member of society. :)

I think it's self-delusion and wishful thinking. Homosexuals in certrain communities must be horrified to be gay based on what is said about them in their own environment.

I think the people running these programs that say gays can be cured are snake oil salesmen and charletans.

[Bubbalicious]

the statistic is probably biased in part because the more affluent homosexuals are more likely than those struggling economically to "come out" as it were.


I'm not sure where your assertion comes from. I'm sure you can substantiate it, right... I mean the part about struggling homosexuals.

As for statistics. You can start with this.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_16_39/ai_n13652053

There could be something to the notion of closeted gays being less affluent than out gays. Not being able to be honest about who you are is stunting in a lot of ways. They also may be closeted in the first place because they live in poorer areas, like the rural deep south or inner city, where notions about homosexuality can be more dated.
I don't see how anyone could do a study or a survey on that though, for all the reasons they call it 'the closet.'

[Grumplestillskin]

There could be something to the notion of closeted gays being less affluent than out gays. Not being able to be honest about who you are is stunting in a lot of ways. They also may be closeted in the first place because they live in poorer areas, like the rural deep south or inner city, where notions about homosexuality can be more dated.
I don't see how anyone could do a study or a survey on that though, for all the reasons they call it 'the closet.'

Doesn't take away the $514 billion figure though. I'd say there are poor and rich closest gays. Dunno why there wouldn't be. In saying that, no matter if they were poor or rich, that figure would only go up. Poor people only have disposable income whether it to be to pay the power bill or groceries...

[jillian]

There could be something to the notion of closeted gays being less affluent than out gays. Not being able to be honest about who you are is stunting in a lot of ways. They also may be closeted in the first place because they live in poorer areas, like the rural deep south or inner city, where notions about homosexuality can be more dated.
I don't see how anyone could do a study or a survey on that though, for all the reasons they call it 'the closet.'

'Cept that he said it without basis of any kind. It's a supposition without evidence or anything to substantiate it.

[Bubbalicious]

'Cept that he said it without basis of any kind. It's a supposition without evidence or anything to substantiate it.

I agree. There tends to be a lot of that when it comes to talk about gay people.

[jillian]

I agree. There tends to be a lot of that when it comes to talk about gay people.

It was that noticeable, huh? :lmao:

[CockySOB]

'Cept that he said it without basis of any kind. It's a supposition without evidence or anything to substantiate it.

And voiced as opinion, rather than a "known fact." But then, Jillian and her broodlings seem rather perturbed that I've called a few of them for stating "fact" without evidence to support as such. Hence what I voiced was opinion as to a possible reason that the statistics support the idea that homosexuals are more affluent (by percentage) than are heterosexuals.

Kinda finny actually, watching the little ones get all in a tizzy.... :lmao:

[jillian]

And voiced as opinion, rather than a "known fact." But then, Jillian and her broodlings seem rather perturbed that I've called a few of them for stating "fact" without evidence to support as such. Hence what I voiced was opinion as to a possible reason that the statistics support the idea that homosexuals are more affluent (by percentage) than are heterosexuals.

Kinda finny actually, watching the little ones get all in a tizzy.... :lmao:

In other words, you have nothing and you were blowing it out your butt?

[darin]

Not being able to be honest about who you

I call that 'Taking a stand and figting one's destructive, deviant lusts.'

Sexual preference doesn't DEFINE us by any means. Who we ARE has little to do with What we DO. Gays want their behaviour to earn them privledge (laws, etc). I say, Keep your sexual preference OUT of your label. Keep it in the closet until one can get the treatment they need.

[dirt mcgirt]

Sexual preference doesn't DEFINE us by any means. Who we ARE has little to do with What we DO.

Funny you should say that Darin.

Title of the thread:

"General Wants Gay Ban Lifted"

Based on your comments, I take it you'd support lifting the ban as well? :D

[jillian]

Funny you should say that Darin.

Title of the thread:

"General Wants Gay Ban Lifted"

Based on your comments, I take it you'd support lifting the ban as well? :D

Man, I wish I could rep you again for that! :thumb:

[Bubbalicious]

I call that 'Taking a stand and figting one's destructive, deviant lusts.'

Sexual preference doesn't DEFINE us by any means. Who we ARE has little to do with What we DO. Gays want their behaviour to earn them privledge (laws, etc). I say, Keep your sexual preference OUT of your label. Keep it in the closet until one can get the treatment they need.

You are just so backasswards and cro magnon I barely even know where to start.
No one would choose a lifestyle that would make themselves the targets of such idiotic hatred as gays are. Some people are just born shirtless-hunky-fireman-calendar gay and there's not a damn thing they or anyone else can do about it. Trying to make them not gay is like trying to force a left-handed person to be right-handed. It doesn't work and does much more harm than good.
So they want to be accepted for who they are.
Any time you go out with your wife or girlfriend and kiss her or hold her hand or put your arm around her in public, you're flaunting your sexual preference. You want them to have to stifle theirs just because you think it's 'icky?' Then you're the one who's seeking special treatment.

[darin]

Funny you should say that Darin.

Title of the thread:

"General Wants Gay Ban Lifted"

Based on your comments, I take it you'd support lifting the ban as well? :D


No - not at all. The Ban governs people's BEHAVIOUR...not their "PREFERENCE". Get the difference? What they DO is horrible and bad and unhealthy - yet you folk ENCOURAGE them to kill themselves and harm society - who they ARE is different. They Gay men with whom I servered were GREAT men. I'd have died for either, if I would have had to.

[darin]

You are just so backasswards and cro magnon I barely even know where to start.

Ad hominem! Great!! Awesome!



No one would choose a lifestyle that would make themselves the targets of such idiotic hatred as gays are. [/qutoe]

That's dumb. that's like saying nobody would CHOOSE to be a Christian in early Rome...or in Communist Russia. Throughout HISTORY people CHOOSE behaviors which leave them scorned. (shrug).

[qutoe]Some people are just born shirtless-hunky-fireman-calendar gay and there's not a damn thing they or anyone else can do about it.

Speculation. Nobody 'is' homosexual until there is an action involved. We are born with NORMAL biological reproductive goals, however. I'm speculating, too. :)



Trying to make them not gay is like trying to force a left-handed person to be right-handed. It doesn't work and does much more harm than good.

So - you'd call thousands? of ex-gay men liars. Great.


So they want to be accepted for who they are.
Any time you go out with your wife or girlfriend and kiss her or hold her hand or put your arm around her in public, you're flaunting your sexual preference.

Interesting point I hadn't thought of. However...the difference is...MY sexual preference is HEALTHY to society and is biologically normal :) Nobody can FLAUNT 'normalcy' (is that the word? Sounds wrong...normalitivity?...normalness?? Normalitivitiness? whatever..)


You want them to have to stifle theirs just because you think it's 'icky?' Then you're the one who's seeking special treatment.

Have you SEEN a gay parade? Have you SEEN gay folk 'flaunting'? It's their AGENDA which bothers me. It's their warped, deviant views being PROTECTED and not just that, but PREACHED and FORCED upon the rest of NORMAL society.

[retiredman]

do you honestly think that gay americans want to FORCE yout approve of their lifestyle? From the gay and lesbian friends with which I worship each week, nothing could be further from the truth.

but why should I exopect this "truthful epiphany" that would transform you from a bigot to an einlightened citizen.

[darin]

do you honestly think that gay americans want to FORCE yout approve of their lifestyle? From the gay and lesbian friends with which I worship each week, nothing could be further from the truth.

but why should I exopect this "truthful epiphany" that would transform you from a bigot to an einlightened citizen.


AD HOMINEM RULES THE DAY!!

When you stop posting like you've got a stick up your ass, perhaps I'll grant the courtesy of a reply! :)

[retiredman]

you could start by showing the peer reviewed research that shows homosexuality as a treatable "mental illness"

If you have such enmperical research, please, by all means present it...if not...shut your fucking pie hole, you homophobic bigot!

[darin]

you could start by showing the peer reviewed research that shows homosexuality as a treatable "mental illness"

If you have such enmperical research, please, by all means present it...if not...shut your fucking pie hole, you homophobic bigot!

AGAIN! You simply CANNOT take responsibility for YOUR comments...it's HILLARIOUS Now...lol. ;)

NO research I could post would please you because you don't like the truth it leads reasonable, rational people to. :)

And for that last - VERY uncalled-for line - enjoy your ban. :)

[Missileman]

Speculation. Nobody 'is' homosexual until there is an action involved. We are born with NORMAL biological reproductive goals, however. I'm speculating, too. :)

Are you also going to argue that nobody is heterosexual until an action is involved? And assuming that you're not, explain how a virgin, even a homosexual one, would know which sex attracts them without dabbling first. Even the Catholic Church recognizes that homosexuality is an orientation and not just an act.

I'd say your speculation is incorrect.





So - you'd call thousands? of ex-gay men liars. Great.

How many? I'd like to see some links to these thousands? of success stories. I've seen a couple of these sites and among other things, they claim that a now celibate homosexual is cured. While you might find that compelling evidence of the curability of homosexuality, it sounded more to me like someone claiming they had cured a patient's paralysis because the patient no longer desired to walk.

[Missileman]

And for that last - VERY uncalled-for line - enjoy your ban. :)

His comment was WAY over the line...Bravo on the ban! :2up:

[darin]

Are you also going to argue that nobody is heterosexual until an action is involved? And assuming that you're not, explain how a virgin, even a homosexual one, would know which sex attracts them without dabbling first. Even the Catholic Church recognizes that homosexuality is an orientation and not just an act.

I'd say your speculation is incorrect.


I think we're born sexually-desiring nothing. We gravitate towards the opposite sex when circumstances and biology work right. :) Nobody has to 'dabble' - that's a fallacy. That's like saying people should have sex before marriage to make sure their sexually compatable...you'll bring up the 'test driving a car' illustration, I'm sure.


It's something different. People are attracted to people for lots of reasons. I believe gays simply have mis-guided/mis-labelled attractions. Either they have a daddy or mommy issues, or they are otherwise lead by social pressures down that path (Abusive adults/well-meaning guidance counselors, etc).

Homosexuality isn't an attraction - it's HAVING sex with those of the same gender. Up until that point it's misguided or normal attractions.



How many? I'd like to see some links to these thousands? of success stories. I've seen a couple of these sites and among other things, they claim that a now celibate homosexual is cured. While you might find that compelling evidence of the curability of homosexuality, it sounded more to me like someone claiming they had cured a patient's paralysis because the patient no longer desired to walk.


Do you want me to search google for you? I suppose I could.

[darin]

Btw - funny how Pro-Homo people can be BIGGOTED against those who don't agree with them. :)

[Pale Rider]

Ah, right...so you see militant gays on the gigglebox and think "ah, all gays are like that"...So when I see some Klucker in a white hood from Hicksville, Mississippi I assume every SOB living their is a Klucker...Great logic.
I didn't even come close to either saying that or implying it. You commented none of the homo's you know flaunt it. I was merely pointing out that some do, EXTRAVIGANTLY!


As an aside, I agree re gay parades. Not in public...
*sigh*... you got my point, but yet you had to bloviate.

[Pale Rider]

I do not believe that being gay is a disorder of any kind. My facts to back this up? Let's start with the American Psychiatric Association.

:read:



http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

Now please feel free to present your own "facts" on why you believe homosexuality to be a treatable mental disease.


Here we go again... over the same old things. The APA "CAVED" years ago to change it's mind because NOT of scientific evidence, but because of INTENSE HOMOSEXUAL PRESURE. However, the ex-president of the APA has recanted that view, and once again claims it IS a mental illness. There is more...


Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
(Author of "My Genes Made Me Do It")


Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality.

In a review of the literature, Gonsiorek (1982) argued there was no data showing mental differences between gays and straights--or if there was any, it could be attributed to social stigma. Similarly, Ross (1988) in a cross-cultural study, found most gays were in the normal psychological range. However some papers did give hints of psychiatric differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. One study (Riess, 1980) used the MMPI, that venerable and well-validated psychological scale, and found that homosexuals showed definite "personal and emotional oversensitivity."

In 1991 the absolute equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality was strongly defended in a paper called "The Empirical Basis for the Demise of the Mental Illness Model" (Gonsiorek, 1991). But not until 1992 was homosexuality dropped from the psychiatric manual used by other nations--the International Classification of Diseases (King and Bartlett, 1999)--so it appears the rest of the world doubted the APA 1973 decision for nearly two decades.

Is homosexuality as healthy as heterosexuality? To answer that question, what is needed are representative samples of homosexual people which study their mental health, unlike the volunteer samples which have, in the past, selected out any disturbed or gender-atypical subjects (such as in the well-known study by Evelyn Hooker). And fortunately, such representative surveys have lately become available.


New Studies Suggest Higher Level of Pathology

One important and carefully conducted study found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average (Remafedi et al. 1998).
Then, more recently, in the Archives of General Psychiatry-- an established and well-respected journal--three papers appeared with extensive accompanying commentary (Fergusson et al. 1999, Herrell et al. 1999, Sandfort et al. 2001, and e.g. Bailey 1999). J. Michael Bailey included a commentary on the above research; Bailey, it should be noted, conducted many of the muchpublicized "gay twin studies" which were used by gay advocates as support for the "born that way" theory. Neil Whitehead, Ph.D.

Bailey said, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...The strength of the new studies is their degree of control."

The first study was on male twins who had served in Vietnam (Herrell et al. 1999). It concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5.1 times more likely to exhibit suicide- related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. Some of this factor of 5.1 was associated with depression and substance abuse, which might or might not be related to the homosexuality. (When these two problems were factored out, the factor of 5 decreased to 2.5; still somewhat significant.) The authors believed there was an independent factor related to suicidality which was probably closely associated with some features of homosexuality itself.

The second study (Fergusson et al. 1999) followed a large New Zealand group from birth to their early twenties. The "birth cohort" method of subject selection is especially reliable and free from most of the biases which bedevil surveys. This study showed a significantly higher occurrence of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide, amongst those who were homosexually active.

The third paper was a Netherlands study (Sandfort et al. 2001) which again showed a higher level of mental-health problems among homosexuals, but remarkably, subjects with HIV infection was not any more likely than those without HIV infection to suffer from mental health problems. People who are HIV-positive should at least be expected to be anxious or depressed!

The paper thus concluded that HIV infection is not a cause of mental health problems--but that stigmatization from society was likely the cause--even in the Netherlands, where alternative lifestyles are more widely accepted than in most other countries. That interpretation of the data is quite unconvincing.

The commentaries on those studies brought up three interesting issues.

1. First, there is now clear evidence that mental health problems are indeed associated with homosexuality. This supports those who opposed the APA actions in 1973. However, the present papers do not answer the question; is homosexuality itself pathological?

2. The papers do show that since only a minority of a nonclinical sample of homosexuals has any diagnosable mental problems (at least by present diagnostic criteria), then most homosexuals are not mentally ill.

In New Zealand, for example, lesbians are about twice as likely to have sought help for mental problems as heterosexual women, but only about 35% of them over their lifespan did so, and never more than 50% (Anon 1995, Saphira and Glover, 2000, Welch et al. 2000) This corresponds with similar findings from the U.S.

[Pale Rider]

Relationship Breakups Motivate Most Suicide Attempts


Next, we ask--do the papers show that it is gay lifestyle factors, or society's stigmatization, that are the motivators that lead a person to attempt suicide? Neither conclusion is inevitable. Still, Saghir and Robins (1978) examined reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with homosexuality, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships --not outside pressures from society.
Similarly, Bell and Weinberg (1981) also found the major reason for suicide attempts was the breakup of relationships. In second place, they said, was the inability to accept oneself. Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals (Whitehead and Whitehead 1999, calculated from Laumann et al 1994).

A good general rule of thumb is that suicide attempts are about three times higher for homosexuals. Could there be a connection between those two percentages?

Another factor in suicide attempts would be the compulsive or addictive elements in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989 ) which could lead to feelings of depression when the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975). There are some, (estimates vary, but perhaps as many as 50% of young men today), who do not take consistent precautions against HIV (Valleroy et al., 2001) and who have considerable problems with sexual addiction and substance abuse addiction, and this of course would feed into suicide attempts.


The Effect of Social Stigma

Third, does pressure from society lead to mental health problems? Less, I believe, than one might imagine. The authors of the study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries.
Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.

In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between countries - i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems.

There are three other issues not covered in the Archives journal articles which are worthy of consideration. The first two involve DSM category diagnoses.


Promiscuity and Antisocial Personality

The promiscuous person--either heterosexual or homosexual --may in fact be more likely to be antisocial. It is worth noting here the comment of Rotello (1997), who is himself openly gay: "...the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes."
Ellis et al. (1995) examined patients at an clinic which focused on genital and urological problems such as STD's; he found 38% of the homosexual men seeking such services had antisocial personality disorder, as well as 28% of heterosexual men. Both levels were enormously higher than the 2% rate of antisocial personality disorder for the general population (which in turn, compares to the 50% rate for prison inmates) (Matthews 1997).

Perhaps the finding of a higher level of conduct disorder in the New Zealand study foreshadowed this finding of antisocial personality . Therapists, of course, are not very likely to see a large number of individuals who are antisocial because they are probably less likely to seek help.

Secondly, it was previously noted that 43% of a bulimic sample of men were homosexual or bisexual (Carlat et al. 1997), a rate about 15 times higher than the rate in the population in general--meaning homosexual men are probably disproportionately liable to this mental condition. This may be due to the very strong preoccupation with appearance and physique frequently found among male homosexuals.


Ideology of Sexual Liberation

A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis in the West, but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom.
And, according to Rotello, the idea of taking responsibility to avoid infecting others with the HIV virus is completely foreign to many groups trying to counter AIDS. The idea of protecting oneself is promoted, but protecting others is not mentioned in most official condom promotions (France in the '80s was an interesting exception). Bluntly, then, core gay behavior is both potentially fatal to others, and often suicidal.

Surely it should be considered "mentally disturbed" to risk losing one's life for sexual liberation. This is surely among the most extreme risks practiced by any significant fraction of society. I have not found a higher risk of death accepted by any similar-sized population.

In conclusion, then, if we ask the question "Is mental illness inherent in the homosexual condition?" the answer would have to be "Further research--uncompromised by politics --should be carried out to honestly evaluate this issue."

References

Anon. (1995): Lesbians use more mental health care. The Dominion (NZ) Nov 1, 14.

Bailey, J.M. (1999): Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56, 876-880.

Bell, A.P.; Weinberg, M.S. (1978): Homosexualities. A Study Of Diversity Among Men And Women. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Carlat, D.J.; Camargo, C.A.; Herzog, D.B. (1997): Eating disorders in males: a report on 135 patients. Am. J. Psychiatry 154, 1127-1132.

Ellis, D; Collis, I; King, M (1995): Personality disorder and sexual risk taking among homosexually active and heterosexually active men attending a genito-urinary medicine clinic. J. Psychosom. Res. 39, 901-910.

Fergusson, D.M.; Horwood, L.J.; Beautrais, A.L. (1999): Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 56, 876- 880.

Gonsiorek, J.C. (1982): Results of psychological testing on homosexual populations. In: Homosexuality. Social, Psychological and Biological Issues. (Eds: Paul, W.; Weinrich, J.D.; Gonsiorek, J.C.; Hotvedt, M.E.) Sage, Beverly Hills, California, 71-80.

Gonsiorek, J.C. (1991): The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In: Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. (Eds: Gonsiorek,J.; Weinrich, J.D.) Sage, 115-136.

Herrell, R.; Goldberg, J.; True,W.R.; Ramakrishnan, V.; Lyons, M.; Eisen,S.; Tsuang, M.T. (1999): Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 56, 867-874.

Kalichman, S.C.; Dwyer, M.; Henderson, M.C.; Hoffman, L. (1992): Psychological and sexual functioning among outpatient sexual offenders against children: A Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) cluster analytic study. J. Psychopath. Behav. Assess. 14, 259-276.

King, M.; Bartlett, A. (1999): British psychiatry and homosexuality. Brit. J. Psychiatry. 175, 106-113.

Laumann, E.O.; Gagnon, J.H.; Michael, R.T.; Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Matthews, R. (1997): Game theory backs crackdown on petty crime. New Scientist 156(2078), 18.

Pincu, L. (1989): Sexual compulsivity in gay men: controversy and treatment. J. Couns. Dev. 68(1), 63-66.

Remafedi, G.; French, S.; Story, M.; Resnick, M.D.; Blum, R. (1998): The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-based study. Am. J. Publ. Health 88, 57-60.

Riess, B. (1980): Psychological tests in homosexuality. In: Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Appraisal. (Ed: Macmor,J.) Basic Books, New York, 298-311.

Ross, M.W. (1988): Homosexuality and mental health: a cross-cultural review. J. Homosex. 15(1/2), 131-152.

Rotello, G. (1997): Sexual Ecology. AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. Dutton, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK.

Saghir, M.T.; Robins, E. (1973): Male and Female Homosexuality, A Comprehensive Investigation. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore Maryland. 335 pages.

Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel (2001): Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58, 85-91.

Saphira, M.; Glover, M. (2000): New Zealand lesbian health survey. J. Gay Lesb. Med. Assn. 4, 49-56.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1975): Helplessness - On Depression, Development And Death. Freeman, London.

Socarides, C.W. (1995): Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, Arizona.

Valleroy, L. A.; Secura, G.; Mackellor, D.; Behel,S. (2001): High HIV and risk behavior prevalence among 23- to 29- year-old men who have sex with men in 6 U.S. Cities. Poster 211 at 8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic

Infections, Chicago, Feb. 2001. http://64.58.70.224/2001/posters/211.pdf.

Welch, S.; Collings,S.C.D.; Howden-Chapman,P. (2000): Lesbians in New Zealand: Their mental health and satisfaction with mental health services. Aust. N.Z.J. Psychiatry 34, 256-263.

Whitehead, N.E.; Whitehead, B.K. (1999): My Genes Made Me Do It! Huntington House, Lafayette, Louisiana.


http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

[Pale Rider]

Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia


By Interim Staff
A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades: a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.

The report entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, shows that while homosexual men make up less than three per cent of the adult male population, they commit a disproportionate number (one third or more) of child sexual molestations. Dailey's report is being sent to parents, youth groups, school administrators, Catholic bishops, and religious organizations.

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse presents a number of controversial findings. The first is that a significant percentage of child sexual abuse victims are boys. The second finding of Dailey's report contradicts the "inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey" that homosexuals comprise at least 10 per cent of the population. Based upon a study of three large data sets, the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census, "a recent study in demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 per cent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 per cent," writes Dailey.

The FRC study also demonstrates, with a wealth of anecdotal evidence, that pedophile themes can be found throughout "mainstream" gay literature, including fiction anthologies such as: The Penguin Book on International Gay Writing, The Gay Canon: What Every Gay Man Should Read, and A History of Gay Literature:The Male Tradition. Interestingly, the late gay Beat poet Allen Ginsberg was a pedophile, and wrote articles for publications associated with the North American Man-Boy Love Association. "I reread Collected Poems and Ginsberg's two subsequent collections, surprised by the pattern of reference to anal intercourse and to pederasty that emerged," writes Dailey.

According to Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, pedophiles have long existed as a subculture within the gay rights movement. Dailey quotes David Thorstad, a homosexual activist and founding member of NAMBLA, to demonstrate that by 1985, pedophilia had gained acceptance within the homosexual movement, as it was in that year that NAMBLA was admitted as a member in New York's council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations and the International Gay Association. In the words of Jim Kepner, at one time the curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles: "A point I've been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today, we'd better stop waving the banner of the ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We'd better stop claiming them as part of our history unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay."

The link between homosexuality and pedophilia is rejected by many mainstream research groups, which have even begun to view pedophilia in value-neutral terms. The American Psychiatric Association removed pedophilia from its list of sexual perversions in 1994, while in 1999 the American Psychological Association published a report, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," which "claimed child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial," according to a 1999 WorldNetDaily column by noted researcher Dr. Judith Reisman.

"None of this is news in the sense that this information (the link between pedophilia and homosexuality) was fundamentally proven a long time ago," Canada Family Action head Brian Rushfeldt told The Interim, "but I'm glad to see the FRC reiterating it, especially at a time when the Catholic church is struggling with the pedophile priest issue."

Rushfeldt stresses that pedophiles come in both homosexual and heterosexual forms, but there are differences between the two that need to be understood. "Do you treat the cocaine addict the same way you treat the alcoholic? If a priest abuses young boys, that's a homosexual act, and we have to recognize it as such if we want to help him."

Asked why the link exists in the first place, Rushfeldt, a former addiction counsellor, says part of the answer lies in the availability of sex. "Sex addicts generally need instant gratification. They have a very low threshold for delaying gratification, and it's much easier to manipulate a young boy into having sex than it is to manipulate another man." He adds that homosexual pedophilia is influenced by other factors as well.

"There's a distinct quality about male homosexuality that gay men tend to be attracted to young, good-looking guys. Another part of pedophilia's appeal is the power the pedophile feels in manipulating the boy. It's a combination of things."
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html

[Pale Rider]

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'


Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: April 29, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

"Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

"It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh," wrote Baldwin. "However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family."

Though the homosexual community and much of the media scoff at such accusations, Baldwin – who chaired the California Assembly's Education committee, where he fought against support for the homosexual agenda in the state's public schools – says in his report that homosexual activists' "efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement" constitute an "unmistakable" attack on "the family unit."

Baldwin's research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences."

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …"

Abel also found that non-incarcerated "child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males."

"The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering," said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

Jay Heavener, spokesman for PFLAG – Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, counters that federal crime data refute claims that homosexuals molest children at higher rates than heterosexuals.

"According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this claim is false," he told WND by e-mail. "The gay and lesbian community calls into question any dubious research which flies in the face of our own experience."

And Gary Schoener, a clinical psychologist who has been diagnosing and treating clergy abuse for 28 years, told Salon.com, "There are far more heterosexual cases than homosexual."

In terms of sheer numbers, that may be true. But in terms of numbers of children abused per offender, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency; and boys, research shows, are the much-preferred target.

Baldwin says evidence he examined disproves the assertion that child molestation is more prevalent among heterosexuals. Both he and Reisman found that media coverage of adult homosexual abuse of minors is also slanted.

"The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recently boasted that although homosexuals are less than two percent of the population, three-fourths of the people who decide the content of the front page of the New York Times are homosexual," Reisman wrote.

That one fact is especially noteworthy, experts point out, given the recent child sex scandals taking place within the American Catholic church.

A survey by WorldNetDaily of recent news reports found that rarely did the media describe priestly sexual abuse as "homosexual" or "gay" activity – even though the worst incidents involved male-to-male contact, and a spate of investigative reports has revealed that the Vatican is concerned about an upsurge of homosexuals in seminary schools throughout the world.



Gay press promotes sex with children

Baldwin says his research not only "confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals," but it found that "the mainstream homosexual culture" even "commonly promotes sex with children."

"The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality," Baldwin wrote.

During his research, he also found:

The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home."

In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake."


Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."


In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a "Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.


Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

Homosexuality 'youth-oriented'?

"Research on the homosexual lifestyle confirms it is almost exclusively a youth-oriented culture," Baldwin wrote. "Very few gays exhibit preference for older men."

"Some admit to focus on teenage boys," he said, "some on prepubescent boys, and many cross over between categories."

A 1988 study detailed in Baldwin's report found that most pedophiles even consider themselves to be "gay." According to the study, "Archives of Sexual Behavior," some 86 percent of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. Also, the study found, the number of teenage male prostitutes who identify as homosexuals has risen from 10 percent to 60 percent in the past 15 years.

When asked what he thought about critics who attempt to debunk his research, Baldwin said the results speak for themselves.

"For them to say this theory is false is to call many of the homosexual movement's leaders liars," he said. "Most of my evidence comes right from the gay community."

"I managed to find enough evidence that my thesis – child molestation is an integral part of the homosexual movement – is a valid thesis," Baldwin told WorldNetDaily.

Other experts have also found a distinct pattern between child sex abusers and the incidence of homosexuality.

"How long can psychologists be in denial about the significance of the dark side, and ignore what it implies about the homosexual condition? And there's a matter of even greater concern. How long will psychologists eagerly throw open the door to gay life for every sexually confused teenager?" writes Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D, on behalf of NARTH – the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality – a group that says it exists to "provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, within the boundaries of a civil public dialogue."

The North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, is "a group that openly promotes sex with minor boys and claims that boy-lovers respond to the needs of the boys they love," Baldwin said in his report.

The group is often endorsed by "many of the homosexual movement's most prominent leaders," he said.



Advocacy moving to schools

Promotion of the "gay and lesbian lifestyle" is increasing in the nation's public schools.

A WND survey of homosexual-oriented websites found that almost every group has some sort of program to "educate" teachers, school administrators and other school employees about the homosexual lifestyle:



GLSEN – the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network – bills itself as "the largest national network of parents, students, educators and others" specifically formed to end "discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in K-12 schools. Two recent press released boasted of the Broward County (Fla.) school board approving GLSEN-sponsored "training for teachers."


A student activist working with GLSEN officials has managed to "give voice" recently to "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students" at California schools;


PFLAG has created a national campaign called, "From Our House to the Schoolhouse," distributing to school officials – among other materials – a booklet entitled, "Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer For Principals, Educators, & School Personnel. [Editor's note: Readers need the Adobe PDF reader to open and read this file.]
Though most school-related programs are sold to administrators and parents as programs designed simply to end persecution of homosexuals and lesbians, none disclose what Baldwin says is compelling evidence that homosexuality is harmful to children.

"What … does the academic literature say about the relationship between homosexuality and child molestation? Quite a bit, actually," he wrote, quoting data compiled by the Family Research Institute: "Scientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals."

The institute, after reviewing more than 19 studies and peer-reviewed reports in a 1985 "Psychological Reports" article, found that homosexuals account for between 25 and 40 percent of all child molestation.

"But this number is low," Baldwin says, "due to the fact that many reporters will not report if a child molester is a homosexual, even if he knows that to be the case."
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/pedophilia_and_homosexuals.htm

[Pale Rider]

There is SOOOOOO much more. No I challenge ANYONE to, "with a straight face", tell me homosexuality is NOT a mental illness.

YOU are mentally ill one, if you think this sick perversion is somehow "normal". You REEEEEEALY need a reality check.

[Missileman]

Here we go again... over the same old things. The APA "CAVED" years ago to change it's mind because NOT of scientific evidence, but because of INTENSE HOMOSEXUAL PRESURE. However, the ex-president of the APA has recanted that view, and once again claims it IS a mental illness. There is more...

Perhaps you can point out where in the articles you just posted that homosexuality is considered a mental illness.

[Pale Rider]

Perhaps you can point out where in the articles you just posted that homosexuality is considered a mental illness.

MM... I know you're a vehement homosexual advocate, but asking that question after I just posted what I did, makes that question look less than genuine.

You've got to be joking.

[Roomy]

After what has transpired I refuse to take any further part in this discussion.

[Grumplestillskin]

NO research I could post would please you.

Would me, if provable...


And for that last - VERY uncalled-for line - enjoy your ban. :)

:pee:

[Grumplestillskin]

I didn't even come close to either saying that or implying it. You commented none of the homo's you know flaunt it. I was merely pointing out that some do, EXTRAVIGANTLY!


*sigh*... you got my point, but yet you had to bloviate.

I got your point, pity you didn't get mine. You act like participants in gay parades are the norm.....hint - they're not..Thus my Klucker analogy...

[Grumplestillskin]

There is SOOOOOO much more. No I challenge ANYONE to, "with a straight face", tell me homosexuality is NOT a mental illness.


I have done it so many times, it is not worth repeating.

Hint: having "Jesus as your saviour" as a link does nothing to enhance or prove your POV. Just adds to the bigotry of your ideals :dunno:

[stephanie]

If homosexuality is genetic, and not a chosen lifestyle???

Why is the homosexual population in America only 5% out a population of 300 million?

Wouldn't it be 30- 70?
40-60?
50-50?
It's because it's not the norm....But everybody wants to tell us it's AOK, and their people also....

Granted......They are people, and I believe that majority of the people in the United States accepts them as people...

But we don't have to go any further than that and accept it as a normal lifestyle.........

Sorry if you all don't like that.....
But looks at the statictics.......They speak for themselves.....

Spin and spin all you like.....You all are into facts and staticts
Or I guess it is until it comes to a subject that you all don't like the facts...
:dunno:

[Grumplestillskin]

If homosexuality is genetic, and not a chosen lifestyle???

Why is the homosexual population in America only 5% out a population of 300 million?

Wouldn't it be 30- 70?
40-60?
50-50?
It's because it's not the norm....But everybody wants to tell us it's AOK, and their people also....

Granted......They are people, and I believe that majority of the people in the United States accepts them as people...

But we don't have to go any further than that and accept it as a normal lifestyle.........

Sorry if you all don't like that.....
But looks at the statictics.......They speak for themselves.....

Spin and spin all you like.....You all are into facts and staticts
Or I guess it is until it comes to a subject that you all don't like the facts...
:dunno:

Using your analogy, does that mean Michael Jordan was normal? Why is the Freak of Nature Basketball Player population of the US only 0.001% of the population of 300 million?

Wouldn't it be 30- 70?
40-60?
50-50?
It's because it's not the norm....But everybody wants to tell us it's AOK, and their people also....

Granted......They are people, and I believe that majority of the people in the United States accepts them as people...

But we don't have to go any further than that and accept it as a normal lifestyle.........

Sorry if you all don't like that.....
But looks at the statictics.......They speak for themselves.....

Spin and spin all you like.....You all are into facts and staticts
Or I guess it is until it comes to a subject that you all don't like the facts

[stephanie]

Using your analogy, does that mean Michael Jordan was normal? Why is the Freak of Nature Basketball Player population of the US only 0.001% of the population of 300 million?

Wouldn't it be 30- 70?
40-60?
50-50?
It's because it's not the norm....But everybody wants to tell us it's AOK, and their people also....

Granted......They are people, and I believe that majority of the people in the United States accepts them as people...

But we don't have to go any further than that and accept it as a normal lifestyle.........

Sorry if you all don't like that.....
But looks at the statistics.......They speak for themselves.....

Spin and spin all you like.....You all are into facts and statics
Or I guess it is until it comes to a subject that you all don't like the facts

You are a joke......
But you've got that gibberish down pat........

COLDN'T COME UP WITH ANTYING BETTER, EH...........:lmao:

[Grumplestillskin]

You are a joke:lmao:
But you've got that jibberish down pat........

Translation: I just had my arse handed to me on a plate and I have no answer.


Thanks for playing Steph - NEXT!

[stephanie]

Translation: I just had my arse handed to me on a plate and I have no answer.


Thanks for playing Steph - NEXT!

HARDLEY.......

I speak the facts.......You can try and dismiss me as you all try with everyone else.......



Sorry to burst you little bubble....
I don't run away that easily...

:wink2:

[Grumplestillskin]

HARDLEY.......

I speak the facts.......You can try and dismiss me as you all try with everyone else.......



Sorry to burst you little bubble....
I don't run away that easily...

:wink2:

I speak facts too, thus my basketball analogy.
Not trying to dismiss you so much, as show you how pathetic your argument is...

I have no bubble. You have burst nothing.

I am glad you do not run away. Please explain to me how if 5% of the US population is gay and not the norm and should be open to derision and ridicule, why less than 1% who can play basketball at a professional level should be open to adulation. Take your time...:laugh:

[Ado]

So for the sake of argument only, if we all agree
that homosexuality is a "mental illness", what
is our policy on treating mentally ill people?

What is the goal of labeling them all mentally ill?

Is there some useful outcome of this labeliing,
or is this just hateful shit-slinging for sport,
to malign not only homosexuals, but also
people in need of mental health care?

do tell.....

[stephanie]

So for the sake of argument only, if we all agree
that homosexuality is a "mental illness", what
is our policy on treating mentally ill people?

What is the goal of labeling them all mentally ill?

Is there some useful outcome of this labeliing,
or is this just hateful shit-slinging for sport,
to malign not only homosexuals, but also
people in need of mental health care?

do tell.....

Huh????

[Ado]

Huh????


I believe the question is pretty clear.
What do you believe should happen
to mentally ill people in our society?

[stephanie]

I believe the question is pretty clear.
What do you believe should happen
to mentally ill people in our society?

:dunno: WHAT DO THINK?????

[Ado]

:dunno: WHAT DO THINK?????

So the whole argument that homosexuals
are mentally ill, now boils down to what I think
should be done with the mentally ill?

All talk, no brain, no balls.
That's what I thought.

[jimnyc]

I believe the question is pretty clear.
What do you believe should happen
to mentally ill people in our society?

Let them seek medical assistance.

[stephanie]

So the whole argument that homosexuals
are mentally ill, now boils down to what I think
should be done with the mentally ill?

All talk, no brain, no balls.
That's what I thought.


::eek: You need to splain betttter than that ....


I'm jut a rednck frum up her in alaska...Me don unestand??? :lmao:

[Ado]

Let them seek medical assistance.

Oh so now we are going to "let them" seek
medical care. Well how gracious of you.

Any thoughts on exactly what this care
is supposed to do? I mean we have
such good ways to cure mental illness
these days and we have EVERYONE
covered with insurance, so clearly
this is a sure-fire solution to this issue.

[jimnyc]

Oh so now we are going to "let them" seek
medical care. Well how gracious of you.

Any thoughts on exactly what this care
is supposed to do? I mean we have
such good ways to cure mental illness
these days and we have EVERYONE
covered with insurance, so clearly
this is a sure-fire solution to this issue.

Please change your attitude, nobody here is attacking you or trying to belittle you.

[jimnyc]

Oh so now we are going to "let them" seek
medical care. Well how gracious of you.

I have bi-polar. I was ALLOWED to enroll in insurance programs, and pay my premiums. I was ALLOWED to seek a physician. I was diagnosed and prescribed medication.


Any thoughts on exactly what this care
is supposed to do? I mean we have
such good ways to cure mental illness
these days and we have EVERYONE
covered with insurance, so clearly
this is a sure-fire solution to this issue.

It's supposed to help, either with a cure or working towards a cure.

There a many programs for those with little to no income. Local hospitals always have programs and allow for repayment plans.

[Ado]

::eek: You need to splain betttter than that ....


I'm jut a rednck frum up her in alaska...Me don unestand??? :lmao:

Well that tells me all I need to know.

[Ado]

I have bi-polar. I was ALLOWED to enroll in insurance programs, and pay my premiums. I was ALLOWED to seek a physician. I was diagnosed and prescribed medication.



It's supposed to help, either with a cure or working towards a cure.

There a many programs for those with little to no income. Local hospitals always have programs and allow for repayment plans.

But what do you see as the result of treating homosexuality
as a disease? Is there a pill that you what made
to cure homosexuality? And If a pill didn't work, then what?

They aren't allowed to work and have a life, and
mind their own business? There are already laws against
pedophilia, for straight people and homosexuals alike.

[jimnyc]

But what do you see as the result of treating homosexuality
as a disease? Is there a pill that you what made
to cure homosexuality? And If a pill didn't work, then what?

I'm not a physician, so I can't make proper statements as to the medical field, but I will say I believe intensive therapy would be a great start. Same question applies to anything else, what if the prescribed treatment doesn't work?


They aren't allowed to work and have a life, and
mind their own business? There are already laws against
pedophilia, for straight people and homosexuals alike.

Sure they can, and who is stopping them from working, having a life, or minding their own business?

[stephanie]

Oh so now we are going to "let them" seek
medical care. Well how gracious of you.

Any thoughts on exactly what this care
is supposed to do? I mean we have
such good ways to cure mental illness
these days and we have EVERYONE
covered with insurance, so clearly
this is a sure-fire solution to this issue.







can ya all take care of my...........mental Illness????

Im as nutty as a fruitcake.........


http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/sysadminsalesman.gif\


I expect you all to doll out your money too take care of me,,,,,,,,,,


:eek:
What the hell, what the shit.........you all owe it to me.....
Get a fucking grip in life........
I have.......to live this way.......it's your alls fault,.....'

:no:

[Ado]

I'm not a physician, so I can't make proper statements as to the medical field, but I will say I believe intensive therapy would be a great start. Same question applies to anything else, what if the prescribed treatment doesn't work?



Sure they can, and who is stopping them from working, having a life, or minding their own business?

I'm just trying to understand how someone who has a
disease would impact people outside their family, if
they are able to work, take care of themselves and
their family. I'm trying to figure out how anyone's
sexuality matters to anyone else, as long as they
behave as legally expected, like everyone else.

Because there are many people that are ill, but
we don't make it our business to meddle in their
affairs, so long as it doesn't impact us or break
laws.

[stephanie]

I'm just trying to understand how someone who has a
disease would impact people outside their family, if
they are able to work, take care of themselves and
their family. I'm trying to figure out how anyone's
sexuality matters to anyone else, as long as they
behave as legally expected, like everyone else.

Because there are many people that are ill, but
we don't make it our business to meddle in their
affairs, so long as it doesn't impact us or break
laws.



Your problem........
Is you want to meddle in things that are not you business..

[Ado]

Your problem........
Is you want to meddle in things that are not you business..

Oh I have a problem now? We were posting about a topic
posted on the forum--was that someone's "business"?

Usually if it's someone's business, it's done with a pm,
but I'm new here, maybe I missed that in the rules.

[jillian]

Your problem........
Is you want to meddle in things that are not you business..

Funny, I figure that's what the homophobes are doing when they try to interfere in a relationship between two consenting adults.

[Missileman]

MM... I know you're a vehement homosexual advocate, but asking that question after I just posted what I did, makes that question look less than genuine.

You've got to be joking.

Everything I read in those says that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from a mental condition like depression...where did it say that homosexuality is a mental disease? Point it out and I'll shut up.

As for being an advocate, if you want to be biased against homosexuals for REAL reasons, like spreading HIV and other STDs, I have no problem with that. When I see nonsense like "homosexuals being more likley to be pedophiles" being tossed around, I feel compelled to point out why it's a bunch of hooey. As memory serves, I have thoroughly done so on several occasions, yet the nonsense continues.

[Missileman]

You are a joke......
But you've got that gibberish down pat........

COLDN'T COME UP WITH ANTYING BETTER, EH...........:lmao:

He actually raised a valid reason why your question wasn't sound. Most genetic defects are reflected in very low percentages of the population.

[OCA]

It is customary for those who espouse a position to provide evidence supporting their position, especially when that opinion is phrased as "fact."

Why are hetrosexual tendencies not treatable? Why are they not a disease?

Support your position please.

There is no such thing as "heterosexual tendencies" as it is a biological fact that we are ALL born with the urge to mate with the opposite sex. Show me, after all these decades and billions spent on research the definitive queer gene and i'll change my mind but until then logic says its a choice and since ALL agree its a bad choice it could be treatable just like we treat people who choose to get hooked on heroin.

[OCA]

Er... because it's a sham.

Productive lives? What are we talking about here, the disabled? Unbelievable.

You do know that homosexuals have one of the highest demographics, income-wise, right? I'd say that's fairly productive. How 'bout you? :D



You do have some literature to back up your claim of queer choicers being affluent, right?

[jillian]

There is no such thing as "heterosexual tendencies" as it is a biological fact that we are ALL born with the urge to mate with the opposite sex. Show me, after all these decades and billions spent on research the definitive queer gene and i'll change my mind but until then logic says its a choice and since ALL agree its a bad choice it could be treatable just like we treat people who choose to get hooked on heroin.

It isn't a choice and not a thing that's been posted indicates otherwise. But who says a given trait is governed by only one gene? Pssssssssssst.... no one.

I think the homophobes really want it to be a choice because if it isn't they could be gay themselves or their kids... or their best friend. (*the horror*!!!)

[OCA]

I do not believe that being gay is a disorder of any kind. My facts to back this up? Let's start with the American Psychiatric Association.

:read:



http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

Now please feel free to present your own "facts" on why you believe homosexuality to be a treatable mental disease.

APA was pressured to remove homosexuality from treatable to non-treatable.

http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html

[OCA]

I'm not sure where your assertion comes from. I'm sure you can substantiate it, right... I mean the part about struggling homosexuals.

As for statistics. You can start with this.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_16_39/ai_n13652053

And this:



(MORE)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=990CEFDC1438F936A35751C0A963958260

"Surveys by GAY publications....you're shitting me, right?

[Pale Rider]

I have done it so many times, it is not worth repeating.

Hint: having "Jesus as your saviour" as a link does nothing to enhance or prove your POV. Just adds to the bigotry of your ideals :dunno:

You're starting to sound like MFM throwing that "bigot" term around without anything to back it up, and quite frankly, I'm getting sick of it.

"WHAT I AM" is "NORMAL". Get that? I'm a heterosexual that is repulsed by homosexuality. "IT IS NORMAL FOR HETEROSEXUALS TO REPULSED BY HOMOSEXUALITY". There is NOTHING bigotted about it. So you liberal, faggot apologist and appeasers calling "NORMAL" people bigots looks incredibly STUPID! But, I do realize it's all part of your game. To attack and try and destroy the character of anyone who opposses your liberal, faggot loving, ideals. Just throw around a bunch of fancy words like you think you know what they mean. Yeah right. I'm buying that.:uhoh:

Get another line chump, because simply name calling with nothing to back up your name calling is lame. Find some facts. Show me some proof I'm wrong. Show me you know what you're talking about instead of standing there like a second grader on reccess calling names.

[OCA]

It isn't a choice and not a thing that's been posted indicates otherwise. But who says a given trait is governed by only one gene? Pssssssssssst.... no one.

I think the homophobes really want it to be a choice because if it isn't they could be gay themselves or their kids... or their best friend. (*the horror*!!!)

Queers are the ones claiming they are born that way, the balls in their court as to proof. 1 gene 2 genes or a million genes doesn't matter, after all this research where are they? Could it be they don't exist and that being queer is a choice whether conscious or subconscious?

The rest of the post was pure pablum.

[OCA]

You are just so backasswards and cro magnon I barely even know where to start.
No one would choose a lifestyle that would make themselves the targets of such idiotic hatred as gays are. Some people are just born shirtless-hunky-fireman-calendar gay and there's not a damn thing they or anyone else can do about it. Trying to make them not gay is like trying to force a left-handed person to be right-handed. It doesn't work and does much more harm than good.
So they want to be accepted for who they are.
Any time you go out with your wife or girlfriend and kiss her or hold her hand or put your arm around her in public, you're flaunting your sexual preference. You want them to have to stifle theirs just because you think it's 'icky?' Then you're the one who's seeking special treatment.

Found that gay gene or genes yet? I mean you can back this diatribe up, right?

[OCA]

do you honestly think that gay americans want to FORCE yout approve of their lifestyle? From the gay and lesbian friends with which I worship each week, nothing could be further from the truth.

but why should I exopect this "truthful epiphany" that would transform you from a bigot to an einlightened citizen.

Queers want legitimization of their perversion of choice, marriage is the vehicle they are attempting, and to no avail, to get there.

[Pale Rider]

Everything I read in those says that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from a mental condition like depression...where did it say that homosexuality is a mental disease? Point it out and I'll shut up.

As for being an advocate, if you want to be biased against homosexuals for REAL reasons, like spreading HIV and other STDs, I have no problem with that. When I see nonsense like "homosexuals being more likley to be pedophiles" being tossed around, I feel compelled to point out why it's a bunch of hooey. As memory serves, I have thoroughly done so on several occasions, yet the nonsense continues.

Yes, yes MM.... you and kaggom from USMB.... sit there and deny the MOUNTAINS of proof. Denial, denial, denial. Frankly it isn't worth it showing it to you. You live in a world of denial. You're too far out there to talk reason with.

[jillian]

Queers are the ones claiming they are born that way, the balls in their court as to proof. 1 gene 2 genes or a million genes doesn't matter, after all this research where are they? Could it be they don't exist and that being queer is a choice whether conscious or subconscious?

The rest of the post was pure pablum.

For someone who hates racism, it's really sad to see that you think it's ok for people to be discriminated against because of what they're born.

Kids know if they're gay or straight from the time they are very, very young. And, as a parent, you can either squash who they are, make them feel they're valueless and can't be who they are openly, or you can love them and tell them it's ok.

It's not ok to discriminate.

[Pale Rider]

You do have some literature to back up your claim of queer choicers being affluent, right?

I was wondering about that myself.

[OCA]

After what has transpired I refuse to take any further part in this discussion.

Oh lord how can we ever get along without your brilliant musings?

[jillian]

You do have some literature to back up your claim of queer choicers being affluent, right?


You mean homosexuals? I guess we could call other groups names and feel its ok because we might hate them. I think it's ugly.

I posted links. They're undisputed. Now find something saying they're not. I figure it's your turn now. Lotsa luck with that.

[Pale Rider]

It isn't a choice and not a thing that's been posted indicates otherwise. But who says a given trait is governed by only one gene? Pssssssssssst.... no one.
Yes, it is a choice. Especially acting upon the unnatural urges. THAT DEFFINITELY is a choice the homo's make. They - could - choose- not to.


I think the homophobes really want it to be a choice because if it isn't they could be gay themselves or their kids... or their best friend. (*the horror*!!!)
A homophobe is someone that has an unnatural FEAR of homosexuals. Is that someone here? They certainly don't SCARE me. Or didn't you know what the word really meant? Or do you just like to throw it around because it sounds cool? For whatever reason, I hope I've educated you.

[OCA]

For someone who hates racism, it's really sad to see that you think it's ok for people to be discriminated against because of what they're born.

Kids know if they're gay or straight from the time they are very, very young. And, as a parent, you can either squash who they are, make them feel they're valueless and can't be who they are openly, or you can love them and tell them it's ok.

It's not ok to discriminate.

Again I ask for the proof of gay by birth. Just once provide it, i'm begging. If you have it please share it with the scientific community also.

[OCA]

You mean homosexuals? I guess we could call other groups names and feel its ok because we might hate them. I think it's ugly.

I posted links. They're undisputed. Now find something saying they're not. I figure it's your turn now. Lotsa luck with that.

You mean the "gay publications"? Again you're shitting me, right? I'd say they are highly disputeable considering the collectors of the data. Anyway i'll see if I can find something to refute that but I don't really think financial status and how many times one takes a vacation is indicative of sound mental health or not, Howard Hughes springs to mind.

Again why must you guys resort to the bigot stuff? Are you out of bullets? I called no one a name, I merely classified them as defined by up to minute research results.

[OCA]

Question of the day: Is Darin going to ban himself? :D

Please do not comment in public on ban actions or inactions, we've had this discussion already and thought we had come to a consensus.

[OCA]

I got your point, pity you didn't get mine. You act like participants in gay parades are the norm.....hint - they're not..Thus my Klucker analogy...

Then why do queers let them be the face of their community?

[OCA]

I have done it so many times, it is not worth repeating.

Hint: having "Jesus as your saviour" as a link does nothing to enhance or prove your POV. Just adds to the bigotry of your ideals :dunno:

No, really you haven't. You've stated your opinion but thats hardly fact.

[OCA]

Using your analogy, does that mean Michael Jordan was normal? Why is the Freak of Nature Basketball Player population of the US only 0.001% of the population of 300 million?

Wouldn't it be 30- 70?
40-60?
50-50?
It's because it's not the norm....But everybody wants to tell us it's AOK, and their people also....

Granted......They are people, and I believe that majority of the people in the United States accepts them as people...

But we don't have to go any further than that and accept it as a normal lifestyle.........

Sorry if you all don't like that.....
But looks at the statictics.......They speak for themselves.....

Spin and spin all you like.....You all are into facts and staticts
Or I guess it is until it comes to a subject that you all don't like the facts

Michael Jordan!!!!!!!!!! Lol this is a debate forum, get with it.:lmao: :lmao:

[OCA]

Translation: I just had my arse handed to me on a plate and I have no answer.


Thanks for playing Steph - NEXT!

I know you want to be my understudy but before you chest thump you have to have to have done something to thump your chest over, I guess we have to go back to the first day of training.

[CockySOB]

There could be something to the notion of closeted gays being less affluent than out gays. Not being able to be honest about who you are is stunting in a lot of ways. They also may be closeted in the first place because they live in poorer areas, like the rural deep south or inner city, where notions about homosexuality can be more dated.
I don't see how anyone could do a study or a survey on that though, for all the reasons they call it 'the closet.'

Actually, I was thinking that the less affluent homosexuals might be less willing to self-identify as gay in public, probably out of fear of economic reprisal. Thus I would think it highly probable that a sample-set of homosexuals asked about their financial status would already be somewhat skewed from the larger sample set of all homosexuals.

My focus was to take the superset of homosexuals, and the subsets of affluent/non-affluent, to finally question the proportions of those subsets in the survey's sample set.

[jimnyc]

You mean homosexuals? I guess we could call other groups names and feel its ok because we might hate them. I think it's ugly.

Who came up with "We're here, we're queer"? Or that tv show about queer eyes for straight guys or something like that? More often than not, the homosexuals themselves wear their "queer" label themselves, and proudly. I hardly find calling them queers to be namecalling, offensive or ugly.

[jimnyc]

I'm just trying to understand how someone who has a
disease would impact people outside their family, if
they are able to work, take care of themselves and
their family. I'm trying to figure out how anyone's
sexuality matters to anyone else, as long as they
behave as legally expected, like everyone else.

Should I be granted additional rights because I have bi-polar?


Because there are many people that are ill, but
we don't make it our business to meddle in their
affairs, so long as it doesn't impact us or break
laws.

But we generally advise them to seek treatment, and we don't advocate them denying said treatment and then have them turn around and demand additional benefits instead.

[jillian]

You mean the "gay publications"? Again you're shitting me, right? I'd say they are highly disputeable considering the collectors of the data. Anyway i'll see if I can find something to refute that but I don't really think financial status and how many times one takes a vacation is indicative of sound mental health or not, Howard Hughes springs to mind.

Again why must you guys resort to the bigot stuff? Are you out of bullets? I called no one a name, I merely classified them as defined by up to minute research results.

First off, I say it's bigoted, because I think any blanket hatred of an entire group of people is bigoted. I'm the first to admit I'm bigoted against bigots. Does that make sense? And you certainly didn't call *me* a name. But you do disparage gays. Want to call me a bigot against anti-semites, terrorists, and white supremacists, I'm pretty ok with that because it would be the truth. I DO have those biases. I also think it's ok to hate hatred. I know you have huge distaste for racists. It's clear in your posts and that's admirable.

Plus, having grown up in an urban area and having gone to law school in Greenwich Village, gays are pretty much part of the woodwork to me. It's part of who they are, but not *who* they are. I like some, I don't like others, but that's based on the individual, not on their sexual identity. Plus, at the risk of doing the "some of my best friends are...." thing, I've had a lot of gay friends, and I know their stories and I know how difficult it was for them to come out because they were terrified of disappointing their families, losing friends, etc. Even if I believed it was a "choice", I wouldn't care because I don't think we can choose who we love.

So there ya go....

[jimnyc]

Funny, I figure that's what the homophobes are doing when they try to interfere in a relationship between two consenting adults.

Why is anyone that has an issue with homosexuality always considered a homophobe? Not agreeing with their lifestyle and finding it abhorent doesn't make someone afraid of them. There's a difference between fear and disgust.

[OCA]

Funny, I figure that's what the homophobes are doing when they try to interfere in a relationship between two consenting adults.

Nobody wants to interfere between two consenting adults. They CHOOSE to live that way, fine, no problem, but society sees it as a perversion and wrong so we don't allow them the same benefits such as a marriage would provide, don't like that? Tell a queer to marry a dyke and do it for the benes and they can sleep with whomever they want. There I just solved the problem.

Please leave the homophobe comments for other less educated folk. It doesn't look very good for you, kind of like you are at the end of your rope.

[Missileman]

Yes, yes MM.... you and kaggom from USMB.... sit there and deny the MOUNTAINS of proof. Denial, denial, denial. Frankly it isn't worth it showing it to you. You live in a world of denial. You're too far out there to talk reason with.

Like I'm asking for SOOO much. Cut and paste and slap a quotation mark at each end of the line that says homosexuality is a mental disease.

[OCA]

He actually raised a valid reason why your question wasn't sound. Most genetic defects are reflected in very low percentages of the population.

No, Michael Jordan couldn't have achieved what he did through hardwork and perserverance, he has to be a genetic defect. Mike chose to be as great as he was.

[jillian]

Who came up with "We're here, we're queer"? Or that tv show about queer eyes for straight guys or something like that? More often than not, the homosexuals themselves wear their "queer" label themselves, and proudly. I hardly find calling them queers to be namecalling, offensive or ugly.

Do they use the term in a disparaging way? I might call myself a Hebe or a Jew-girl as a self-depractiing, joking manner... but if an anti-semite like William Joyce/Hugh Lincoln did it, I'd neg him back to the stone age.

[OCA]

Do they use the term in a disparaging way? I might call myself a Hebe or a Jew-girl as a self-depractiing, joking manner... but if an anti-semite like William Joyce/Hugh Lincoln did it, I'd neg him back to the stone age.


What if they called you "Hymie"?:laugh:

[jimnyc]

Do they use the term in a disparaging way? I might call myself a Hebe or a Jew-girl as a self-depractiing, joking manner... but if an anti-semite like William Joyce/Hugh Lincoln did it, I'd neg him back to the stone age.

To me it's just like the N word for blacks. If they find it suitable to use in every other sentence, then there's no reason to label someone else a racist when they use it similarly.

I admit there is a difference in the way it's presented, just like faggot, but nonetheless I don't think it's offensive.

The homosexuals haven't been saying queer all along as a joke, they've been referring to themselves as that for quite some time now.

[jillian]

To me it's just like the N word for blacks. If they find it suitable to use in every other sentence, then there's no reason to label someone else a racist when they use it similarly.

I admit there is a difference in the way it's presented, just like faggot, but nonetheless I don't think it's offensive.

The homosexuals haven't been saying queer all along as a joke, they've been referring to themselves as that for quite some time now.

Maybe it comes down to using a word with a sense of kinship or acceptance and using the word in a way that conveys hatred. I don't think it's difficult to understand that it would be offensive if used by someone who clearly hates the person to whom they're referring.

[jillian]

What if they called you "Hymie"?:laugh:

Oy! :p

[darin]

Maybe it comes down to using a word with a sense of kinship or acceptance and using the word in a way that conveys hatred. I don't think it's difficult to understand that it would be offensive if used by someone who clearly hates the person to whom they're referring.

You love throwing around the word 'hatred'.

Hate is fine. Just use it when it counts. Nazis hated jews (as a whole). I hated brussel sprouts (as a kid). I don't hate people I've never met (including black gay muslims). MOST people who abhor the homosexual lifestyle, propeganda and agenda don't HATE the people who claim to have NO CHOICE but to have sex with members of their gender. What 'we' hate is this:

Force-feeding THEIR deviant lifestyle upon the rest of the NORMAL society. Before long Animal-lovers will sue to get rights to marry their pets. Or at least take off work - on the company dime - to care for them. GROUPS of people will want to marry...Our kids (as a society) will have less-and-less structure, order, and sense of properness. Before long, Liberals will outnumber reasonable people, and society, as we know it, will be flushed down the toilet. :(

See? We don't HATE...we LOVE. We CARE about soceity, and wish to see our society THRIVE. Homosexuals and their agenda are CONTRARY to a thriving society. Their ways bring health problems, early death, and mentally ill folk becoming Speaker of the House.

[Missileman]

No, Michael Jordan couldn't have achieved what he did through hardwork and perserverance, he has to be a genetic defect. Mike chose to be as great as he was.

I wasn't talking about Jordan, but genetic defects...Steph's reasoning would have a majority of the population born blind, deaf, with Down's, etc.

[The ClayTaurus]

Nobody wants to interfere between two consenting adults. They CHOOSE to live that way, fine, no problem, but society sees it as a perversion and wrong so we don't allow them the same benefits such as a marriage would provide, don't like that? Tell a queer to marry a dyke and do it for the benes and they can sleep with whomever they want. There I just solved the problem.That pretty much tosses the "marriage is sacred" argument out the door. Not that it wasn't sitting outside already...

[Ado]

Please change your attitude, nobody here is attacking you or trying to belittle you.

I am trying to understand how our society
would benefit from classifying homosexuals
as suffering from mental illness & forcing them
to be treated; what is going to be done about it?

I think you misunderstand my questioning,
as me taking this personally. Nothing could be
further from the truth.I'm trying to understand
the practical purpose of this labelling and this thinking.

[Ado]

Should I be granted additional rights because I have bi-polar?



But we generally advise them to seek treatment, and we don't advocate them denying said treatment and then have them turn around and demand additional benefits instead.

Who said they should have EXTRA rights?

Sick people have rights: the right to privacy is one.

What extra rights do you think gays are
being given?

[Ado]

You love throwing around the word 'hatred'.

Hate is fine. Just use it when it counts. Nazis hated jews (as a whole). I hated brussel sprouts (as a kid). I don't hate people I've never met (including black gay muslims). MOST people who abhor the homosexual lifestyle, propeganda and agenda don't HATE the people who claim to have NO CHOICE but to have sex with members of their gender. What 'we' hate is this:

Force-feeding THEIR deviant lifestyle upon the rest of the NORMAL society. Before long Animal-lovers will sue to get rights to marry their pets. Or at least take off work - on the company dime - to care for them. GROUPS of people will want to marry...Our kids (as a society) will have less-and-less structure, order, and sense of properness. Before long, Liberals will outnumber reasonable people, and society, as we know it, will be flushed down the toilet. :(

See? We don't HATE...we LOVE. We CARE about soceity, and wish to see our society THRIVE. Homosexuals and their agenda are CONTRARY to a thriving society. Their ways bring health problems, early death, and mentally ill folk becoming Speaker of the House.

You'll have to show more proof of them force-feeding their lifestyle
upon the straight folk. Last time I checked, hetero couples were
shown as the models for advertising in the mainstream media,
I doubt that will ever change. The slippery-slope argument for people
wanting to marry their pets is insane because we'd never do that,
unless we can collect taxes on the pets.

We live in country where people of different ideas can demonstrate
and express themselves peacefully. And when one group is denied
respect, you might as well substitute all other groups that aren't
white, perfect and the same political affiliation as you.

I may not care for the gays having parades, or the Irish or the Polish
having parades, and I may not care for the SkinHeads having parades
either, but our Constitution, that people died for, says we can have
that and it is expected that we all show some restraint and respect for
people of different faiths, afflictions and opinions from our own.

What you seem to CARE about, is propagating your own
idea of how people should behave, so that you don't have
occasional bouts of discomfort and have to exercise some
restraint and tolerance. Eventually, it might do you good
to accept that that world isn't perfect on your terms.

[OCA]

I am trying to understand how our society
would benefit from classifying homosexuals
as suffering from mental illness & forcing them
to be treated; what is going to be done about it?

I think you misunderstand my questioning,
as me taking this personally. Nothing could be
further from the truth.I'm trying to understand
the practical purpose of this labelling and this thinking.

Nobody is going to force them to be treated but it should be an available option and psychiatrists who believe it to be a treatable condition should not be harrassed.

Tell me what benefit is it to society to give queers "special rights"?

[OCA]

Who said they should have EXTRA rights?

Sick people have rights: the right to privacy is one.

What extra rights do you think gays are
being given?

Well none since everywhere they try to attain "special rights" such as marriage the voters shoot em down in flames.

[OCA]

You'll have to show more proof of them force-feeding their lifestyle
upon the straight folk. Last time I checked, hetero couples were
shown as the models for advertising in the mainstream media,
I doubt that will ever change. The slippery-slope argument for people
wanting to marry their pets is insane because we'd never do that,
unless we can collect taxes on the pets.

We live in country where people of different ideas can demonstrate
and express themselves peacefully. And when one group is denied
respect, you might as well substitute all other groups that aren't
white, perfect and the same political affiliation as you.

I may not care for the gays having parades, or the Irish or the Polish
having parades, and I may not care for the SkinHeads having parades
either, but our Constitution, that people died for, says we can have
that and it is expected that we all show some restraint and respect for
people of different faiths, afflictions and opinions from our own.

What you seem to CARE about, is propagating your own
idea of how people should behave, so that you don't have
occasional bouts of discomfort and have to exercise some
restraint and tolerance. Eventually, it might do you good
to accept that that world isn't perfect on your terms.

Force feeding=getting a judge to thwart the will of the people and order a legislature to pass a marriage rights bill for queers such as was done in Massachusets.

[Ado]

Force feeding=getting a judge to thwart the will of the people and order a legislature to pass a marriage rights bill for queers such as was done in Massachusets.

Oh so denying them basic rights in the first place,
then having them fight for their basic rights,
is them attempting to get "special rights".

I see.

Do you also feel that extending women and other
"minorities" the right to vote, was a 'special right'
extended to women and non-whites? Just curious.

[Ado]

Well none since everywhere they try to attain "special rights" such as marriage the voters shoot em down in flames.


It looks like we have different ideas on what makes up
basic rights and "special" rights.

Do you think it is fair that we collect the same amount
of taxes from non-white, non-straight people, but
then deny them the same rights because they are
different from us?

Because it seems to me, that they should get
taxed less, if they aren't afforded equal consideration
under the law.

[OCA]

Oh so denying them basic rights in the first place,
then having them fight for their basic rights,
is them attempting to get "special rights".

I see.

Do you also feel that extending women and other
"minorities" the right to vote, was a 'special right'
extended to women and non-whites? Just curious.

What basic right were they being denied in the first place? Now remember before you answer that from all evidence they chose their lifestyle.

[Missileman]

What basic right were they being denied in the first place? Now remember before you answer that from all evidence they chose their lifestyle.

The fact that evidence hasn't been found that homosexuals are born that way DOESN'T equal evidence that they have chosen to be. The TRUTH is that it hasn't been determined either way.

[Grumplestillskin]

You're starting to sound like MFM throwing that "bigot" term around without anything to back it up, and quite frankly, I'm getting sick of it.

You are a bigot. It is a dictionary word describing a certain behaviour. Your actions towards homosexuals meets that definition. Either change your behaviour or wear the term - your choice. I ahve already stated I am bigotted against the French (and Serbs probably). I do not deny it. I


"WHAT I AM" is "NORMAL". Get that? I'm a heterosexual that is repulsed by homosexuality. "IT IS NORMAL FOR HETEROSEXUALS TO REPULSED BY HOMOSEXUALITY". There is NOTHING bigotted about it. So you liberal, faggot apologist and appeasers calling "NORMAL" people bigots looks incredibly STUPID! But, I do realize it's all part of your game. To attack and try and destroy the character of anyone who opposses your liberal, faggot loving, ideals. Just throw around a bunch of fancy words like you think you know what they mean. Yeah right. I'm buying that.:uhoh:

I don't like homo behaviour either. I just don't try and interfere in their lives. Not destroying anything. Look up the word in the dictionary. You meet the definition. :read: What fancy words??


Get another line chump, because simply name calling with nothing to back up your name calling is lame. Find some facts. Show me some proof I'm wrong. Show me you know what you're talking about instead of standing there like a second grader on reccess calling names.

If you can't handle the heat, get outta the kitchen...I spent the best part of two-three days researching and posting posts on the USMB about six months ago. It not only disproved your links, but showed their bias and unfounded conclusions.I 'm not doing it again. One thing I do remember, is after posting the links and rebuttals, the silence was deafening and the thread died with none from your side of the aisle saying squat.

[OCA]

The fact that evidence hasn't been found that homosexuals are born that way DOESN'T equal evidence that they have chosen to be. The TRUTH is that it hasn't been determined either way.

Tell me how you prove that its a choice? That is I mean without getting queers to admit it which they would never do, kind of like admitting fault at the scene of a car accident.

Logic, beautiful logic tells you that all this money and time spent on finding the gay link and nothing so maybe just maybe its a choice.

[Grumplestillskin]

Then why do queers let them be the face of their community?

Queers don't let them do anything. The militant ones make the headlines. It's the media who "let" them be the face of the community...

[Grumplestillskin]

Tell me how you prove that its a choice? That is I mean without getting queers to admit it which they would never do, kind of like admitting fault at the scene of a car accident.

You can't prove hetrosexuality is a choice. yadda, yadda, yadda

[OCA]

Queers don't let them do anything. The militant ones make the headlines. It's the media who "let" them be the face of the community...

Oh they sure do or the supposed "regular" queers, whatever in the fuck that means, would reign in the militants because they are doing them a serious disservice.

Is Rosie O'Donnell a non-militant lesbo to you? She certainly doesn't run around with a mullet and wearing pendleton flannel shirts but she is out there everytime there is a clash with the queers.

[OCA]

You can't prove hetrosexuality is a choice. yadda, yadda, yadda

Its not a choice, its innate in every single one of us.....unles you believe all science to be wrong.

[CockySOB]

The fact that evidence hasn't been found that homosexuals are born that way DOESN'T equal evidence that they have chosen to be. The TRUTH is that it hasn't been determined either way.

And most likely the truth is that sexual orientation and preference is a combination of psychology and biology. This is akin other mental illnesses or conditions, wherein our lifestyle contributes to the chemical imbalances which affect how we function in society. Whether we should address such imbalances as things to be "treated" or "cured" will continue to evolve as we learn more about our physiology and biochemistry.

[OCA]

You can't prove hetrosexuality is a choice. yadda, yadda, yadda


Oh forgot that this is probably the worst of the pathetic arguments you offer up, intellectually lazy actually.

[OCA]

You are a bigot. It is a dictionary word describing a certain behaviour. Your actions towards homosexuals meets that definition. Either change your behaviour or wear the term - your choice. I ahve already stated I am bigotted against the French (and Serbs probably). I do not deny it. I



I don't like homo behaviour either. I just don't try and interfere in their lives. Not destroying anything. Look up the word in the dictionary. You meet the definition. :read: What fancy words??



If you can't handle the heat, get outta the kitchen...I spent the best part of two-three days researching and posting posts on the USMB about six months ago. It not only disproved your links, but showed their bias and unfounded conclusions.I 'm not doing it again. One thing I do remember, is after posting the links and rebuttals, the silence was deafening and the thread died with none from your side of the aisle saying squat.

For shits and giggles why don't you post these links and rebuttals because the fact that you say you won't post them again and I don't remember them leads to believe that maybe you are trying to bullshit us because i've never seen you effectively rebut anything on any topic ever.

[CockySOB]

For shits and giggles why don't you post these links and rebuttals because the fact that you say you won't post them again and I don't remember them leads to believe that maybe you are trying to bullshit us because i've never seen you effectively rebut anything on any topic ever.

Already tried to get the little troll to do this earlier, to no avail. Instead he ties to hide his intellectual impotence with a veil of sensationalism and pseudo-cleverness.