A Former Navy Officer Stands Up For Gay Rights

The only thing that the man said is that we should not engage in "gay bashing".

Well, duh!

No one should ever "shame, condemn, abuse or demean" ANY person. I'm pretty sure we all agree on that. I didn't catch the man saying "it's a good idea for sailors to engage in open gay behavior". He did not say that. He addressed the treatment of human beings because of bigotry. Bigotry of any type against anyone should not be tolerated.

"I didn't catch the man saying "it's a good idea for sailors to engage in open gay behavior""

Nobody NOBODY is advocating for soldiers having sex with each other while on duty. That includes hetero sex and homo sex. What are you talking about?

Thanks for your comments, JD.

"The man," a former Navy officer, also said:

"In 1989, as commanding officer of a Navy carrier-based squadron, I used my authority to block attempts by my executive officer to demean and prosecute a man because he thought the sailor was gay. I would not allow such harassment.

The sailor in question had an outstanding performance record and was serving his country with honor. What possible difference did it make whom he loved?

It’s time for the people of this country to show some courage in the face of the bigots who would shame, condemn, abuse or demean gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.

As Americans, we are all pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly we are legally and morally bound to enact legislation that ensures the law shall be applied equally to all of us, regardless of our differences and especially if those differences incite prejudice in others."

And, you are right, he didn't say:

"it's a good idea for sailors to engage in open gay behavior"

Did you expect him to?

Oh my goodness! How in the world did you get THAT from what I said?

Openly gay individuals! Daggon! You really have to pick your words like a surgeon around here. :)

As far as gays in the military, I know that homosexuals are in the military now. I've met several while in the service. Great people. However, if they were to be openly gay, it would present some roblems, and rightly so. The infrastructure does not presently exist for the allowance of openly gay individuals. They'd have to have their own sleeping quarters and their own showering facilities and bathrooms. There just isn't that much room on a ship or in a barracks.
The alternative is to allow gay men to sleep and shower with straight women, and so on. And that won't work, as I'm sure there'd be a bunch of hetero men volunteering their change of lifestyle.
Another alternative is to have entire ships or divisions being manned by gays.

Gays are great people, just as any other people; quite capable of serving their nation and working hard.
But the military, where living and serving go hand in hand, there are just too many problems to surmount.
Perhaps there is another alternative out there, but I truly don't know of one.

Bravo Mr. McNamara. If I knew your rank, I would not call you Mr., but would refer to you according to the status you have obviously earned.

JD -

No disrespect, but I gotta ask. Where do the gays who aren't allowed to admit it (but you know they are there and often who they are) sleep, shower and serve now?

I've heard that point before. As I mentioned, I know that gays are "amongst" the crew on a ship.
They presently sleep with heterosexual men in the same compartment. They also shower and shave with those same shipmates.

Do you not see the issue there? Being a heterosexual man, do you not think I would at least be tempted to gaze upon a young woman showering beside me? Would that not make me look at my shipmate differently than as a coworker? It would break down morale in that light. When people don't see each other as coworkers, and see eachother in a romantic light, it breaks down morale.

The same applies with homosexuals. Yes they are there now. But if the guy beside you in the shower is openly gay, it would be identical to being beside a person of the opposite sex as a heterosexual.

Are you proposing a coed Navy where it is unisex and we all just sleep, shower, and shave together?

JD - you asked "Are you proposing a coed Navy where it is unisex and we all just sleep, shower, and shave together?"

You really don't want to get into how different our sexual attitudes are, so I'll politely sidestep that question.

Let me ask one back though that goes to the gay issue. If someone is straight, and let's say homophobic, wouldn't that person want to know who was gay so s/he could choose not be naked in front of that person, rather than wondering who is, who isn't everytime s/he has hir [credit roro] clothes off.

Beyond that, shower at a gym, men's/women's locker room at a golf club, public pool. Would you stop going to that gym, golf club, pool if you knew some members were gay and which ones they were?

I'll give you that I'm a live-and-let-live libertine, but I just don't get the problem.

"Are you proposing a coed Navy where it is unisex and we all just sleep, shower, and shave together?"

Hey it worked in Starship Troopers.

JD -- If you didn't mean "have gay sex" as "open gay behavior", what did you mean? Whistling show tunes on the deck?

Totally OT (maybe!), but I'd like to point out that I have 666 points. Tee-hee!

"I'd like to point out that I have 666 points."

That's just wicked, roro.

I'm just glad my comments don't come with "Don't Like" buttons; keeps me out of negative territory.

I've been in that situation, Tidbits. I personally don't care who sees me naked, and I don't care what they're thinking. I don't flaunt and I'm not an exhibitionist, but I have to be clean. And since I'm not in a position to speak a woman's sexual attitudes are, I can only speak to how men typically approach the situation.

As far as golf courses, gyms, and the like; they are nowhere the same as the military. It's apples and oranges. You don't live at the golf course or gym. In the military, you live with your co-workers. If you don't want to shower at the gym, you can go home, or just stink. There are choices in the private sector.

So again.... Are you proposing that men, women, and gays live together, shower together, and sleep together in the military?

Mikkel is right.... It worked in Starship Troopers, but it probably won't work in the US Navy. The sailors (and soldiers) are entitled to some sort of personal private dignity.

What is your solution?

"That's just wicked"

I do what I can. *evil grin*

"I'm just glad my comments don't come with "Don't Like" buttons; keeps me out of negative territory."

You and me both!

I hurried-up and hit the "like" button to put you over 666 - just in case a nutcase calls you the antiChrist.

LOL

And just what, praytell, is wrong with whistling showtunes on deck?
:)

IMO, for every one that is for the repeal you'll find hundreds in the military against it. Right now the military is making it's enlistment targets. I suggest that if the President succeeds in repealing DDT, those targets will not be met. I believe that reenlistment will drop dramatically and that our military will become ineffective with regard to mission accomplishment. Whether or not this will be just a transitory phase, I don’t know. I suppose it all depends on how people behave.

If gays do like they do in the Belgian military and hang around off duty in the barracks wearing women’s clothing and make-up, I suspect the worst.

In any case, as hard as it will be for me to do so, should the President repeal DDT, I will not vote Democrat next election. This will be the first time in my life that I have not done so.

Also I would suggest that TMV is actually a Socially Liberal blog, rather than moderate considering the articles written and responses to them. I never thought that I would say this, but I earnestly seek more Conservative viewpoint on TMV because to much of any one thing, is a bad thing.

"I hurried-up and hit the "like" button to put you over 666 - just in case a nutcase calls you the antiChrist." Thought occurred to me.

JD asks, "What is your solution?" Simple. Keep doing things as they are currently being done, but let people take credit for being gay. Forcing people to hide who they are helps no one. It belittles those who have to hide their identity and it institutionalizes a form of dishonesty.

"Do you not see the issue there? Being a heterosexual man, do you not think I would at least be tempted to gaze upon a young woman showering beside me? Would that not make me look at my shipmate differently than as a coworker? It would break down morale in that light. When people don't see each other as coworkers, and see eachother in a romantic light, it breaks down morale."

I guess I have to second tidbits and ask: wouldn't this concern apply to the status quo too? I'd also point out that gay people are like everyone else and send out subtle signals of interest and if they aren't returned then most of the time it's just forgotten.

The only thing that would change would be that other people would know...but as tidbits already mentioned, everyone knows there are gays now which leads to paranoia in some and occasionally a witch hunt situation.

Oh dear! People in Belgium wear what clothes they want when they're off-duty? They just go nuts over there in crazy Europe, don't they?

Do you see how JD is voicing his opinion -- his CONSERVATIVE opinion -- without hatred or bigotry? Do you see how we're all carrying on a perfectly civil conversation while working through issues from different points of view? If you're confusing more conservative stimulation with agreeing with your hate, that might be your problem, not TMV's.

What you and Tidbits may not understand is that I AGREE with you!!!

In case you didn't notice the uniform in my picture, I've lived through 22 years of it.

We are not talking about heterosexuals and gays working side-by-side. We are talking about them living together and showering together. My wife would find it unacceptable to have me showering with women. My wife MAY find it unacceptable for me to shower with men than may or may not find me attractive. Perhaps a gay man's partner would have the same concern about his partner showering with other men. I don't know. I do know that jealousy, right or wrong, does exist.

If this IS an issue, we must address it.
If this is NOT an issue, then would you please just come out and say that you do, indeed, support coed full-integration in the military. Then you can fight toward that goal.

Otherwise, we must address this issue prior to repealing DADT.

I personally don't like public displays of affection from straight or gay people if it is excessive. Hand holding, a hug, and a little kiss or two is ok by me. But when ANY two people get hot and heavy right in front of me I get a little uncomfortable. I think I'm a little prudish maybe, but that's how I feel. But that being said, why does it bother people so much when gays show affection and not when straight people do it? They call it engaging in open gay behavior. What about open straight sexual behavior??? The behavior is the same, only the players are different. I don't get it.

Your responses are confusing me more and more. No where have you said that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve (I assume you think they should) but on the other hand the concerns you are mentioning "We are talking about them living together and showering together" are already happening by serving. I don't see how being truthful makes it worse.

Also about the coed thing, I don't know what tidbits feels but to me it is entirely different. Socially speaking it is incorrect to identify female/male relations as the same as gay/straight male relations. Not only are there (a lot) fewer homosexual men than women, so just numbers wise it's different, but social power structures and expectations are much different in men and women than gay/straight (especially in the people that would join the military). Gay men very rarely have any attraction towards straight men and once the issue is resolved then they're just "one of the guys." That isn't true for men and women in general.

"Openly gay individuals! Daggon! You really have to pick your words like a surgeon around here. :)"

It is the one problem with debate in this medium, sarcasm and misunderstandings are much more difficult to read so you have to be hyper explanatory at which I myself usually fail. Sad thing is this is an improvement for me over 6 or so years of this but I still often fail*espeicailly by using the word you when I mean a general group not even including the poster*.

JD, I just feel the need to ask you one question. Do you think it is possible for people to share space with others without having romantic feelings?
I personally don't look at co-workers or people in elevators or people on the subway in a romantic way. I look at them as if they were simply other human beings. When I am looking for a mate, or trying to find someone I might be interested in, I usually don't look at the people I work next to or share space with on a regular basis. I also think that a person's sexual preference is irrelevant because most people are not "on the make" 24-7. Most people, gay or straight are perfectly capable of being professional and can do their job regardless of who they work with. The argument that gay men will be looking at or making advances toward other sailors or soldiers is ridiculous. Most people DON"T WANT to date people they work with.

I support coed but for odd reasons. I believe it would cut down on sexual assault and increase camaraderie though the transition would be harsh in the end I think a 100% coed military run off merit and skill would thrive and in the end begin to cut down on sexual crimes outside of the military as well when those men and women went back to civilian life. The reason why is due to psychology, I think it would help knock the "otherness" off of them and force the soldiers to see one another's rank and humanity a great deal more than they do in the current "integrated" system. I would also make it illegal for sexual interactions between troops that are working together in any capacity(personally I would make a total 100% ban with a one way ticket out of the service on first offense and possible time in the brig on a sliding scale of time depending on rank and nature of the offense, the higher your rank the more time in the brig before you are booted). If they want sex that is what leave and locals are all about. Otherwise it just brings in high school drama which the military has done a good job at keeping to a minimum but it is unacceptable in the interest of cohesion. It would have to be unforgiving but it would work and would be true equality which I think is called for and needed instead of these half measures that have lead to many problems. They would just need to beat it in while in boot camp "DO YOU THINK THAT SOLDIER CARES WHAT YOUR WEE WEE LOOKS LIKE JONES??" a few times and I would guess that soldiers would spend a life time looking at the floor while they shower lol.

FT, I have to ask, if the president does repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, and it does as you suspect reduce the number if people reenlisting, where will those guys go? If they don't reenlist, where will they work? Guess what, in their NEW job they will be working side by side with OPENLY GAY PEOPLE. They are everywhere you know. In every walk of life. I think the only place, other than the clergy that they CAN"T be open about it is the military. Where do they think they will go to "get away" from the gays?
I truly believe that they should just do their job and mind their own business. It doesn't matter who a person loves, if they do their job they should be respected for that and nothing else should matter. I know a lot of straight people who do some pretty kinky stuff and some gay people who are very low key and modest. We should not judge people and try to live and let live.

JD -

As a starting point, if someone got off seeing me naked I wouldn't question his/her sexual orientation, I'd question her/his sanity.

As to the coed shower stuff, Mikkel is right. You can't conflate that with homosexuality because of the culturally prevalent power assumptions. Perhaps one day we will be culturally enlighted enough to consider it, but we are a very long way from that.

As for your wife's, or anyone else's jealousy, doesn't your wife already know that you have showered with gay men during your service. Is she jealous? If she doesn't know, you better not let her read this thread. Btw, envy is a sin (one of the seven deadlies as I recall). Don't make me spend half an hour on Quotations-R-Us looking for the citation.

On the more serious side, I'm reminded of two things. Back in the 14th century when I went to college, coed dorms were taboo. Then at some point, long after my diploma got brown & wrinkly around the edges, men and women were allowed to live in the same dorm, but on different floors. Now, they live on the same floors, next door to each other. And, the world still turns on its axis.

And, once upon a time, long, long ago, the argument was made that it's just fine for "negroes" to serve in the military...so long as they were in segregated units, with segregated barracks and showers and all...because, well, you know, they're not like us and "smell" different and they have bigger ****'s that might make the white boys envious, and all that. And then old Harry Truman came along and integrated the military to the shock and dismay of millions. And the world still turns on its axis.

Someday, God willing, we'll look at DADT like that.

Sorry to be so insolent. Please take it in the snarky but humorous manner in which it was intended.

Is it a good idea for sailors to engage in open heterosexual behavior?

Roro, sometimes I think our minds are invisibly connected.

So in other words, what you're trying to say is that no one knows who the gay crew members are if they don't come out and announce that they're gay, or have gay sex in the hallway. That, of course, leaves the question that tidbits asked: How on earth did you manage to get to know gay individuals in the service? Unless you're saying they came out to you.

And well-deserved, they are.

Are you proposing that men, women, and gays live together, shower together, and sleep together in the military?

As opposed to what? Don't gay and lesbian men and women in the military live, shower, and sleep together now?

I believe that reenlistment will drop dramatically and that our military will become ineffective with regard to mission accomplishment.

If Obama does repeal DADT and your prediction does not come true, will you agree to seek professional help for your homophobia?

(J/K, Dr E, J/K!)

Yes, I think gays should serve. They do already, and they do it well.

Let me try tio make it a bit less confusing.
Let's say I'm married. I have no interest in other females. None whatsoever.
Could I then, be allowed to shower with my female shipmates?
That is the same thing as allowing openly gay individuals to share common berthing with heterosexuals.
They are not attracted to heterosexuals. That's great. But there they are in the same room with individuals with the correct biology that they are attracted to. I did not say that gay men would automatically be "turned on" by showering with heterosexuals. But with my example above, you can see why it may be an issue.

We can go back and forth about power structures and expectations. I think you give an E-1 recruit out of bootcamp a bit too much psychological saavy. And women, too, once that's gotten past in the Navy, also become "one of the guys" just as gays do.

I've been in the Navy for 22 years. I can tell you that the normal "joe" or "jody" out there doesn't feel the same as we do here. They realize the issues that this openness will bring. And all I'm saying is that if we chose to implement it, then we will have to deal with the operational issues it brings.

It belittles those who have to hide their identity and it institutionalizes a form of dishonesty.

And as such it violates the Ninth Commandment.

We are not talking about heterosexuals and gays working side-by-side. We are talking about them living together and showering together.

Heterosexuals and gays live and shower together now. That is the current status quo. Several people have mentioned this several times each, and you have yet to address it.

"JD, I just feel the need to ask you one question. Do you think it is possible for people to share space with others without having romantic feelings?"

Absolutely! People definitely can share a space without romantic feelings. But as I said above to Mikkel; if I am married and (supposedly not attracted to other women, honoring my vow), then I could, by association, shower with my female shipmates. Correct?

And you have to remember one important piece of this puzzle. The military is not a normal working envrionment. It's fine when it's a nine-to-five at shore. But when you are on a ship or a deployment with no official sexual outlet (other than breaking the rules or masturbation); the dynamic changes tremendously. Unlike the private sector; you eat, sleep, shower, and do everything else with these coworkers. As far as the work is concerned, there is no issue whatsover with gays serving in the military. It is the after-work dynamic that presents problems that must be addressed before we jump feet first into the "repeal DADT" pool.

Kathy -

So now you're going to make me do research to figure out what the Ninth Commandment is? Couldn't ya just tell me? All I know about the Ten (is that the right number - weren't some repealed) Commandments is that some judge in Alabama (or maybe it was some other state) put them in the State Supreme Court Building and created quite a stink a few years back.

z

In any case, as hard as it will be for me to do so, should the President repeal DDT, I will not vote Democrat next election. This will be the first time in my life that I have not done so.

Also I would suggest that TMV is actually a Socially Liberal blog, rather than moderate considering the articles written and responses to them. I never thought that I would say this, but I earnestly seek more Conservative viewpoint on TMV because to much of any one thing, is a bad thing.

I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but for pure curiosity's sake, does that mean that you tend to agree with progressives more on fiscal/economic matters and conservatives more on social/personal matters?

Dorothygail, I'm like you. Any public displays of affection beyond very minimal (examples as you gave) embarrasses me and makes me feel uncomfortable. I don't think that's prudishness. I think it's a normal response to behavior that should be private being acted out in front of you. Also (and this may be my particular eccentricity, I don't know) I don't like it because I think it's inherently unkind to flaunt a romantic relationship in public where any number of people around you may have reason to find that very painful, on a personal level. It's not the same thing with familial affection, because everyone (well, maybe I should say almost everyone) has some kind of loving family connection, but there are lots of people out there who are alone and lonely, and I don't see the point of increasing sadness when it can so easily be avoided.

There have been some comments on

1. "For every one that is for the repeal you'll find hundreds in the military against it."

Consider that a Washington Post poll stated 75 percent of Americans polled now believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military, up from 44 percent in 1993. A 2006 Zogby poll of military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan found 37 percent disagreeing with the idea and 26 percent agreeing that they should be allowed. The poll further found that a large percentage of Servicemembers are looking the other way, with 23 percent reporting that they are certain they are serving with a homosexual in their unit (59 percent of those reporting stated they were told directly by the individual). Growing numbers, in both the Services and those considering service, see a gap between the traditional American creed of equality for all and the DADT law.

2. "If gays do like they do in the Belgian military and hang around off duty in the barracks wearing women’s clothing and make-up, I suspect the worst."

In a survey of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that all agreed the decision to lift the ban on homosexuals had no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV rate among troops.

3. "Right now the military is making it's enlistment targets. I suggest that if the President succeeds in repealing DDT [sic], those targets will not be met. I believe that reenlistment will drop dramatically and that our military will become ineffective with regard to mission accomplishment. "

"After a careful examination, there in a survey from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that the decision to lift the ban had no impact on military performance."


"There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly. In fact, the necessarily speculative psychological predictions are that it will not impact combat effectiveness.

Additionally, there is sufficient empirical evidence from foreign militaries to anticipate that incorporating homosexuals will introduce leadership challenges, but the challenges will not be insurmountable or affect unit cohesion and combat effectiveness."

According to Clarence Page, " I have since discovered how much our national security would be weakened without [gays].

I was led to this view not so much by what military people have said but by what military commanders have done. The discharge numbers indicate that tolerance for gays and lesbians in the ranks actually rises sharply when the military is called upon to perform its primary mission, which is to fight wars.". and "Discharges under don't ask, don't tell doubled to 1,273 in 2001, from 617 in 1994, the Defense epartment reports. But, despite assertions by the Pentagon that nothing has changed, discharges under the don't ask, don't tell law took a nose dive after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks led to new wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. By 2007 such discharges dropped sharply to 627.

It even has become a challenge for some gay personnel to get themselves discharged after revealing their homosexuality on purpose. Some who came out of the closet on purpose, like Army Sgt. Darren Manzella, were told to get back in. Manzella, whose story was on "60 Minutes," served as an openly gay soldier for more than two years before he was honorably discharged in 2008."


3. For those who worry about taking showers with gays, "There are potential lessons to learn from other countries that have lifted the ban on homosexuals serving openly.

There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals,and there was also no mass “coming-out” of homosexuals. Prior to lifting their bans, in Canada 62 percent of servicemen stated that they would refuse to share showers with a gay soldier, and in the United Kingdom, two-thirds of males stated that they would not willingly serve in the military if gays were allowed. In both cases, after lifting their bans, the result was “no-effect.”

Also, "today's military and the reporters who cover them report a generation gap in the ranks on this issue. The older personnel are opposed to gays and lesbians serving openly. The younger ones tend not to think of the issue as a big deal. They have bigger issues to worry about. Or, as we used to say about racial integration when I was a Vietnam War Army draftee, there are no bigots in foxholes"

In other words, if you don't worry about your buddy being gay in a foxhole, why worry about him being gay in the shower?

Good comments. Thanks

Sources: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/edition...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/c...

Yes Kat. Contrary to popular belief, I actually am not a gay-hater.
Several came out to me during my career. Since I was/am up in rank, it could have ended my career.
I have met several of the "flaming" variety that did, indeed, attempt to come on to straight men - perhaps because there was no other gay men available. I don't know. They were the exception and not the rule.
The majority were outstanding sailors - hard workers, honorable, and trustworthy. They would give their lives for their comrades. In short - the ideal military member. As I've said countless times before, I didn't and don't care what they did in their bedrooms.

Besides the issues I brought forth above, that's another reason I supported DADT. All people - hetero, gay, other otherwise - should keep their sexuality in the bedroom where it belongs. If you're at work, keep it professional and leave your personal sexuality at the door; or in the Navy's case - the Quarterdeck.

In a utopian society, we could all (male, female, gay) shower, sleep, and work together with no issues whatsoever. But, unfortunately, we have to deal with human emotion and pschology. We have to deal with the issues this will bring forth. All I'm asking, instead of beating the intent to death, is what are some options to deal with it? Separate quarters for gays? Coed quarters for all?

People not in the military can walk away, change jobs or otherwise FREE themselves from what disgusts them. People in the military will be forced to live with it. If you think that innocuous, imagine me, living in your house telling you what I think everyday. Know that I would make the best of it.

deleted by author as a duplicate

There have been some good comments on:

1. "For every one that is for the repeal you'll find hundreds in the military against it."

Consider that a Washington Post poll stated 75 percent of Americans polled now believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military, up from 44 percent in 1993. A 2006 Zogby poll of military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan found 37 percent disagreeing with the idea and 26 percent agreeing that they should be allowed. The poll further found that a large percentage of Servicemembers are looking the other way, with 23 percent reporting that they are certain they are serving with a homosexual in their unit (59 percent of those reporting stated they were told directly by the individual). Growing numbers, in both the Services and those considering service, see a gap between the traditional American creed of equality for all and the DADT law.

2. "If gays do like they do in the Belgian military and hang around off duty in the barracks wearing women’s clothing and make-up, I suspect the worst."

In a survey of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that all agreed the decision to lift the ban on homosexuals had no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV rate among troops.

3. "Right now the military is making it's enlistment targets. I suggest that if the President succeeds in repealing DDT [sic], those targets will not be met. I believe that reenlistment will drop dramatically and that our military will become ineffective with regard to mission accomplishment. "

"After a careful examination, there in a survey from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that the decision to lift the ban had no impact on military performance."


"There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly. In fact, the necessarily speculative psychological predictions are that it will not impact combat effectiveness.

Additionally, there is sufficient empirical evidence from foreign militaries to anticipate that incorporating homosexuals will introduce leadership challenges, but the challenges will not be insurmountable or affect unit cohesion and combat effectiveness."

According to Clarence Page, " I have since discovered how much our national security would be weakened without [gays].

I was led to this view not so much by what military people have said but by what military commanders have done. The discharge numbers indicate that tolerance for gays and lesbians in the ranks actually rises sharply when the military is called upon to perform its primary mission, which is to fight wars.". and "Discharges under don't ask, don't tell doubled to 1,273 in 2001, from 617 in 1994, the Defense epartment reports. But, despite assertions by the Pentagon that nothing has changed, discharges under the don't ask, don't tell law took a nose dive after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks led to new wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. By 2007 such discharges dropped sharply to 627.

It even has become a challenge for some gay personnel to get themselves discharged after revealing their homosexuality on purpose. Some who came out of the closet on purpose, like Army Sgt. Darren Manzella, were told to get back in. Manzella, whose story was on "60 Minutes," served as an openly gay soldier for more than two years before he was honorably discharged in 2008."


4. Finally, many comments about having to take a shower with gays. For those who worry about taking showers with gays, "There are potential lessons to learn from other countries that have lifted the ban on homosexuals serving openly.

There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals,and there was also no mass “coming-out” of homosexuals. Prior to lifting their bans, in Canada 62 percent of servicemen stated that they would refuse to share showers with a gay soldier, and in the United Kingdom, two-thirds of males stated that they would not willingly serve in the military if gays were allowed. In both cases, after lifting their bans, the result was “no-effect.”

Also, "today's military and the reporters who cover them report a generation gap in the ranks on this issue. The older personnel are opposed to gays and lesbians serving openly. The younger ones tend not to think of the issue as a big deal. They have bigger issues to worry about. Or, as we used to say about racial integration when I was a Vietnam War Army draftee, there are no bigots in foxholes"

In other words, if you don't worry about your buddy being gay in a foxhole, why worry about him being gay in the shower?

Good comments. Thanks

Sources: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/edition...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/c...

LOL, tidbits. It's the commandment against lying.

Since when does being married mean not being attracted to others? The marital vow is about behavior not a fleeting thought or feeling. I don't see how, if a person is human they can avoid ever feeling an attraction to someone other than their spouse. The point is you don't act on it.

Apparently so., but I have to take the issues as they come.

Several came out to me during my career. Since I was/am up in rank, it could have ended my career.I have met several of the "flaming" variety that did, indeed, attempt to come on to straight men - perhaps because there was no other gay men available. I don't know. They were the exception and not the rule.The majority were outstanding sailors - hard workers, honorable, and trustworthy. They would give their lives for their comrades. In short - the ideal military member. As I've said countless times before, I didn't and don't care what they did in their bedrooms.

I don't understand this at all. If I read you right, you're saying several gay men came out to you but you didn't report them (I assume that's what you meant by the bit about it could have ended your career). That's good that you didn't report them, but once you knew they were gay, did you stop showering or living with them? If you knew for certain these individuals were gay and it didn't bother you, why do you support DADT? You seem to be arguing against your own point. I don't get it.

All people - hetero, gay, other otherwise - should keep their sexuality in the bedroom where it belongs.

Of course, the difference is that people assume heterosexuality, not homosexuality. If you're straight, you don't have to "come out" about it, and you don't have to hide it, because heterosexuality is considered the default in our society. If straight men and women in the military are asked to refrain from romantic relationships with colleagues, they are not being asked to hide anything. They are not being asked to hide what they are, as human beings.

Another way of saying this is that sexuality is not just about what happens in the bedroom. I would argue that what happens in the bedroom is not even the most meaningful or important part of what defines sexuality. I am a heterosexual woman always, at all times and in all places -- whether I am actually involved in a romantic relationship, or not. Sexuality is what you ARE. It's not what you DO.

A couple of outdated polls, hearsay and Clarence Page. Going for quantity rather than quality Dorian? If I wanted to waste my time on the wing nut blogs I could produce as much and as weak reference to counter. Dorian, you act as if you just do not care about the vastly overwhelming majority having to accept the irrational dictates of an incredibly minute minority. Its apparently irrelevant in the face of what you personally want.

I remain unconvinced.

"I remain unconvinced."

It is not my objective nor desire to convince you that your attitude towards homosexuals, in my opinion, is wrong.

That's something only you could convince yourself of.

All I can tell you is that I strongly disagree with your views on this issue, perhaps almost as strongly as you disagree with me.

Let's agree to disagree.

Fair enough?

...and we do disagree, fair or not.

Kathy I do not know how many times in my life that a woman spontaneously kissed me out of affection or sexual advance. Sometimes it was not so easy to discern between the two. If I did this to a woman she might strike me, but I would never strike the weaker sex in retaliation for an advance or the strike. I consider this a noble strength of manhood. Furthermore I could easily be in jeopardy of sexual assault prosecution should I spontaneously kiss a woman out of either affection or sexual advance.

If a man did this spontaneous kissing to me I would consider it sexual assault and defend myself by knocking him on his butt. I get the impression that you would deny me this right of sexual self defense in the name of some sort of blind equality for gay people. Presumably so that they could better feel the gender they pretend to be.

Please consider that heterosexuals do not want homosexuals sexually. Also consider that homosexuals do indeed want heterosexuals sexually and what this means socially for men.

Here I go, into the fray.

Men (including straight men) size up other men all the time, though not necessarily sexually. I can't tell you how many times I've been in the elevator at work to see one straight guy very quickly glance up and down the body of another straight guy, who generally has a commanding presence.

At any rate, I've also talked with straight guys who have told me that sometimes they check out other guys in the gym showers, generally by accident. I mean everyone's naked and unless you close your eyes you're going to notice... things. Nothing sexual about it and I'm sure many straight guys manage to not check out other guys.

For those soldiers in the military who do NOT want another guy looking at them, I have to ask them if they've EVER seen another man's parts and what the circumstances were. If they have seen another guy naked and didn't have sexual thoughts, then I would ask them why they would assume guys who notice other guys might be interested in them sexually.

I can understand why some guys don't like other guys looking at them and I understand why they may have problems with showering next to a gay guy who they think may make a pass at them. But as I said the truth is that guys check each other out (for all sorts of reasons, not just sexual) all the time, even if it's done subconsciously most of the time. When was the last time any of us met someone (fully clothed) and did not form an opinion on them? And human nature being what it is, why would we be shocked if the same thing happened (forming an opinion on someone) if we were all naked?

So yes, some guys may not like other guys showering with them (gay or straight) and it is a problem I don't have a solution for. Though quite frankly if I were giving advice to someone who did not like anyone looking at him I would pretty much tell him to get over it, that gay guys are not going to attack him in the barrack showers. Isn't that what we tell our kids in school when other kids pick on them? Unless it becomes a real problem, at which point we take it up with the school, or in the case of the military, with the proper authorities. Some people are just slimeballs, gay or straight, men or women, and we deal with it. In most circumstances we generally don't go around scared of what someone may do.

As far as women and men living and showering together. Well, I don't see anything wrong with it. But is society ready for it? And more specifically are straight men ready for it? Some straight men objectify women in a sexual way (and I think it's why some straight men don't want gay guys to shower with them because they are afraid of being the target of the same behavior the, as straight guys, do to women).

Personally I don't think this society is ready for male/female coed arrangements in the military. Not if we are worried about men showering together.

By the way, another show with coed military facilities is Battlestar Galactica.

FT,

I'm not going anywhere near that first paragraph, except to tell you that your level of enlightenment with regard to straight women does not seem to be significantly higher than it is with regard to gay men.

Re your second paragraph, I have no clue what you're talking about. Neither I, nor anyone else here, told you that you didn't have a right to defend yourself if you are assaulted, sexually or otherwise.

Your third paragraph is just silly. Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex, and homosexuals are attracted to their own sex. It's perfectly possible for a heterosexual woman to be attracted to a homosexual man, or for a heterosexual man to be attracted to a homosexual woman. Clearly, however, these attractions aren't going to develop into romantic relationships for obvious reasons, and that's that. Logic would tell you that it also sometimes happens that a homosexual man is attracted to a heterosexual man, or a homosexual woman to a heterosexual woman, but nothing is going to happen there, either, also for obvious reasons. And although I can't speak from personal knowledge, since I'm straight not gay, I consider it highly likely that the vast majority of gay men and gay women, if they did feel such an attraction, would be extremely cautious about acting on the attraction until and unless they were very reasonably certain that the other man or woman was also gay. Homophobia is too prevalent still for me to believe that most gay men or women would want to take such a risk. Also, given that gays and lesbians are such a small percentage of the overall population, you would have to be much more aware of and careful about approaching a potential romantic interest if you are gay or lesbian.

Some straight men objectify women in a sexual way (and I think it's why some straight men don't want gay guys to shower with them because they are afraid of being the target of the same behavior the, as straight guys, do to women).

I don't know why I never had this insight, given my strong feminist consciousness, but I didn't. Thank you.

Oh, and btw, women check each other out in locker room situations too, all the time, and it's very rarely because of any sexual interest. I think women do this a lot out of insecurity -- envying other women who seem to have "better" bodies. I'm just as insecure as any other woman, and I know I look at other women's bodies from that self-critical perspective. But sometimes also I can just admire another woman's body, and think how beautiful it is, without envy and also, duh, without being sexually attracted. I think our entire society is so hyper-sexualized that people forget, or maybe don't believe, that this is even possible. And I think that's really a shame.

My enlightenment? Forgive me. I had no idea that you actually know everything there is to know.

You trivialize my concerns Kathy. When you do this, you disrespect me.

You have a very strange perseption of what men think, (based on what I can gather from your comment), on apparently being able to read men's minds.

I know when a man is speaking about women, and himself in relation to women, in a condescending and self-congratulatory tone. If you didn't intend that, fine. That's how it came off to me.

I respect your right to hold and to express your opinions. On this particular subject -- equal rights for gays and lesbians -- I do not respect the opinions themselves. I usually do respect opinions I don't necessarily agree with: as an example, I respect JD's opinions on religion and God; just not his certainty about their correctness. His beliefs in and of themselves, however, are just as valid as mine are. Your perceptions, opinions, fears, and what you call "concerns" about gays and lesbians -- in my opinion -- are not valid or legitimate. There is no truth or justification to them. This is exactly the same way I feel about the "concerns" that white Southerners, and many Northern whites as well, had about full civil and legal and human rights for black Americans. They had the right to their opinions (although not to their actions), but I despised those opinions.

Additionally, I think it's very bizarre for you to complain about being disrespected after the dozens of times you've commented here about gays and lesbians in a manner that is not just disrespectful, but hateful. How can you complain about being disrespected after all the times you've used language like "pervert," "disgusting," "unnatural," and "sexual deviant" on threads here where you know for a fact that at least one gay man is seeing and reading those words? I mean, *that's* what's disgusting, in my view.

This will be my last comment on this subject, to you, in this thread. I'm trying to be mindful of Dr E's concerns about civil discourse and I'm getting too close to the borderline as it is.

Kathy and Stock Boy i just wanted to validate that when i took a number of sexuality classes in graduate school the professor talked about the issue of how men do check one another out, and remember him asking the males in the class if they did and they all agreed. . .the professor related the reason being what Kathy has said about insecurity and one of the reasons men are insecure is due to physics . . .the angle men are able to view their private part is visually diminished as compared to the view from the side, so men spend their entire life thinking their size is more diminished than other men all because of a visual illusion. . .and i never needed a professor to explain the dynamics of women's body in relation to other women, all kinds of comparisons go on there. . . and such a small fraction has anything to do with the sexual. . . we are such strange creatures. . .

we are such strange creatures. .

Indeed. Thanks for your eloquence and insights, ordinarysparrow. Always appreciated.

"Do you not see the issue there? Being a heterosexual man, do you not think I would at least be tempted to gaze upon a young woman showering beside me? Would that not make me look at my shipmate differently than as a coworker? It would break down morale in that light. When people don't see each other as coworkers, and see eachother in a romantic light, it breaks down morale.

The same applies with homosexuals. Yes they are there now. But if the guy beside you in the shower is openly gay, it would be identical to being beside a person of the opposite sex as a heterosexual.

Are you proposing a coed Navy where it is unisex and we all just sleep, shower, and shave together?"~ Mr. "Apple Pie" Jefferson Davis
*********
This statement is THE statement that supports DADT. If we're talking about "gay" being identified by a person's sexual appetites, then it is absolutely the same thing to force openly gay men into a shower naked with other men as it would be to have women showering with men.

"Ok ladies, time to hit the showers! Oh and the men will be joining you..."

I'm sure combat will be the first thing on everyone's mind from then on. lol..

Condescending? Self congratulatory? Maybe you have a problem with men and need a little self introspection Kathy. I have two grown daughters that would disagree with you. My wife is dead.

My concerns are valid and they are legitimate. Why else would I express them?

No matter how much you try, equal rights for homosexuals, simply does not rise to the nobility of racial equality. Maybe it is because you and others here do not define what laws you want enacted. What is it specifically that you want? What little that has been described in detail I have largely agreed with! However the fact is, sexual proclivity remains a choice, nothing has been proven otherwise. People choose to have sex with whom they wish. Your arguments are vague.

No, you want something else. Something more. You want to take something away. I really want to know why you want to force a decadent sub cultural upon people whom are disgusted by it. I really do Kathy. I really really do.

I just cannot understand why these people do not understand what you are telling them. It's as though they envision a world that cannot possibly exist and demand it now! They want some science fiction writer’s imagined story and have actually stated as much above within these threads!

Since you may actually be as unable to see the offense you caused to KK as you seem, here's some help.

In the paragraph starting with "Kathy I do not know how many times...", you basically tell us all about your incredible power over women -- so strong that these silly creatures cannot help but come up to you and press their lips to you with no provocation. Then you let us know how incredibly magnanimus you are, how much manly awesomeness you embody due to your ability to refrain from sexually harassing women. This, you tell us, is why men are so very awesome. Sprinkled in there is that lovely pre 18th century characterization of women as the "weaker sex". (Jeez, does anyone actually still use that phrase? Didn't we all decide that was bullcrap many, many years ago?) Your awesome manliness and those silly women who can't help but throw themselves at you somehow make some larger point about gay people in the armed forces?

So yes, condescending. I'll add self-aggrandizing and off-topic.

"Heterosexuals and gays live and shower together now. That is the current status quo. Several people have mentioned this several times each, and you have yet to address it."


Ok, here goes.... I'll give it a shot.

First of all to address you assertion that the "don't ask don't tell policy is the same as was used against black in the military. That is not the same. Try as you might, it is not the same. Blacks, Asians, and Whites are human beings born into that race through no choice of their own. The decision of where to put your genitalia is a choice and is nowhere even close to being the same as racial civil rights. Even the black community (as a whole) is against this assertion. All men are, indeed, created equal. Choices of men are not equal.

As far as the working and living side-by-side issue. I HAVE addressed it. If you allow openly gay individuals to shower with men; then you must allow heterosexuals to shower with women. I did not presume the intent of any individual in a shower (other than to get clean); but if you allow one you must then allow the other.
Also, the underlying purpose behind the segregation of gays in the military, or DADT, is unit cohesion. This was a major concern for the inclusion of women in ground combat. But, after a culture-shift period, most women became another soldier and "just one of the guys" - a member of the team. However, as secret or even rumoured sexual acts became more prevalent, unit cohesion can begin to break down. Entire units' effectiveness can be destroyed with one sexual act. The same will be the case with openly gay men. Secret and even rumoured sexual acts between same-sexes will double the chance of cohesion loss. This was not an issue when there was an all-male military. Am I saying that women should not serve? Absolutely not. Am I saying homosexuals should not openly serve? Absolutely not. I am saying that if our military effectiveness is your goal; then you must consider unit cohesion. Without it no military organization can exist. However, if getting your political ideals met at the expense of our military is your goal; then I wish you would look elsewhere for your social experiment.

Exodus 20:16 - Ninth Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigbor.

Leviticus 18:22 - another commandment: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


It is odd how you pick and chose which commandments to believe.

Dang, brother!

You kind of hit that on the nail.
I do not hate homosexuals, but I do not like the lifestyle choice. What they chose to do is their business - it does not effect me personally. But for the left, like Kathy and the rest, they want the rest of us to celebrate what we God and biology has taught was wrong.

As I've said in many threads, I have met homosexuals in the military, and their performance was awesome. But this isn't about work ethic here. If the military asks men and women to embrace that which is diametrically opposed to the faith of the vast majority, it will be met with resistance. And resistance to a fellow soldier do to his personal choices is not something that brings unit cohesion.

Of course, we could outlaw Christians and Jews serving in the military. That would solve the problem.
(just kiddin')

ordinarysparrow, very interesting (the comments about men checking each other out). Thanks!

Aparently, it's back to the showers (with gays) again. So let me again point out that soldiers have no problem being with a gay soldier in a foxhole while being shot at by, and while shooting at the enemy, and totally trust they gay buddy in the foxhole with his life. But is is a BIG problem taking a shower in the same shower room as a gay soldier---whether he knows that that soldier is gay or not. What is that brave soldier afraid of? As someone said in one of these threads something like, just let a gay person look funny at me and I'll knock him flat on his ass, or something to that effect. Whys is that same, big, brave man afraid of taking a shower with a gay soldier...Just confused.

What "power over women". You have never been spontaneously kissed by a woman? Pity you. Are THAT repulsive physically and emotionally?

It quite is apparent how you hate normal people with your childish accusatory analogies. What you want is a reaction that you shall never get. Rather humorous the fairytale dance you attempt.

I consider it an inalienable right of all men NOT to be forced to shower with know homosexuals. I have no idea how women think about showering with lesbians Similar I would imagine. I shall make a point to ask. Maybe there should be a third gender established? Indeed homosexuality is a third entity.

It would appear that homosexuality is a mere possibility exploited by those that choose the abnormal over the normal. The disaffected, disenchanted, deranged or whatever excuse you wish to choose or deny over the stupidity of “born gay”.

So give it to them! I don’t care. Just give me the right to deny, disallow, and, remain separated from them in mine and other people's private and business life and to discriminate, as we can now, according to our disgust or ambivalence. That is all that people want. Unfortunately that is exactly what you want to take away.

Some more on gay leaders in the military today...and tomorrow:

"Ultimately, homosexuals must be held to the same standards as any others. Homosexuals have successfully served as leaders. There are several anecdotal examples of homosexual combat leaders such as Antonio Agnone, a former captain in the Marine Corps. Though not openly gay during his service, he claims that “Marines serving under me say that they knew and that they would deploy again with me in a minute.”

"Others who have served in command positions have made similar observations that though they were not open about their orientation, they knew some of their subordinates knew or suspected, yet they did not experience any discrimination in disciplinary issues.

Homosexual leaders are predicted to be held to a higher standard where they will have to initially earn the respect of their subordinates by proving their competence and their loyalty to other traditional military values. The behavior of the next leader up the chain of command is expected to be critical for how subordinates will react to a homosexual leader."

On taking showers with gays:

While I may have been (a little) pooh-poohing some commenters' concerns about taking showers with gay soldiers, similar concerns were in fact raised when women were fully integrated (of course, with the exception of submarines---another story) in the military. Those concerns were resolved with women and can be resolved with gays:

"If the ban is lifted, basic respect of privacy will be required just as when women were fully integrated into the Services. Previously, the military found a lack of sexual privacy, as well as sex between male and females, undermined order, discipline, and morale. Dorm and facilities upgrades will no doubt be required. Sexual harassment regulations and sensitivity training would need to be updated, and guidance from leadership would be necessary. These would not be insurmountable obstacles."

Source: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/edition...

I know, sensitivity training sounds repulsive to an old fart like me, but we all have gone through it one way or another when our black brothers were integrated into our military; when African Americans were allowed to sit anywhere on our buses, or drink from any drinking fountain; when our universities were integrated; when women were allowed to serve on ships, etc., etc. I believe that the American people will survive this one also: when all vestiges of discrimination disappear from our military service---from our society.



Just a personal opinion...

"Just give me the right to deny, disallow, and, remain separated from them in mine and other people's private and business life and to discriminate, as we can now, according to our disgust or ambivalence. "

Thanks for being honest, FT.

But, being honest with you, I don't think anyone is trying to force you to take showers with known homosexuals, or to change your opinion that homosexuals are abnormal, or forcing you to associate with the "disaffected, disenchanted, deranged or whatever excuse you wish to choose or deny over the stupidity of “born gay”.

We are just expressing opinions that are different from yours.

That's really really funny, FT. I am a woman, you moron, and I have never spontaneously kissed men I don't know. I presume this is because I've never been in the same room as awesome, manly you. I took the same offense that Kathy did, and that any normal woman would take. Just for the record, there was nothing remotely analogous in any bit of my comment, so I really have no idea what "fairytale" you're talking about.

Of course I am honest.

Why would I be dishonest? What would be the point?

There was a time when I completely agreed with the gay rights movement.
As the years past, it became clear to me that LGBT people really do hate normal people and though patronizing it, do not appreciate heterosexual acceptance. Not even their advocacy. They in fact harbor resentment regardless of what you do for them. The more we learn about them the more their hatred for the opposite sex and those attracted to the opposite sex becomes visible. I won’t even get into the self loathing they express.

Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender

Please, this a psychosis, nothing less.

I rest my case.

"Of course I am honest.

Why would I be dishonest? What would be the point?"

The reason I said "Thanks for being honest," is that some try to camouflage their hate for and digust with homosexuals with various sophisticated, polite, nice and righteous-sounding philosophies, theories and subtleties.

While I don't agree with your views, I appreciate your honesty.

Back to showers again....

D.E.... You know I love you brother. I really enjoy your posts, and you seem like a person I'd like to have a coffee with and talk politics and such.

However... (isn't there always a 'however'?)

If you were to put a "brave soldier" into a room of axe murders, why would he be afraid then?
Men feel fear. Men feel all emotions. Bravery is no the only emotion soldiers feel.
I very rarely agree with Father Time on anything. But on this subject, somehow, he is correct.
People should expect some sort of privacy from POTENTIAL sexually prying eyes.

All of the commentators, including Kathy and Tidbits, have pointed out that gays shower with heterosexuals NOW..... so what's the difference? The difference is plain to see. You are consentually giving the go ahead for potential sexual contact in showers. It is identical to a hetero man showering with a woman. He SHOULDN'T be attracted to his fellow soldier/shipmate; but it is likely.

The only solution to this is not all-inclusion. You must make arrangements for separate facilities for gays. Otherwise, this issue will not go away.

JD: If taking showers with gays is such a big problem, I believe that I have acknowledged this in a previous comment:

"On taking showers with gays:

While I may have been (a little) pooh-poohing some commenters' concerns about taking showers with gay soldiers, similar concerns were in fact raised when women were fully integrated (of course, with the exception of submarines---another story) in the military. Those concerns were resolved with women and can be resolved with gays:

"If the ban is lifted, basic respect of privacy will be required just as when women were fully integrated into the Services. Previously, the military found a lack of sexual privacy, as well as sex between male and females, undermined order, discipline, and morale. Dorm and facilities upgrades will no doubt be required. Sexual harassment regulations and sensitivity training would need to be updated, and guidance from leadership would be necessary. These would not be insurmountable obstacles."

A little follow-up to my previous comment on the perceived necessity to modify or even make "separate facilities for gays"

While some probably would have favored such an approach in the past, it turned out that we did not have to have separate faciltities or units, or have to modify our military facilities to accomodate our black brethren (Although, shamefully, initially, that was exactly the case); we did not have to modify our buses or water fountains in order for our black brothers and sisters to use them; we didn't have to modify our schools in order for our African-American children to get educated in them....

Perhaps, some will say, it is different with our gay and lesbian service members...

D.E.

As I've pointed out in the past, gays are not the same as women and blacks.
You cannot choose to be black. You cannot choose to be a woman (without surgery).

The left seems to push that gays are born with that tendancy. Thus far, their attempts to scientifically prove that have failed. There is no gay gene. There is no physical "birth defect" that causes it. There is an entire heap of research that says that it is a "learned" trait. The nature versus nuture argument falls solidly on the nuture side for homosexuality.

With that said, you cannot equate homosexual inclusion with racial or gender inclusion in the military.
It's apples and oranges. Can gays defend their nation? Absolutely!!! But it cannot be done without forcing those who do not accept the lifestyle choice as the "right thing to do". Like I said, working together is one thing. It can and should be practiced in the private sectore. My corporation is addressing that now.
But in a forced living arrangement like the military demands; you must make arrangements for sexual privacy of heterosexuals. It would be unfair otherwise. And two wrongs do not make a right.

"They'd have to have their own sleeping quarters and their own showering facilities and bathrooms. There just isn't that much room on a ship or in a barracks."

Sure there is, we'll put it right next to the ones for blacks... Oh wait.

JD:

Could you provide us with some examples of the "entire heap of research that says that [homosexuality] is a "learned" trait.?

Thank you

Exodus 20:16 - Ninth Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigbor.

Leviticus 18:22 - another commandment: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

It is odd how you pick and chose which commandments to believe.

I could say the same to you, since you obviously believe that gay members of the military should lie about their sexuality.

Regarding the Leviticus 18:22 specifically, how about we turn to the next page -- Leviticus 20: 9-16:

If anyone insults his father or his mother, he shall be put to death; he has insulted his father and his mother -- his bloodguilt is upon him.

If a man commits adultery with a married woman, committing adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. If a man lies with his father's wife, it is the nakedness of his father that he has uncovered; the two shall be put to death -- their bloodguilt is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed incest -- their bloodguilt is upon them. If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -- their bloodguilt is upon them. If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is depravity; both he and they shall be put to the fire, that there be no depravity among you. If a man has carnal relations with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death -- their bloodguilt is upon them.

Two points here. The first is the punishment for these violations of God's law -- death, in every case. The second, related but larger point, is that all of these violations are equal in their heinousness. The text does not make any distinctions between any of these acts or single any one act out as more serious than any of the others. So why do *you*? Also, please note that, although many of these acts are criminal offenses today (incest, etc.), homosexual relations are not (anymore). Additionally, please note that the first offense in the second paragraph (marital infidelity, or adultery) is not against the law today -- and I doubt that too many people, even biblical literalists like you, would support making adultery a criminal offense. Obviously, the same is true of the commandment against insulting your father and mother, and the punishment -- death. Nobody would think of criminalizing insulting parents, although obviously one should not do it. I could be wrong, of course.

So, I just want to say that I think it's odd how you pick and choose which commandments you will take as seriously as the Torah takes them -- and why you apparently think that some are more sinful than others, although the Torah clearly does not.

Blacks, Asians, and Whites are human beings born into that race through no choice of their own. The decision of where to put your genitalia is a choice and is nowhere even close to being the same as racial civil rights.

If I understand you correctly, you are telling me that sexuality is defined by where you put your genitalia -- or, in more lay language, whether or not you choose to have sex. When a man has sex with another man, or a woman with another woman, they are homosexual. When the same two men and the same two women are not having sex, with anyone, they are heterosexual. Or maybe neither homosexual nor heterosexual.

By the same token, if a man in the military has sex with a female colleague on the job, they are both heterosexual. If the same man or the same woman is not having sex with the opposite gender, they are not heterosexual at that time.

Do I understand you correctly?

However, as secret or even rumoured sexual acts became more prevalent, unit cohesion can begin to break down.

Secret or even rumoured? Okay, so let me check out my understanding of this, too. If a sexual relationship in the military is happening, but no one knows about it except the two people involved (it's secret, e.g.), unit cohesion can begin to break down. So, then, that means that DADT is inadequate. Gays and lesbians must be banned from the military. They must not be allowed to serve at all, because even if no one asks and they don't tell, they are a danger to unit cohesion. I am still confused, though, because if I understood your first point correctly, homosexuals are not homosexuals unless they are having sex. So couldn't you just have a no-sex-on-the-job policy for everyone, and then no one will be either gay *or* straight?

Am I saying homosexuals should not openly serve? Absolutely not. I am saying that if our military effectiveness is your goal; then you must consider unit cohesion. Without it no military organization can exist.

Wait a minute. Wait just a cotton-pickin' minute here. Do I get your drift right, here? Are you telling me you've changed your mind about DADT and you think it should be repealed?

If you allow openly gay individuals to shower with men; then you must allow heterosexuals to shower with women. I did not presume the intent of any individual in a shower (other than to get clean); but if you allow one you must then allow the other.

I suppose this makes sense, given your belief that gay individuals are not gay unless (a) they explicitly tell you they are gay; or (b) you catch them having sex.

Added: Wait. I just thought of something. Even if an individual explicitly tells you that he or she is gay, if they have not had sex with anyone on the job then clearly they are not gay. They are lying to you for some reason. So that raises the question: Is it okay for same-sex individuals to shower and bunk together if they are openly gay but haven't had sex, since they really aren't gay *unless* they've had sex?

We don't want the rest of you to celebrate what you believe is wrong, JD. We just want the rest of you to stop beating up and murdering people because they have chosen to live their lives honestly -- or even just because you think they might be one of those people who have chosen to live their lives honestly.

We just want the rest of you to step away from the doorway at the marriage license office and let the human beings you believe are wrong walk through the door. We just want the rest of you to stop spitting ugly hurtful words into the faces of the people you believe are wrong because they've chosen to live their lives honestly. We just want the rest of you to stop denying unwanted unloved children the chance to have nurturing, caring parents because you believe God did not make certain parents the way God actually did make them, that they "chose" to be the way God made them, and that there's something wrong with the way God made them. We just want the rest of you to stop firing and refusing to hire certain people because the way they came into this world is just not good enough for you.

You don't have to celebrate anything you don't feel like celebrating, JD, and you're not being asked to. The only thing you're being asked to do is to live your life being the person you are, and allow others to do the same.

And in case there is any confusion about any of the above, I will explicitly state that, although I have addressed all of the above to you because I'm responding to what you wrote, "all of the above" does not necessarily apply to you as an individual. But all of it applies as a general statement to people who believe that sexuality is a "lifestyle choice" with one "choice" being deemed superior to another.

"Aparently, it's back to the showers (with gays) again. So let me again point out that soldiers have no problem being with a gay soldier in a foxhole while being shot at by, and while shooting at the enemy, and totally trust they gay buddy in the foxhole with his life. But is is a BIG problem taking a shower in the same shower room as a gay soldier---whether he knows that that soldier is gay or not."~ DE Rodriguez
********
Here's the problem. In a foxhole getting shot at, sex is the farthest thing from anyone's mind. In the showers naked, sexuality is the nearest thing to the mind if any of the showerees are sexually attracted to their showermates. Sure, gays and straights shower together today and always have. The issue is that DADT means "Don't Ask Don't TELL". If you're unaware that your neighbor in the shower is gay, you don't get weirded out by him standing there. His private fantasies about you, if any, are just that PRIVATE. They don't get in the way of morale because they are not known.

This brings up a thing that has been on my mind for some time now with respect to sexual deviants in general. Part of their big deal is advertising their particular slant of deviation from sex for procreation. [Yes we all engage in sex for other than procreation, that's not the point I'm making]. They seem on a mission to advertise what it is they do behind closed doors. And that borders on exhibitionism.

There are no gay people. There are just people. Deviant sexuality occurs across all races and creeds and I do disagree with some who say it's a choice. At one point it may have been earlier in life but once conditioning fixates a certain association of orgasm with [object/behavior] then there is little that can be done to change it. Sex has no place in the military at all, especially in combat situations. So "telling" what deviant sex you engage in has a built-in disruptive factor. Don't look for DADT to change anytime soon therefore. I thought it was an excellent compromise to erstwhile witch hunts where suspected gays were ousted just for having a private lifestyle others didn't agree with. DADT is what allows them to serve their country honorably without causing undue disruption to others and undue discharge to themselves.

But as always, the sexual deviant crowd has to push push push a little farther than they should. It's the same thing with marriage. Marriage is a sexual relationship for the potential to create offspring between the two participants. It is what the majority of people have decided, in line with mother nature, is a normal sexual relationship that we want future generations to aspire to. If sexual deviants of the same sex want to live together let them do so. They just can't advertise to kids that their relationship is condoned by society. And this seems to REALLY piss them off. Which brings up another unsettling subject that centers also around inappropriate exhibitionism..

DADT applies to everyone, homo, hetero or whatever else you engage in behind closed doors. Any sexual inclination should never be discussed in the military by anyone.

"I'm sure combat will be the first thing on everyone's mind from then on. lol.."

"Sex has no place in the military at all, especially in combat situations. "

Again:

"In a survey of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that all agreed the decision to lift the ban on homosexuals had no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV rate among troops"

"There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly. In fact, the necessarily speculative psychological predictions are that it will not impact combat effectiveness."

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/edition...

There is no gay gene. There is no physical "birth defect" that causes it.

Homosexuality is not a birth defect. That's number one.

Number two, there does not have to be a gay gene. People do not directly inherit every trait via a specific gene. Personality is at least partially formed by inherited tendency. Both my parents struggled for all of their adult lives with depression and anxiety. I have struggled for all of my adult life with depression and to a lesser extent anxiety. Wow! Shocker, huh?

Tons of individual traits, both psychological and physical, are inherited indirectly, as tendencies. Personality style, body type, intelligence, all are indirectly affected by complicated genetic and innate factors that are not necessarily directly traceable to any one particular gene. Every parent knows that children are who they are, from the moment of birth and, although of course how parents raise their children as well as the larger environment influences what kind of adults children become, that only goes so far. Children in the same family, with the same parents, the same formative experiences, loved and treated the same, can be and often are complete opposites. Often one child will be much more like one parent than the other. There's very little if anything that parents consciously do, or can do, to change that. Handedness is inherited, not taught or learned -- but not by direct genetic factors. I am left-handed. My brother is right-handed. My father was right-handed. My mother was right-handed. My parents did nothing to influence these outcomes. Why am I left-handed. I just am. That's how I came into the world, although obviously it did not completely manifest for many years. Why am I such a solitary person, needing to be by myself so much, not enjoying parties or going out to clubs, finding it difficult to make friends? Did someone teach me to be that way? Maybe, to a certain extent -- my parents were both the same way. But how much of that can be attributed to learning? Not a lot, I suspect. My brother is not shy at all. He is very gregarious. He'll talk to anyone; he travels all over the world for his work (radio journalism). I admire him and actually in many ways am awed by the things he does, but I could never be that way. Why? We grew up in the same family, had the same parents, and were treated essentially the same way.

I could go on, but I don't even know why it's even necessary to explain these things. I don't know how a person, any person, can survive to adulthood without knowing that human beings come into this world with all kinds of traits, characteristics, and tendencies that are not chosen, that are obviously part of who they are and have always been, and that cannot in any way be directly traced to any one specific genetic factor.

The people I have known in my life who are gay have all known since they were very young that they felt different inside, even before they had a label to put to it. I remember one man I worked with for several years who was openly gay, had been for many years at the point I knew him, and told me that he had been aware of feeling different since he was four years old. Of course, he didn't think of that in a sexual way when he was four, or have a word to describe it. He just knew he felt something different about boys and girls, men and women, than he knew other boys around him did, than his parents did.

I don't even know exactly how to put it into words, but I know that from the earliest time in my life that I can recall, I had a different emotional reaction to males than to females. That's just the way it was. I didn't know or ask myself what it meant; it was just what it was.

Why is this so incredibly difficult to understand? It's obvious.

Your comments are conjecture Kathy.

People are not born gay, but if they were it would most certainly be a birth defect.

There is absolutely no biologically natural purpose for human same sex attraction.

You can write volumes until the cows come home but you will never make natural and normal what is unnatural and abnormal.

It would be an injustice if dadt was removed. In fact, I believe the law should go back to before dadt and eliminate even more protections for gays and lesbians entering the military. Is this hatred? Absolutely not. I feel exactly the same way about anybody entering the military with a psychosis, whatever the abnormality.

Today in the Austin American-Statesman on "Gays in the military," referring to Joseph Rocha's ordeal:


"Re: Oct. 13 commentary " 'Don't ask, don't tell' did not protect me."

Thank you for publishing Joseph Rocha's heartbreaking story.

It is the horribly-gone-wrong story of a young American whose only wish was to serve his country and whose only "problem" was that he is gay.

It is the result and the reality of legislation that allows gays and lesbians to serve in our military only on the condition that they keep their sexual orientation secret — in other words, as long as they deny and betray their dignity and integrity, part of their own being.

It is a story that cries out for changing the way we treat gay and lesbian Americans, not just in the military but also in our entire society."

and,


"It was the most moving and articulate account I have read of why "don't ask, don't tell" is not working.

We send our children to foreign lands to protect others from abuse and oppression and yet we can't protect them from abuse and degradation in our own military. We need to stop the bullies who occupy space in the military, regardless of their rank.

It is time to let our gay and lesbian soldiers serve openly and with dignity.

Phyllis Ringdahl

Round Rock "

Thank you for quoting the Bible, Kathy (even if you only bring it up to defend unGodly behavior)
And thank you for bring up the "shall be put to death" illustration.

Death is NOT a violation to God's law. Being put to death by AUTHORITY (government,etc) is not a violation (Leviticus and Romans states this explicitly). Individuals committing murder is a violation of God's law.

I take them ALL seriously. A lie is as bad as murder in God's eyes. Jews and Christians have little-by-little abandoned one after another commandment. "God surely doesn't want THAT." Putting human thoughts into the Creator is wrong. He has a reason for everything that YOU don't think is right or fair. If all of us took the Law a bit more seriously, the very problems we discuss would not exist.

Once again, Kathy.... You cannot have everything both ways. With all due respect, you claim Judaism. Fine. Judaism specifically outlaws homosexuality - yet you defend it. It specifically condemns murder - yet you defend it. You are a walking contradiction. Get your own act together before you ever try to tell me what I take seriously in terms of my God.

Indeed, I will, D.E.
I've got all of my research on my hard-drive.
But before I go through the time and effort to bring it to you, I must first know one thing:
If I show you proof, will it change your mind?

If not, I will not waste my time or yours.

"If I understand you correctly, you are telling me that sexuality is defined by where you put your genitalia "

Why yes, Kathy, it is defined that way. Sexuality is a choice. I COULD give into all sorts of urges. Being a sentient being, I choose not to. If you are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, you are heterosexual. If you are sexually attracted to the same sex, you are homosexual. I didn't invent those terms, Kathy.


"The only thing you're being asked to do is to live your life being the person you are, and allow others to do the same"
That is not at all true, Kathy, and you know it. I am not asked to just live my life. Because I cannot watch television, read a book, or persue any other form of entertainment without it being FORCED down my throat. Liberals like you are attempting to subvert the very fabric of our nation by saying "what was once bad in God's eyes is now good". You don't attempt to just put out a "gay" movie that no one will go see (except in your liberal alcove). You choose to put little subtle snippets into everything that we moderate and socially conservative people see. That is complete and utter horse crap.

You defend the gay community from being persecuted. That's great. But you won't say a danged thing about the subversive persecution of Americans of faith. You attack us at every corner, and that's ok with you. I think I'd rather be beaten in Queens - at least it would be overwith quickly and I wouldn't have to fight it every single day of my life.

"I don't even know exactly how to put it into words, but I know that from the earliest time in my life that I can recall, I had a different emotional reaction to males than to females. That's just the way it was. I didn't know or ask myself what it meant; it was just what it was.

Why is this so incredibly difficult to understand? It's obvious."



I understand it perfectly, Kathy. It's called being "normal". That IS obvious.

And people telling you that they always felt "different", even when they were young is a typical psychological occurance of rationalization. When you do something that you or society deems as other-than-normal; you rationalize it. We ALL do this - it's a defense mechanism.

JD says:

"Indeed, I will, D.E.
I've got all of my research on my hard-drive.
But before I go through the time and effort to bring it to you, I must first know one thing:
If I show you proof, will it change your mind?

If not, I will not waste my time or yours"

JD, if you provide irrefutable scientific proof that homosexuality is a "learned trait," as you claim, of course it will have to change my mind on this one specific aspect of homosexuality. However you will never change my mind into believing that homosexuals are deviants, perverts, abnormal human beings not deserving of all the rights every other human being is deserving of---because that is not a matter of the brain, it is a matter of the heart, the human soul.

Thanks for the challenge. Look forward to it and to presenting my own research, if yours is not irrefutable..

But, please, don't do it just for me . Look at it from the standpoint that you will be pleasing validating and vindicating all those gay haters who are waiting with baited breath just for such "proof" to validate and vindicate their hate towards homosexuals.

And before you jump on your keyboard, JD, I do not consider you one of those. You have been one of the more evenhanded and reasoned persons opposing gays serving in the military.

Dorian

Dorian,

You got it, bro. It will take me a little while to gather. I've been researching this for years.
If I weren't so "new" to TMV, I would have had it "at the ready".

But know this. I do not hate homosexuals. I treat them equally as individuals - unless they're jerks, in which case I treat them like jerks - but that's the case with all people. I truly believe that you judge based upon a man's character as one of my heroes once said. The problem I wrestle with is the question as to if homosexuality is a character trait. THAT I do not know. Regardless of the answer, I will continue to treat ALL human beings with dignity and respect. I will not, however, allow any subculture to succeed in telling me that what they do should be embraced, celebrated, or forced upon me in every media outlet (as they are doing now). Want to be gay? Go for it. You can do whatever you want with your penis/vagina. I don't care. But don't display it as "acceptable" behavior to the vast majority of Americans who still practice faith in God.

(stay tuned for the research - and thanks for the kind words <edit)

Death is NOT a violation to God's law.

I'm not saying it is. I'm suggesting precisely the opposite. You are being inconsistent with respect to God's law. If you were consistent, you would support and work for insulting your mother or father to be made a criminal offense punishable by death. If you were consistent, you would support and advocate that the dogs in that video who were abused by humans simulating sex with them on camera be executed. And the humans too, of course.

With all due respect, you claim Judaism. Fine. Judaism specifically outlaws homosexuality - yet you defend it. It specifically condemns murder - yet you defend it. You are a walking contradiction.

I *am* a walking contradiction. So are you. It's called being a person living in the 20th or 21st century rather than two thousand years B.C.E. You single out one commandment from the Bible -- the one that tells males not to have sex with other males -- to support your condemnation of God's law and ignore dozens of others. Do you have permanent tattoos? Does your wife have pierced ears? Has your wife ever worn pantyhose or a pair of nylon stockings? Do you observe all of the laws for the Sabbath? Not cooking or heating up coffee or tea? Not using the refrigerator or the stove? Not turning on the tv or a light switch? Do you drive your car on the Sabbath? This is from memory; I could find literally dozens of others if I actually looked in my copy of the Bible.

You say that death is a violation of God's law "if it is done by authority -- government, etc." There WAS no "government" centuries before the birth of Jesus when the Israelites were making their way through the Sinai to Canaan. God was the authority, not government. The Bible says nothing about "government" because there was no government when the Bible was written. Yet you use the fact that death is not a violation of God's law today if it's done by "authority"; i.e., government. That doesn't sound like a religiously consistent position to me.

By the way, why are you using a computer on Sunday? That's a violation of God's law for observing the Sabbath.

Sexuality is a choice. I COULD give into all sorts of urges. Being a sentient being, I choose not to. If you are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, you are heterosexual. If you are sexually attracted to the same sex, you are homosexual.

You just totally contradicted yourself. Either you choose to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or it isn't a choice and you just *are* attracted. Which is it?

You say you could give in to all sorts of urges but choose not to. But you do *have* the urges. Do you choose to have the urges? Or do you just have them?

And another thing. Do you love your wife? Because you say that you are heterosexual because you are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and homosexuals are homosexual because they are attracted to their own sex. You say that sexuality is defined by which gender you choose to share your genitals with. There is absolutely no other conclusion one cam draw from this definition but that you are heterosexual because you have sex with women (one woman, in your case -- your wife), and that the fact you have sex with a woman is the entirety of what defines your sexuality. Are you heterosexual when you and your wife are not having sex? Did you marry your wife because you wanted to have sex with her? Are you in love with your wife? And what the heck could "being in love" even *mean* when sexuality is defined strictly by whether and with whom you choose to have sex?

I understand it perfectly, Kathy. It's called being "normal". That IS obvious.

You selectively choose which parts of an individuals inherent nature you consider normal and which you don't. You have no rational, logical, or scientific basis on which to conclude that being shy is an inherent part of an individual's nature, and same-sex attraction is not.

If you provide irrefutable scientific proof that homosexuality is a "learned trait," as you claim, of course it will have to change my mind on this one specific aspect of homosexuality. However you will never change my mind into believing that homosexuals are deviants, perverts, abnormal human beings not deserving of all the rights every other human being is deserving of---because that is not a matter of the brain, it is a matter of the heart, the human soul.

This is so beautifully said.

But know this. I do not hate homosexuals. I treat them equally as individuals - unless they're jerks, in which case I treat them like jerks - but that's the case with all people.

<extra-strong snark>What? No "turn the other cheek"? No "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?</extra-strong snark>

Kathy, since you have a copy of the Bible, you should know that we are now living under the new covenant under Christ. Christ, a Jew, was the last to be under the old covenant. Things changed after that time. Sabbath observances, animal sacrifices, and normal Jewish activity under the Levites ceased. Christ sent the Great Comforter (Holy Spirit) to his apostles, who then built His Church.

These apostles were given wisdom and miraculous ability to verify their claims. Some of this wisdom was to correct the many congregations who had instituted some of the old law - these were in the form of letters (Corinthians, Ephesians, and so on). In one of these letters, it states:

Romans 1:25-27: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Thus, under the Old and New Covenant; homosexuality is prohibited. Unlike the sabbath, which is only in the Old Convenant. The old covenant laws concerning approach to God was changed when Christ came on the scene.

"What? No "turn the other cheek"? No "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?"

I have NEVER mistreated a homosexual, Kathy. But you are attempting (I stress attempting) to bring Christ's words to back up your ideals. Your world view is not of the Bible. And that, Kathy, is the problem.

When I am wronged, I do, indeed, turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek does not mean to condone unGodly acts.

And as far as your statement that God does not authorize death for law breakers. Go read Romans 12 and 13. God takes his vengeance through government, and it specifical authorizes death as a form of punishment.

No matter how hard you try, Kathy, you cannot justify your secular-progressive beliefs throught the Bible. At least not the issues of homosexuality, abortion, and capital punishment. If you want to talk environmentalism and government programs; that's an entirely different situation.

Kathy,

Here's an interesting site you might like:

http://www.jonahweb.org/index.php
A site that is dedicated to Jewish homosexuals.

Tell me what you think.

Hi Kathy:

Thanks for your comment.

I have been closely following your comments and appreciate your sincere and strong support to challenge the views of some on homosexuality and homosexuals. For reasons I may share with you privately some day, I appreciate such more than you may think.

Perhaps we should wait now for JD to come up with his irrefutable scientific proof that homsexuality is a learned trait.

Thanks

Dorian

I did not say you had mistreated a homosexual, JD. You told me that you treat everyone equally unless they're a jerk, in which case you are a jerk toward them. My reply directly followed your comment, so I thought it was obvious what I was referring to.

I did not say that God does not authorize death for lawbreakers. I said that YOU do not advocate for lawbreakers (or you advocate selectively) to receive death, since that is God's law. This is the third time I'm saying this.

I'm not trying to justify my beliefs through the Bible. *You* are trying to justify, through the Bible, your belief that gays and lesbians should be treated differently in *secular* law. I am not arguing what the Bible says about homosexuality. I am arguing that *your* use of the Bible's position on homosexuality to justify unequal treatment in *secular* law is hypocritical and inconsistent, because you do *not* use the Bible to demand that secular law reflect all of the many, many other laws for and against various human actions, when those laws are considered utterly inappropriate in contemporary society (such as executing a person for insulting his or her parents or for having an extramarital affair).

It's unconstitutional to use the Bible as a basis for secular law in this country, but beyond that point, in addition to that point, even if we set that point aside, you advocate the *selective* use (VERY selective) of the Bible to justify *only* the laws and policies that reflect *your* prejudices/beliefs (take your pick). *That* is why I have been quoting the Bible to you, and not because I'm trying to make an argument about what the Bible condones or doesn't condone. That's a separate argument as far as I'm concerned.

"You told me that you treat everyone equally unless they're a jerk"

...and I must be the "jerk".....

....pardon while I refer to my god....Don Rickles.

humena humena humena.....humena....

Don says my work on earth is not yet done....

I have, actually, more than one copy of the Bible, including a Study Bible, several different editions of just the Torah, alone, with annotations (what Jews call the chumash) and probably about a dozen or so (maybe more) books about Jewish law and practice, history and culture. I have one volume of the Talmud (I'd love to get more but they're expensive), and several books on how to read and understand the Talmud. I even have a copy of the Christian Bible (NRSV), which of course includes the New Testament -- the Jewish Bible does not include that, and also orders the various sections/categories of the Bible differently.

I know what the New Covenant is. That's the basis for Christianity as a separate religion. Jews don't accept the New Covenant, of course, but that's fine. That's what freedom of religion is about. You have yours, I have mine. The only time I get testy about someone else's religion is when they try to use it to justify taking away my rights and the rights of others.

Just as a point of clarification, the New Covenant is not the reason (at least for Jews) why we don't sacrifice animals anymore. We don't sacrifice animals anymore because we no longer have the Temple (which was destroyed first at the time of the Babylonian Exile, then rebuilt, and destroyed a second and final time by the Romans in the first century C.E.) Animal sacrifice was done in the Temple and without the Temple we cannot do it anymore. (I hope you understand that I am explaining all this only in the context of what Jewish tradition says and the facts of our (Jewish) history, and not because I necessarily believe it myself. I'm not saying going back to animal sacrifice would be fine if the Temple was rebuilt.)

As for the fact of homosexuality being prohibited in both the Hebrew Bible and what you call the New Covenant, that's true from a strictly factual standpoint, but as I have indicated before, I don't use the Bible as a literal blueprint for my life and I don't advocate codifying the Bible into secular law. I am not a biblical literalist. I do not believe the Bible was written literally by the finger of God, and I do not believe that every word of it must be obeyed exactly as written in today's world. And the reason I do not believe that, JD, is because much of what the Bible says to do and not do is simply not appropriate in today's world. And that goes for the New Covenant as well. If you want to tell me that you obey, observe, and follow every single one of Christ's teachings, and that you observe the same Christianity that Paul and his acolytes observed, or that your Christian practice looks exactly as it did in Constantine's time, when Christianity formally emerged as a formal institutional religion (i.e., the Church), you are free to do that, but you'll have to forgive me if it makes me laugh.

"You just totally contradicted yourself. Either you choose to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, or it isn't a choice and you just *are* attracted."

That is NOT a contradiction. My natural instincts to BREED tell me that a woman is the correct CHOICE. Every animal on earth has that instinct. I can be tempted to explore alternative forms of sex with men, animals, children, a tree stump, or my hand. My CHOICE is not to give in to those wrong urges.


And your statement on law is totally incorrect.
You totally ignored my statement on the New Covenant and Old Covenant - or you don't care.
In the old covenant, Leviticus law was set up and adhered to. That law was to keep the Jewish order in tact until the Messiah came up through the lineage. Once that happened, the New Covenant was in effect.

In that New Covenant we are to obey the laws of the land unless they conflict with the laws of God passed forth under the New Covenant. In earlier times the Government consisted of Kings or Emporers. Today, it consists (in our case) of representatives elected by the people - WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

So in addition to conducting ourselves as Christian individuals; we must also obey the government. Since we are the government, we should not (as Christians) put unGodly laws into effect.

Once again, Kathy..... Your secular-progressivism is in direct contradiction to any Judeo-Christian faith you may claim.

"I do not believe that, JD, is because much of what the Bible says to do and not do is simply not appropriate in today's world. "

Perhaps that's why today's world sucks, Kathy. I truly believe that you love your fellow man, Kat. I truly believe that you have the best interests of our nation at heart. I've never doubted your heart or your intent.
But the abondonment of God is directly responsible for many of the problems we have in this nation. The secular-progressive movement is responsible for the breakup of the family; rising violence in our schools; increases in incarceration rates; rampant sexual deviation; and general acceptance of that which was once evil as a good and normal behavior.

And yes, Kathy. You can go ahead and laugh.
I do my best as a flawed human to obey EVERY SINGLE teaching of Christ.
I do my best to follow the example set by Paul and his "acolytes".
All Christians believed then. And slowly people like you, who are more wise than God, have taken away a small piece with every generation. And that destruction will not stop until you have destroyed God's word in its entirety.

And for your information. Constantine did not start Christianity. He merely brought it into the Roman Empire.
Christ started the Church in 33 AD.

Love ya. I really do.

JD,

I think that the premise of the site is one I have seen many, many times before -- that homosexuality is abnormal and bad; that it's learned behavior and not an innate orientation that encompasses the entirety of a person's self, and not just what he does with his genitals; that homosexuality can be unlearned, and that it should be unlearned, or "cured" as a disease would be cured; that homosexuals are invariably deeply unhappy with their homosexuality, don't want to be that way, were abused or rejected by their fathers, were allowed to play with dolls and other "girl toys" instead of trucks and toy guns as normal little boys were, etc., etc.

I clicked on a few of the links and read what was there. Some of the articles were written in a superficial language of compassion, but ultimately this organization is like all organizations that think homosexuality is simply a matter of learned sexual attraction to one's own gender and can be changed. It's a point of view that, aside from being untrue, is deplorable and potentially very harmful in its consequences.

You may be right about the link, Kat.
I do not proclaim to know their intent. The reason I posted it, was that it backed up a claim that I made on a different thread that homsexuals that I know, have turned away from it and lived happy lives.

People continually say that gays cannot help it. The above examples as well as those on the site prove otherwise. It is not the only organization of it's kind I've found. The research I promised Dorian is along the same lines, only the studies were done by psychologists and other disciplines. (That's coming Dorian...I promise).

The reason behind my blogging is not to convert people to my faith. The biggest reason I blog is to debate our government and democracy. You maintain that God has no place in a secular government. But as I've demonstrated in the past many times, the Founding Fathers did, indeed, address this very subject. They all, without exception, stated that we cannot exist as a democracy without God. I maintain that we are experiencing the problems we have by abondoning God. It's the same thing that the Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Webster, Washington, and all the others wrote about. Homosexuality is only one issue. Like the Bible (or Tora/Talmud), if we as individuals return to our Godly foundations, we will prosper as individuals. Likewise, if we return to our Constitutional foundation as intended by its founders; we will prosper as a nation - both spiritually and materially. The following post will be a repeat of their words.

A repost of why I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers wanted a government with God at its base - not a prescribed religion. This is the reason these issues (homosexuality, etc) keep getting debated. Dig into the intent of the Constitution and make our government adhere to it..


John Adams:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

John Quincy Adams:
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837

Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787

Alexander Hamilton:
For my own part, I sincerely esteem the Constitution a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." - 1787 after the Constitutional Convention.

Thomas Jefferson:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” - 1781

James Madison:
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” - 1778

Noah Webster:
No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” - 1828

George Washington:
"reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." - Fairwell Address.

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” - 1778

Thank you, Dorian. I appreciate your saying this. Anytime you want to share, privately or otherwise, feel free.

"A repost of why I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers wanted a government with God at its base - not a prescribed religion. This is the reason these issues (homosexuality, etc) keep getting debated"

Now, JD, that is quite a far stretch to try to link our Founding Fathers to denying homosexuals equal rights.

I am sure that many (not you) in the past have used the Founding Fathers and God to justify slavery and the ensuing discrimination of blacks and their segregation.

It is even a farther strecth to link the Founding Fathers and God to "Don't Ask, Dont' Tell legislation" (I know that there are some who object to it on a religious basis) and to permitting homosexuals to serve freely and openly in the military.

Just a thought.

I'll be on travel for the next couple of weeks, so you have plenty of time to do your research on the irrefutable proof that homosexuality is an aquired trait.

Dorian

My natural instincts to BREED tell me that a woman is the correct CHOICE.

Okay, so when you met your wife, you thought, "Wow! My natural instincts to BREED tell me that a woman is the correct CHOICE."

But let's say that when you met your wife, a flashing green light *did* go off in your mind's eye, screaming, "BREED! BREED! BREED!" Why that particular woman? Did she look like she'd be a particularly good choice for that purpose? Did you feel any love for her? At all? I asked you that question before; you didn't answer it.

Did you make sure she *could* breed before you married her? Or that you could? What if either one of you couldn't? Would you have decided not to marry her?

I suppose I have to consider the possibility that I'm weird or abnormal, but this is not how I felt when I married my now ex-husband. As it happens, he and I *did* breed. We had one child; she died when she was 3. We tried breeding again. Finally, I became pregnant with my now-20-year-old daughter. After that, we stopped breeding. Perhaps that's why we divorced. No purpose to the marriage anymore.

Then again, I did have one serious relationship after my marriage ended. I remember how I felt about this man, too. I didn't think "BREED! BREED!" Indeed, breeding was not a physical possibility for me anymore at that point. So I didn't think that. I didn't actually *think* anything. I felt. Magic, dizzy, dancing, eager to see him, my heart leaping when he came in the room. And you know it's a very strange thing, JD, but I did not choose to feel that way. You may disagree, but I was totally not in control of the way I felt. It was coming from deep inside. It wasn't a choice. Of course, I had a choice whether to act on the feeling, but acting on the feeling was not the feeling.

I think it would be very arrogant and wrong of me to assume that my feeling of falling in love was not chosen but someone else's feeling of falling in love, with another person of the same gender, *is* chosen.

You totally ignored my statement on the New Covenant and Old Covenant - or you don't care.

Relax, JD. First of all, you have totally ignored probably three-quarters of what I've written to you. Second, I did not ignore your statement on the New and Old Covenants. I acknowledged that I knew about them. But (a) I don't buy into all that stuff about the law being meant to keep the Jewish order intact until the Messiah came up through the lineage. That's Christian religious doctrine, and I, as you know, am Jewish.

In that New Covenant we are to obey the laws of the land unless they conflict with the laws of God passed forth under the New Covenant. In earlier times the Government consisted of Kings or Emporers. Today, it consists (in our case) of representatives elected by the people - WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

Yes, we *are* the government, and I agree. And our government was instituted by the Founders to implement and protect the inalienable rights that we are endowed with as human beings -- among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.I don't recall anything about Christianity or the New Covenant in there. And the word "God" does not appear once in the U.S. Constitution. And other founding documents where it does appear, it's always "God" or "the Creator" or "Almighty God" but never "Jesus Christ" and there's never any reference to specific religious dogma.

Since we are the government, we should not (as Christians) put unGodly laws into effect.

That's fine and good, but we are not all Christians, and those of us who *are* Christians are not all Biblical literalists. You are free as a U.S. citizen to work for or against any law you wish to, for any reason. If your support or opposition is informed by what you consider "Godly principles," that's your own conscience and your own religious beliefs. But not all Americans define their values in religious terms. Not all Americans who do define their values in religious terms have the same religious beliefs you do.

Let's get right down to it, JD. The Bible is a book. It's a book that is sacred to Jews and Christians, which (a) are specific religions and (b) are not the only religions in this country. It ultimately does not matter whether you think my values are not Judeo-Christian values or whether I think your particular Christian doctrine distorts and misunderstands the Bible's message. It doesn't matter that you know, with utter certainty, that abortion is murder because the Bible says it is, or if you, a fundamentalist Christian, tell me that Orthodox Jews abhor abortion and that only Orthodox Jews know anything about Jewish law and tradition. It doesn't matter if I know that the Bible does not mention abortion at all nor does it contain one single word that could indisputably be taken as referring to abortion. It doesn't matter that there is no single specific Jewish position on abortion (or on anything for that matter, which is one of many reasons I love Judaism and being Jewish), that the stance taken toward abortion in Jewish tradition is far more nuanced than the Catholic or fundamentalist Christian position and that even Orthodox Jews (most of them) would agree with that. You know next to nothing about Judaism or how Jewish law has worked in practice through the centuries or how the Jewish tradition resolves religious questions or even what the term "Jewish tradition" means. And truth be told, I know next to nothing about Christianity, either, except that it's not monolithic.

But all of this matters, ultimately, not at all in the context of our government and our Constitution. And why doesn't it matter? Because, ultimately, as I said above, the Bible is a book of faith and religious doctrine and belief. It's not a Constitution. It's not a textbook. It's not a peer-reviewed journal. It's not a work of academic scholarship. It's a religious text. And as such, it deals in beliefs, not facts. By definition. The Bible, as are all religious texts, is meant to provide spiritual guidance for individuals who want to find their own personal answers to life's uncertainties and mysteries -- or if not answers, then ways of understanding the uncertainties of life that make sense to them. The Bible is not for making law in a secular, pluralistic democracy.

So all of our argument here is really essentially a moot point. You can tell me that God's law is all there in the Bible, stated as clear as crystal until the cows come home (to repeat that wonderful expression). And I understand that you deeply and sincerely believe that. But, in the context of U.S. law and government under our Constitution, you are wrong.

Kathy, this is one of the most sincere, candid, personal and reasoned posts I have read in a while.

Very sorry about the loss of your first child. I know that your daughter makes you very happy.

Thanks for sharing such personal and touching life experiences.

Dorian

Constantine did not start Christianity. He merely brought it into the Roman Empire.

He started it as a formal institution, via the Church. I agree the religion itself predated the founding of the Church. And this is: historical fact.

Christ started the Church in 33 AD.

This is religious belief. It is not historical fact.

For the first 100 years, at least, after Christ's time, Christianity was a sect within Judaism -- i.e., followers of Christ called themselves "Jewish Christians" (or whatever the equivalent was in Aramaic or Greek or Latin).

This is historical fact.

Thank you, Dorian. I appreciate that.

"Christ started the Church in 33 AD. This is religious belief. It is not historical fact. "
No it is not "religious belief". Christ stated this explicitly to Peter "...my rock. Upon you I will build my Church". Constantine did make it an 'institution". Once again, institutionalized "religion" is not a good thing; just look at Iran currently, Spain during the inquisition, or Britain during the crusades.


And as far as your "historical fact" goes about Christianity:
Some of the followers of Christ were Jewish. Paul brought it to the gentiles; where they practiced as Churches in Corinth, Collossi, Ephesus; Laodacia; Rome; and elsewhere. The book of Hebrews was addressed to the Christian Jews, most of the rest were addressed to the Gentiles.
So your "historical fact" is false.

"But let's say that when you met your wife, a flashing green light *did* go off in your mind's eye, screaming, "BREED! BREED! BREED!" Why that particular woman? Did she look like she'd be a particularly good choice for that purpose? Did you feel any love for her? At all? I asked you that question before; you didn't answer it."

I'll answer it now. My wife was there at the time of my instinct to breed. And yes, that instinct tells me "woman". Homosexual behavior is learned early on from a myriad of social and emotional occurances, when the "BREED BREED" instict comes on after puberty; the social/emotional path becomes sexualized and they mistakingly think "BREED" WITH A MAN. The correct animal urge is there, but it is projected upon whatever was conditioned to be attractive to them. It happens with heterosexuals as well. Some men like big breasts, so men like shapely legs, some men like overweight women, some like masculine women, and so on. These likes and dislikes are learned from childhood, through to puberty and beyond. It's why most men end up with a woman somewhat like their mother in many ways (Freud). My wife has many of the same qualities of my mom. She also has a few qualities of my father (strong and independent). That is what formed my opinion of my wife. When I met her, and courted her; I knew she would be a good wife, mother, and sexual partner. She was the entire enchilada. Homsexuals have this urge as well, only they know that they cannot procreate, so they must adopt. But there attractions are more based upon their childhood than you will ever give credit to.


And as far as not answering questions goes.... You didn't answer mine on the Founding Fathers' intent with the Constitution.

"Christ stated this explicitly to Peter "...my rock. Upon you I will build my Church". "

JD, I just want to point out that this proof doesn't mean anything if you don't believe in the infallability of the Bible. You can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true, and you can't coerce people who are Jewish to accept the New Testament by pointing to the New Testament as proof. In many places in the Book of Mormon, it states that if you believe in the God and stories of the Bible, then you must believe in the God and stories of the Book of Mormon. That "proof" is only proof if you already accept the Book of Mormon is true.

This is the same logic that Justices use in legislating the Constitution. "The Constitution isn't infallable".

I am a Christian. Thus I use the Bible on how to live my life. Christians are supposed to do that. And the supposed Christians that embrace homosexuality are not living by the very book they claim there faith is based upon.

It's like saying, "I'm an envrionmentalist, but I hope all of the lakes die due to acid rain." If you adhere to a document as a foundation of your belief (the Bible) or as the foundation of your nation (the Constitution) then you should adhere to it with all of your soul and ability. You cannot be revisionistic and attept to say that God didn't have "today's world" in mind; or "the Founding Fathers didn't intend that.". It is revisionistic and wrong. If you don't like what the Bible says, turn from it and be lost spiritually. If you don't like what the Constitution says, dispose of it and we'll try something else. But please don't say that you can do, say, or belief anything you want and still be Christian. That is nowhere to be found in any document.

"This is the same logic that Justices use in legislating the Constitution." Yes, but basing law upon the constitution was a *decision* made by the founders of the country, and for better or for worse, it is still decided that we as a country will continue to base law upon this document. The Constitution is neither "true" nor "untrue", it was simply made up by those who wrote it, and nobody has ever tried to deny that. It is and always was a given that there will be times when the constitution needs to be amended, and it will need constant reinterpretation -- and it has been. That is absolutely not the case with the Bible, so your analogy doesn't really make sense.

"Christians are supposed to do that."

Yes, but non-Christians aren't!

"If you adhere to a document as a foundation of your belief (the Bible) or as the foundation of your nation (the Constitution) then you should adhere to it with all of your soul and ability."

Nobody's saying you can't. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. What I was saying was that someone who does not believe the Bible is the literal truth will not take as "fact" the things that are said in the Bible. In the argument that I quoted, you were trying to prove to Kathy that Jesus' starting the Church in 33AD was a historical fact by pointing to a passage in the New Testament -- a document which Kathy has already stated numerous times that she does not believe as fact.

Look at it this way. Let's say I find written on a piece of paper: "Jefferson Davis was born in 1996. This statement is true." You say, "no, I wasn't born in 1996, it's not true". I then say "it has to be, it's written down on this piece of paper." If you don't believe that the paper has any value, then the statement on the paper that the statement is true doesn't matter at all. Do you see what I'm saying? That's it, nothing about which people are and aren't Christian, nothing about the Constitution, nothing about whether or not it's good or bad that you live your life according to the Bible. Just simply pointing out that you can't use a book that Kathy doesn't believe in to make a point about that book.

JD,

First of all, before I challenge what you wrote, I want you to know that, normally, I would never do this. I never argue with people about their religious beliefs from a true/false perspective. Your beliefs are your beliefs, and if you tell me that a particular religious belief you hold is a historical fact, and I know that not to be true, I wouldn't argue with you about it. Why should I? You have the right to your own beliefs, and in and of themselves they don't harm me.

However, you are using religious beliefs that you tell me are not religious beliefs, but fact, to argue for taking away the civil and human rights of gays and lesbians.If a person cannot objectively distinguish between religious belief and historical fact, that's one thing. It's not my place to tell people they're wrong about something they believe as a matter of faith. But when a person blurs or ignores the objective distinction between religious belief and historical fact in order to argue for making secular law on the basis of specific doctrinal religious beliefs, then I call foul.

Getting back to your statements:
No it is not "religious belief". Christ stated this explicitly to Peter "...my rock. Upon you I will build my Church". Constantine did make it an 'institution". Once again, institutionalized "religion" is not a good thing; just look at Iran currently, Spain during the inquisition, or Britain during the crusades.

In the New Testament, Christ stated this, right? In the Bible. In the Bible, JD. The Bible is a religious text, NOT an historical document that can be independently and objectively confirmed.

Look, JD, whatever you happen to think, I regard the Bible to be filled with divinely inspired wisdom and truth. Truth is not the same as historical or scientific fact, though. And I recognize that. You, apparently, cannot distinguish between belief and verifiable fact, or between "truth" (as in larger truths that we feel are correct and good and true because they are consonant with our deepest values) and True/False (as in verifiable fact).

You cannot use the Bible as historical fact, JD, because it's not a textbook. It's a religious text, and as such, inherently and by definition not verifiably true or false. And that's a fact.

Some of the followers of Christ were Jewish. Paul brought it to the gentiles; where they practiced as Churches in Corinth, Collossi, Ephesus; Laodacia; Rome; and elsewhere. The book of Hebrews was addressed to the Christian Jews, most of the rest were addressed to the Gentiles.

At the start, all of Christ's followers were Jewish, JD, because there was nothing else. Christianity came out of Judaism. Paul's early efforts at conversion were directed at the Jewish community of that time, and they weren't attempts to "convert" in the contemporary sense of that word. He was trying to get Jews of his time to accept and believe in Christ's teachings, as Jews. He did start reaching out to other groups, to Gentiles, over time, because obviously not all Jews were going to accept the new theology Paul was preaching. The Gentiles whom he converted were the first non-Jewish Christians, and over time, that's how Christianity became a separate religion. There was a tension between the Jewish community, Jewish followers of Christ, and gentile converts that Paul used to inform his arguments in the Jewish community. You can *see* that in the very biblical text -- Romans -- that you quoted from to me. Paul goes on and on talking about circumcision and trying to make a case that circumcision is no longer required or necessary for Jewish converts, basing that argument in part on the fact that non-circumcised gentiles were becoming Christians.

Okay, I have to go return a book to the library now, so I'll end here for now.

You didn't answer mine on the Founding Fathers' intent with the Constitution.

I'm sorry; I thought I had. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with Enlightenment principles in mind -- which "is a term used to describe a time in Western philosophy and cultural life, centered upon the eighteenth century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source and legitimacy for authority. [Wikipedia, Age of Enlightenment]

As a point of interest, we are no longer living in the Age of Enlightenment. The Enlightenment idea -- that logic, rationality, deductive reasoning, the intellect and intellectual processes should inform human authority and government, as opposed to superstition or religious dogma or divine edict, is very much not the contemporary zeitgeist. If the Constitution were to be written today, it certainly would reflect a fundamentalist, biblically inerrant religious doctrine much more than it does now (it doesn't now, at all).

Times and fashions change. But I still think the Founders' way was the correct one. I shall continue to cling to it for dear life against the tidal forces of religiously inspired intolerance, ignorance, and unreasoning fear sweeping over us today.

Um, the Constitution *isn't* infallible. Have you checked it out lately? There are a few amendments in there. And there's a whole legal process for amending the Constitution that the Founders put in there. Plus, there's one specific amendment that says nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution regarding rights should be taken to deny the existence of other rights that may not be explicitly mentioned.

If we were to suggest taking this approach with the Bible, I imagine you would probably have some objections.

Nobody here has said that you can do, say, or believe anything you want and still be Christian. Here's the thing, though. The Bible is wildly inconsistent. It's full of contradiction and paradox. Human beings in the Bible commit sinful, immoral, wicked things all the time, with God's full approval. Deception, murder, political intrigue, betrayal, incest, rape -- they are on almost every page in one way or another and they are rewarded, if not at once then over time. You should take a look at Jonathan Kirsch's book, The Harlot by the Side of the Road. It's about exactly this truth about the Bible. In fact, as a broad overarching message, one of the most obvious ones to come out of the Bible is that God has larger purposes in mind, and you cannot always judge human behavior by narrow, moralistic principles. If it were not for Tamar (the harlot by the side of the road of the title of Kirsch's book), who deceived her father-in-law into sleeping with her; or Rahab, also a prostitute whose life Joshua spared when he slaughtered the Canaanites, in return for her helping him, there would never have even been a Jesus Christ to be arguing over right now.

My wife was there at the time of my instinct to breed. And yes, that instinct tells me "woman". Homosexual behavior is learned early on from a myriad of social and emotional occurances, when the "BREED BREED" instict comes on after puberty; the social/emotional path becomes sexualized and they mistakingly think "BREED" WITH A MAN.

Okay, so love was not a factor for you in deciding to marry. It was more of a pragmatic business decision. If that's the way you roll, that's your business. I happen to think it's one of the most bizarre rationales for marrying, or for choosing a life partner, that I've ever heard in my life, but that's me, not you. You should realize, however, that there are many people out there, both gay and straight, who do fall in love and who do believe that romance, love, and emotional attraction are as important as other factors in deciding whether and who to marry. The instinct to "breed" is strong, primal, and isn't going away because if it did we would not survive as a species, but that doesn't mean everyone has to "breed." And in fact everyone doesn't. And I can say with deep conviction that, as a general principle, a world of human breeders devoid of love would not be worth living in.

How in God's name do you set standards? You just told me that nothing on paper is fact.

The Bible was written to be the standard for Christians to live by. Is that a fair statement?
Little by little, denominations, humanists, and atheists have whittled away portion after portion of "accepted fact" until all that is left is sloshy interpretation and asinine assertions that "everyone is right, no one can be wrong". You cannot have a nation of 300 million people, with 300 million different ideas of what is right and wrong and expect to legislate it successfully. You have to have a common ground. Since 79% of this nation claims Christianity, this would mean that they should have a common moral fiber but different worship practices. I stress "should".

The founding fathers knew this and stated it in most of their writings on this very topic. The US Government was not to prescribe a religion (1st Amendment), but they knew that an abandonment of God (as the left is doing currently in their embrace of humanism) would crush our democracy.

And all can be Christians. We all fail to live up to Christ's example - some of us more than others. But it is our duty as Christians to recognize these failings, repent, and do our best to correct them. Otherwise, if you do not accept the regulations/commands from the Bible, then why call yourself Christian? Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha. If they veered from those teachings (which they take as fact), then you no longer are a devout Buddhist. Likewise with Islam and the Q'uran, and Jews with the Torah.

Kathy, I did not use religious beliefs to prove fact. I used HISTORY to prove fact about the creation of the Church. Christ and his apostles are historical figures and show up in secular historical writings. These things aren't just beliefs. They happened. The belief comes in with the resurrection and ascention into heaven. The belief comes in with miracles. History has recorded and verified the dating of the Church, Christ, and the travels and teachings of the apostles.


"In the New Testament, Christ stated this, right? In the Bible. In the Bible, JD. The Bible is a religious text, NOT an historical document that can be independently and objectively confirmed"

Oh my sweet word!!!! You're killing me. Prove to me that Constantine existed Kathy. Have you met him? Is there a TV show starring Constantine? No. There is historical DOCUMENTS, Kathy. Do you believe those? If so, why do you believe them? Do you believe that Eric the Red existed? Why?
Are you telling me all written history is no believable? And for your information, the events of the Bible are recognized as historical fact - not the miracles and the issues that require faith; but the people places and times are recognized world-wide - it is the most comprehensive historical document of the period. Josephus also is a noted historian of Biblical times, as are many Roman historians. All validate the existence of Christ, the creation of his Church on 33AD, and the work of the Apostles.
Go check them out. But I don't see a point, since you won't believe any written history.

And for your information, the 4 Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written from 40AD to 90AD. Constantine was born 27 February, 272AD and died on 22 May 337AD. The builders of the Church were the Apostles. The implementor of the institution was Constantine. This IS historically accurate.


And you are absolutely correct about Paul. He tried to preach the Word to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles when they blew him off. Many of the Jews tried to reimpliment the old laws and traditions (circumcision, certain foods, and even polygamy). As you correctly said, these are evident in some of his letters. The "greeks" (anyone not Jewish) were addressed in the rest of the letters.

The fact of the matter is (yes I said fact) that both old and new testament prohibits homosexuality. Rationalizing cannot take that away. Anyone could possibly make a point to allow just about anything under the sun and say "well God didn't intend that for today's world". That is a cop-out. God sees all things and through all times (per the old and new testament). Times have not changed as your assert that they have. Homosexuality is not new. Adultery is not new. Murder is not new. Covetousness is not new. The only new things are technology and the acceptance of those behaviors as "ok".

I'm glad you'll be clinging to the Constitution. Leave some room for me. I'll be doing the same.

I realize the Age of Enlightenment was in play. I also realize that they made the Constitution as a generic document and it was to be amendend as the country changed. My point was that each of the Founding Fathers wrote about the danger of kicking God to the curb. That's what the quotes from them were for. No one seems to want to acknowlege that. They explicitly stated that our nation would not and could not succeed without God - not Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism - but just plain God.

And the reason i mentioned that in the first place, is that the embracing of homosexuality is against every single one of those faiths (Buddhism I think - you'll have to check me on that one). Embrace that which God stands against and you turn your back on Him. You are either for Him or against Him. Hot or cold - there cannot be a lukewarm in this (His words not mine).

"Nobody here has said that you can do, say, or believe anything you want and still be Christian. Here's the thing, though. The Bible is wildly inconsistent. It's full of contradiction and paradox"

That is a misconception. The Bible is not contradictory and paradoxical. It is when you approach it from a denominational standpoint, or a Jewish one. But if you take the Bible and study it comprehensively, you will see that it is in no way contradictory. Many portions are literal, some contextual, and some figurative (usually in the form of parabels).

And John Kirsch, I'm quite certain, is not a better insight than Christ. I guarantee it. There are many books that take a leak over the Bible. There are many humanists that do their best to belittle and discredit the Bible. I'm sure that none of them (to my knowledge) have comprehensively studied God's Word. I have. I have also studied the archeology and historical accounts. It all gels. Even science gels with God's word - assuming, of course, that the scientist isn't a biased atheist.

I knew my wife as a child, then I moved away. I came back 10 years later and we became friends but never dated. We ended up together at prom. Shortly thereafter I joined the Navy and I got married to someone else when I was 18. It was stictly lust and I really just wanted to be married. I came from parents with a very loving relationship, and I wanted that too - even if it was the wrong woman. When I returned from Desert Storm, I was ready to settle down and raise a family (I wasn't getting any younger). Fate had me running into her again and again. We started dating and hit it off. There was and is much love in our relationship. But the friendship was there already. There was no need for a "business decision". We already had the history.

And you know danged well I didn't mean a world without love. Nice twist of words, though.
The instinct to BREED is there, whether we want it or not. It develops out of puberty and acts upon the learned attractions you have up to that point. Of course "business decisions" (as you put it) come to everyone's thoughts. Will he/she be a good parent? Will he/she abuse me? Does he/she make me laugh? And so on. Unless, of course, you meet someone and instantly go to Vegas. Because of the likes and dislikes as a child, you already know what you want to be with when that "BREED" urge hits. I knew it was my wife. Homosexuals know it is a certain kind of person of the same sex.

EDIT: You are correct in a way. At that point, they appear to have no choice. They want what they want and that is their business. HOW they got to that point is the main contention. It's not born, it's learned.

Christ and his apostles are historical figures and show up in secular historical writings.

Which secular historical writings? Name them and/or link to them.

History has recorded and verified the dating of the Church, Christ, and the travels and teachings of the apostles.

Where? Other than religious sources?

Prove to me that Constantine existed Kathy. Have you met him? Is there a TV show starring Constantine? No. There is historical DOCUMENTS, Kathy.

We know that Constantine existed because there is a vast body of primary source and scholarly documentation and information, both ancient and modern, from historical as well as religious sources, spanning the 18 or so centuries since his time, that testifies to his existence. Show me the equivalent for Jesus and the apostles.

Are you telling me all written history is no believable?

As per above, clearly not.

And for your information, the events of the Bible are recognized as historical fact - not the miracles and the issues that require faith; but the people places and times are recognized world-wide - it is the most comprehensive historical document of the period.

The events of the Bible are not recognized as historical fact. Certainly the events of the Bible take place in a larger historical context but that's not the same thing as the events and people themselves being actual, historical, real events and people. The Bible is mythology based on broad historical and cultural events, patterns, and practices, over a period of thousands of years. You cannot separate out individual events or people and say, This one is definitely really existed and this thing here definitely really happened, but this over here did not. For the record, I think Jesus did exist as a historical figure, or someone very much like him, but there is no actual independent, scholarly historical evidence to prove that he did. What evidence there is points to the strong probability that he existed, but he cannot be said to be a historical figure in the sense of we know he existed and can prove it.

The fact of the matter is (yes I said fact) that both old and new testament prohibits homosexuality.

The fact of the matter is (yes, I said fact, too) that this is a correct statement -- with the proviso that the prohibition is on homosexual behavior, not homosexuality. No one can prohibit homosexuality. That would be like me saying, "I prohibit that sofa over there!" The sofa is there; I can't prohibit it. I have clearly stated that I know the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior several times now. You're not grasping the distinction I'm making between the correct fact that the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior, and the incorrect conclusion that the bibllical prohibition against homosexual behavior means that gays and lesbians in our democratic, constitutional republic today, cannot or should not be given full civil, legal, and human rights equal to those of any other American. What the Bible says or doesn't say, prohibits or doesn't prohibit, is irrelevant to our democratic, secular form of government. Please don't come back at me again with the same bit about the Bible prohibits homosexuality no matter what my secular-progressive beliefs say, because your repetition of this undisputed statement is killing ME.

My point was that each of the Founding Fathers wrote about the danger of kicking God to the curb. That's what the quotes from them were for. No one seems to want to acknowlege that. They explicitly stated that our nation would not and could not succeed without God - not Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism - but just plain God.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with your apparent belief that there needs to be prayer in public school, and "In God we trust" on our money, and "one nation, under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance in order for God not to be "kicked to the curb." I truly don't understand that concept, to be honest with you. To me, God is big enough to still be there and available to anyone who needs to talk to God. I mean, what? Do you really think if there's no prayer or "moment of silence" in our classrooms, that God can't get into the room?

I mean, how exactly do you conceive of God, that you can entertain such a belief?

And the reason i mentioned that in the first place, is that the embracing of homosexuality is against every single one of those faiths.

And I'm telling *you*, once again, that it could not matter less if homosexuality is against 10,000 different faiths. Our government is not run according to religious doctrine.

both old and new testament prohibits homosexuality.

And one more proviso: the OT doesn't mention lesbianism. They probably didn't feel the need, as it wouldn't have compromised any woman's virginity (i.e., any man's property rights).

Well at least we're starting to understand each other. That's a refreshing change.

As far as the God on our money and pledge of allegiance or in school..... How does that effect you? You say you are of some sort of faith. Why, then does the name of God offend you? As I stated, over 80% of our nation calls themselves followers of God (that includes Jews and Muslims). God is not a four-letter word.

You may think that removing all references to God and actions of faith, under the guise of religious freedom, is good for our nation.

It didn't work for the Israelites, and it won't work for us. The founding fathers knew it as well.

Actually, the Bible IS contradictory and paradoxical. I agree that you can't take any one statement or event by itself and understand its meaning; you have to look at the larger context. But that doesn't mean that the Bible is not really contradictory or paradoxical, in my view. It just means that the contradiction and paradox has a meaning. It has a larger, meaningful message. I alluded to that in my previous comment.

And I wouldn't, if I were you, bet your next meal on the proposition that Jonathan (not John) Kirsch has not "comprehensively studied God's word." He's a well-known and widely respected Biblical scholar who has written several books on religious topics. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him, of course.

Possibly so, J. But it does say for a man to leave his parents and go into his wife. It is the only authorized bond between two adults. If you can show me another passage anywhere in the new or old testament where homoseuxality (which includes lesbianism) is condoned or authorized by God, please let me know.

We all seem to know what it says not to do in both old and new testaments. What we seem to have a problem with in this country (as well as Biblical Israel) is justifying behavior as "good and pure" that has been condemned by God. Kathy claims that the Bible is not for "today's world". That is complete and utter horse-crap. As I pointed out. The world hasn't changed. The same problems between people then, are there now. If people chose to live in accordance with their faith (truly, not half-hearted or pick-and-chose) then our nation would not have the problems it has.

"And I'm telling *you*, once again, that it could not matter less if homosexuality is against 10,000 different faiths. Our government is not run according to religious doctrine."

Then why is the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?
Why, also, does the Constitution declare, in words just above George Washington's signature, that the proceedings were "done ... in the Year of our Lord," which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ?
And why is Sunday set aside as a day of rest for the president in Article 1, Section 7?


Any comments? Why would THOSE things be in a purely secular document?

Thank you for opening up a little bit, JD. That first paragraph is poignant, especially the part about running into each other again and again.

I disagree that "the instinct to BREED" (caps, I don't know why) is always there. It's not always there. There are many couples who don't have and don't want children. It happens all the time. Not everyone wants children, JD.

It's not born, it's learned.

Well, apparently you believe that heterosexuality is learned, as well. I mean, you've certainly indicated as much in what you've written. I don't agree; I believe (with, I might add, a lot of scientific and real-life evidence to back me up) that "you can't control or choose your sexuality." But since you believe that gay or straight, sexuality is learned behavior, then why is your learned behavior better than someone else's?

"Jonathan Kirsch."
I'm sure he is, Kathy. My point was for anyone offering an opinion that goes against God's commandments or Christ's teachings - it doesn't matter. Everything I (or anyone) needs is in there already (kinda like Prego - ha).

As far as the paradoxical issue, I realize that many think it is just that. If you go to the hebrew (OT) or greek (NT), many of the interpretational differences can be eliminated. Like you, I have a plethora of religious documents in my own library - the Apocraphia - Greek Lexicon - etc - that I have done my research with. Taking the entire history from Adam to Abraham to Moses to Christ to Jefferson Davis and Kathy Kattenburg is amazing to me. In just never ceases to amaze me. I'm humbled and blessed to be a part of God's plan.

No problem about the opening up. I'm pretty much an open book.
As far as the breeding instinct (see I uncapitalized it) goes, even if people don't want or have the ability to have children, that instinct is still there.

And you are correct. Both are learned behaviors. Is one better than the other? Dangerous wording there Kat. Feels like a trap so I'll tread lightly. The only right or better light that can be shed on this is through faith. The reason I bring that up AGAIN, is that the vast majority of the world subscribes to a higher power. Here in the US, over 80% of us claim God as our god. He and he alone has made that decision for us. For the general public to accept and support openly gay behavior would be to not be true to that faith. Yes there are "christians" that believe a cornucopia of things contrary to the Bible - let's not go there again. But most believe in the Bible/Q'uran/Torah as written - the vast minority are of the type you mention.

As a Christian, I will embrace any individual as a brother. I will not, however, embrace their sin; nor should anyone embrace mine. If I sin (and I do), people that love me will bring it to my attention and call me on it. I then must turn away from it, confess, and sin no more. But make no mistake... Anyone who beats up or threatens should be punished - HARD.

All the OT sex and marriage rules have nothing to do with bonds between two adults. They're about civic obligation and property law, pure and simple, and the property in question was often well shy of what we would consider adulthood.

Seen in this context, the OT paints a picture of a society that didn't care much about homosexuality. Sex between women didn't matter at all, and sex between men mattered only to the extent it distracted them from their duty to marry, worship Yahweh rather than pagan idols, and sire kids who could help defend the beleaguered nation.

As for the new testament, we've got one rant from an excitable proto-televangelist, and dead silence on the topic from all four gospels and the savior.

You're obviously entitled to embrace the traditional anti-gay interpretation. Personally I find the scriptural support for it surprisingly thin.

As far as the God on our money and pledge of allegiance or in school..... How does that effect you? You say you are of some sort of faith. Why, then does the name of God offend you? As I stated, over 80% of our nation calls themselves followers of God (that includes Jews and Muslims). God is not a four-letter word.

"In God we trust" on our money doesn't bother me. Prayer in public schools does, because that's a violation of church and state separation. The word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does not offend me beyond the offense I take from the Pledge in general. I find the notion of "pledging allegiance" to a flag extremely offensive and authoritarian. It's a loyalty oath, and loyalty oaths are anti-democratic.

You may think that removing all references to God and actions of faith, under the guise of religious freedom, is good for our nation.

The above statement is not an accurate paraphrase of anything I have written here. Being opposed to forced, mandatory, prayer in public school classrooms or to other forced displays of religious belief in taxpayer-funded government institutions is not exactly equivalent to advocating the "removal of all references to God and actions of faith."

I do think it's bad for our nation for our government to promote religion and religious belief. I'm happy to keep proclamations of religious belief inside churches, mosques, and synagogues; in homes; and in privately funded religious schools.

It didn't work for the Israelites, and it won't work for us. The founding fathers knew it as well.

Talk about apples and oranges. The Israelites did not have government as we know it now, so separating religious life from public life was not an issue for them.

The founding fathers did not write government-funded prayer to captive audiences into the Constitution.

Kathy claims that the Bible is not for "today's world".

JD, that is a serious misrepresentation of what I've written here. I did not say what you wrote above. I'm not accusing you of lying about what I said, I just think you don't understand what I've said. You really, truly believe the above is the meaning of what I've said on this subject.

Stuff like this discourages me.

Then why is the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

Wha--? I really am flabbergasted, here. Are you really telling me that because the Declaration of Independence refers to "the Creator," that means the Founders believed that specific religious dogma should govern public life?

I'm sorry, JD. That is an astounding leap. It really is.

Why, also, does the Constitution declare, in words just above George Washington's signature, that the proceedings were "done ... in the Year of our Lord," which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ?

Ummm, maybe because that was a commonly accepted rhetorical flourish for ending written communications? Or maybe simply because it was a standard written convention at that time? I mean, obviously, it has religious connotations, but if that kind of thing is all you've got to "prove" that the Founding Fathers wanted the American political system to be run in accordance with Christian religious doctrine, or any specific religious doctrine, then I think you're really, really stretching.

And why is Sunday set aside as a day of rest for the president in Article 1, Section 7?

You've got to be kidding.

ADDED: You do know that the abbreviated form A.D. means "Anno Domini" -- in English, "the year of our Lord" -- don't you? Do you think this proves that the Founders wanted the U.S. government run as a theocracy? Or is "A.D." just a written convention that originally had a specifically religious purpose but now is just a hiccup?

Taking the entire history from Adam to Abraham to Moses to Christ to Jefferson Davis and Kathy Kattenburg is amazing to me. In just never ceases to amaze me. I'm humbled and blessed to be a part of God's plan.

Well, so am I, JeffersonDavis.

the vast minority

:-)

I then must turn away from it, confess, and sin no more.

This sounds like the Cultural Revolution in China. I don't intend that as an insult; it just strikes me as exactly the same sort of totalitarian self-flagellation. Theirs was political; yours is religious. To each their own, but this is not the kind of religious infrastructure most people want for their lives.

The only right or better light that can be shed on this is through faith. The reason I bring that up AGAIN, is that the vast majority of the world subscribes to a higher power. Here in the US, over 80% of us claim God as our god. He and he alone has made that decision for us. For the general public to accept and support openly gay behavior would be to not be true to that faith.

First of all, the vast majority of the Western world, outside the U.S., is much more secular than we are. I don't claim any expertise on the entire globe's religious philosophy, but this much I can vouch for: belief in a "higher power" does not in any way imply the elevation of any one particular understanding of that higher power's nature and what it demands of us over another. The specific understanding of God that is revealed by your sentence "He and he alone has made that decision [that homosexuality is sinful and immoral] for us" does not necessarily follow from just the belief in a higher power. That statement about God -- "He and he alone has made that decision for us" -- tells me that you believe God is a specific individual -- disembodied and all-powerful, but still an individual -- who is male in gender and who has ordered humans on Earth to obey a particular set of rules that he wrote in a book and handed out to everyone.Hey -- you know what? Go for it, JeffersonDavis, if that's what you believe, but if you believe that this is the form everyone's religious belief takes, or even most people's, I'd say you are assuming an awful lot with very little evidence.

I'm enjoying your comments on this subject, Dr J, because it is surely the only subject on which you and I will so strongly agree. :-)

Well, I liked your Nat King Cole song too. :^)

"Prayer in public schools does, because that's a violation of church and state separation."

First of all, Kat. Here's where our basic precept differs greatly. Schools (which are supposed to be funded through counties) should reflect the local population. The federal government should not be involved IMO. Separation of church and state means no prescribed religion. It does not mean removal of God. All I suggest is a silent period where a child can pray, meditate, or draw doodles. It's been my experience that most people do not object to that compromise. I, too, stand against specific forced religious prayer in school - that IS the separation of church and state. I never said I supported Government funded/mandated prayer. You and I are closer on that one than you may expect.


"Talk about apples and oranges. The Israelites did not have government as we know it now, so separating religious life from public life was not an issue for them."

Are seriously telling me that Israel did not have kings? I'm sure you're not. The kings and levites through Israel's history were the government. That government was soley based on God's Law. Public life and religious life were one and the same. You had to know that, Kathy. It's throughout the Old Testament.


As far as the Pledge of Allegiance, I know where you are coming from on that one. After much self-debate, I found that I do not mind a pledge to a country from it's citizens as long as it does not take away self-identity. If atheists in school want to leave out the "under God" then fine, let them. The oath itself is not a problem in my book. It promotes pride and nationalism, without which a nation is weaker IMHO. Every government employee and civil servant must also swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. I don't see a difference. A pledge to the President or government is a bit different. Much like the Barack Hussein Obama song children were forced to sing. That disturbed me. Would have disturbed me had it been any President's name.

"that means the Founders believed that specific religious dogma should govern public life?"

There you go again mixing religious with god-inclusion. Most of the Founding Fathers were Dieist or Unitarian. They did not write about the inclusion of RELIGION or DOGMA, they wrote about the inclusion of God only. You do see the difference, don't you?

As far as the Sunday's off section in Article I. I was half kidding actually. But you said that the Constitution was a solely secular document. I merely noted that Article to show that they made room for the President to worship. The Anno Domini was, indeed a written convention; but if they were so insistant of leaving God out of government as you suggest, they would have left it off.

And I've said this so many times. They did not want or intend a THEOCRACY, nor do I. I would hope that no one would want that (I'm sure there are some out there). The Dieist philosophy that they wrote about, included a higher power and humility and glory to Him. That's all. No prescribed worship, no prescribed religion, and no prescribed theocracy. As I stated above, there IS a difference.

"To each their own, but this is not the kind of religious infrastructure most people want for their lives."

And once again, Kat....Such is the problem. Service to God is not supposed to be what YOU want. It's supposed to be what God wants. God wants what's best for us (in all faiths); but we cannot do things OUR way, as we are flawed (as are our thought processes).


"God is a specific individual -- disembodied and all-powerful, but still an individual -- who is male in gender and who has ordered humans on Earth to obey a particular set of rules that he wrote in a book and handed out to everyone"

God as a "male" gender? No. God is a spirit and does not have a penis to the best of my knowlege.
But who made a particular set of rules that he handed our to everyone? Absolutely. But I refuse to take that Book and say, "Ya know what God. Nice book. It's got the following problems. You need to remove this and this and totally rewrite this. Rewrite it and get back to me." We are not God's editors. He is ours.

This is D. E. (Dorian) "reporting" from the Yucatan Peninsula, deep in Mayan country,country where people who had a different God than we do---yet good people---away from the hustle and the bustle, enjoying the discussion, almost as much as I am enjoying associating with good people (straights, gays, white, black, brown, people of other religions, or no religion, people who have never read the NT or the OT) and who---nevertheless---are fine, decent human beings---good people.

Talk to you when I get back, if not before.

Hey D.E. hope you are enjoying your trip.

You brought up a point. Just curious, How is it the Maya approach homsexuality in terms of their god?

The federal government should not be involved IMO.

We disagree on this. Public education is an aspect of the general welfare. Actually, it's implicit in all our rights.

Separation of church and state means no prescribed religion. It does not mean removal of God.

God cannot be removed, by definition. God is not a piece of furniture. And the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion." It does not say "no prescribed religion." It's not clear that "no establishment of religion" means "no establishment of one specific religion." In fact, that's not what the Constitution says. It says "no establishment of religion." To me -- and obviously a solid body of opinion exists in the U.S. for this interpretation -- that implies exactly what it says: the government shall not make any law establishing religion. Not "Christianity" or "Judaism" or "Islam" or any other specific religion. Just "religion." That includes so-called "silent periods."

Are seriously telling me that Israel did not have kings? I'm sure you're not. The kings and levites through Israel's history were the government. That government was soley based on God's Law. Public life and religious life were one and the same. You had to know that, Kathy. It's throughout the Old Testament.

Sigh. Israel was ruled by kings during one specific period of time, from ca. 1000 B.C.E. to ca. 587 B.C.E., when the period of the Babylonian exile began. And the monarchy was not a "government" in the sense that we understand that word today.

There you go again mixing religious with god-inclusion. Most of the Founding Fathers were Dieist or Unitarian. They did not write about the inclusion of RELIGION or DOGMA, they wrote about the inclusion of God only. You do see the difference, don't you?

Of course, I do. I don't think you do, though.

And once again, Kat....Such is the problem. Service to God is not supposed to be what YOU want. It's supposed to be what God wants. God wants what's best for us (in all faiths); but we cannot do things OUR way, as we are flawed (as are our thought processes).

Hm. Hmmmm. I don't think this is a Unitarian belief. I don't think it's a Deist belief. I know it's not a belief held by all streams of Judaism. I'm reasonably sure it's not a Buddhist belief. Hmm. Hmmmm. Hey! I know! It must be a belief held by specific religious sects, such as, for example, Southern Baptists, Christian fundamentalists, etc., etc. Hey! I know what this is! It's a prescribed religious belief!

Phew. Glad we got that one straightened out.

Holy cow, have you guys been up all night? Well, I guess I should throw my 2 cents in and let y'all get back at it.

First: JD, you are fully, fully missing my point. I'm talking about the circular logic fallacy, nothing else. It seems that you're getting tripped up on the fact that a lot of us (myself included) don't believe that the Bible is true, and that's so far away from your experience that you can't imagine a world in which it's not taken as fact.

"You just told me that nothing on paper is fact."

No! I told you that being on a piece of paper does not *make* something a fact. If something is written on paper, it could be a fact or it could be not a fact. Being on a piece of paper has no bearing on whether or not it is a fact. That is my point. For atheists, the Bible is a piece of paper, not a holy book filled with “facts”.

"The Bible is not contradictory and paradoxical."

Yes, it is both internally inconsistent in places, and quite inconsistent with known scientific truth in others. It’s ok, it doesn’t mean it’s not valuable. It just means that many within the faith and outside have a hard time understanding those who choose to ignore these inconsistencies, yet say they need to (for example) keep gay people from marrying because every word in the Bible is true.

Just a few examples: (duh) the Bible says the sun goes around the Earth. We know that not to be true. It gives the value of pi to be exactly 3, when we know that it is 3.141592653, etc. When Cain is banished and goes out into the world, he is afraid that people will kill him, so God gives him a mark to protect him. Who is he afraid of? His little brothers and sisters? Anyway, that’s just the first three I can think of. Again, this doesn’t mean that the Bible isn’t an excellent book full of awesome lessons for mankind, it just means that people like me get very suspicious when others pretend to believe every single word, and use some of those words to deny rights to others.

As for prayer in school – you say that the schools should reflect the local community. I suppose if you were transferred to my city and ended up in certain neighborhoods, you wouldn’t mind your kids being forced to pray with the Buddhists, or the Russian Orthodox, or the Muslims? We have public schools in different areas of the city where these methods of prayer would best reflect the majority of the local population.

But who made a particular set of rules that he handed our to everyone? Absolutely. But I refuse to take that Book and say, "Ya know what God. Nice book. It's got the following problems. You need to remove this and this and totally rewrite this. Rewrite it and get back to me." We are not God's editors. He is ours.

That is a specific religious understanding of God, most commonly found among fundamentalist Christian groups. It is not a generic feature of all religious belief.

I didn't realize you were an atheist, Roro. You are correct, to atheists it is just a bunch of paper.

"The sun goes around the Earth"
Please tell me you're not referring to Psalm 19:
"In them he has set a tent for(D) the sun,
5(E) which comes out like(F) a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat."

If you are, then you are saying that every time someone says "the sun is rising" or "the sun is setting", they believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Come on! That is reaching beyond comprehension.

And the dimensions in 1 Kings 7 that you refer to? Wow.

Now we have to revisit the other writings we hold dear. It states that all MEN are created equal. Ok, roro, that means you and kathy are no longer equal because you are not men. Yeah, we used to think it meant humankind, but I guess we were wrong. Give me a break.

As for Cain. What are you talking about. There were other people on earth at the time of Cain's banishment. God made man in his own image. God does not have fingers and toes. The soul of man was created in His image. That is not to say that the human animals were not already on earth at the time. As I've said in the past.... God and science gel quite well. The first of God's people was Adam.

But we seem to agree that the Founding Fathers were dieist, correct?
We may or may not agree about their intent on the Constitution; although their writings state that God is intregal part of the Constitution's success and future.

The service to God being not what YOU want is not in relation to the Constition. I was simply stating that the only religion I know of the stresses the opposite is Wicca and many other pagan faiths (note: pagan faith is an accepted term to refer to earthly faith, not a smear - before you go off on that).

You seem to think that if a Jew changes the rules, it's ok with Jehovah. You also seem to think that if a Christian changes the rules, that's ok too. The "I don't believe that the Bible was from the finger of God", and "just because it's in the Bible doesn't make it true" statements make that perfectly clear. Instead of picking and chosing only the portions of the Bible/Torah you like and mixing them with the elements of humanism you like; why not stop the lack of commitment and chose one, or invent your own. Just don't imply that Christians are misguided Bible believers. Yes, I know you didn't say that implicitly - I was trying to make a point.

Ok Kat.....

"That is a specific religious understanding of God, most commonly found amoung fundamentalist..."

And that's the same crutch that extremist Muslims use when blowing themselves up and killing innocents. It's just a specific religious understanding of God. Either some "understandings" are wrong or they are not, Kathy. Go ahead and tell me these Muslims are correct in relation to the Q'uran. They are not. There are either true Muslims or untrue Muslims. They cannot both be right. Likewise, there are true Christians and untrue Christians. They cannot all be right. There is right and wrong. Many liberals seem to think just about any moral code is acceptable. A successful nation MUST have a common moral code that is agreed upon, or it will erupt into anarchy. What was our common moral code in this nation, Kat? Was it Hammurabi's Code? No. Let's see..... Was it pagan rituals that defined our moral code? No, that's not it. Oh yes..... It was Judeo-Christian ethics that outlined our common moral code.

JD -- *I* am not the one saying that every word in the Bible is true! I'm fine with it being a metaphor, but if you are going to say that it is the unerring word of God, then you have to look at the inconsistencies. Yes, 1 Kings says that pi is 3; there's nothing else vague or esoteric about 1 Kings. I really don't care -- it was hard to measure circles better than that then. The geocentricity passage is the one where God holds the sun and moon in place so that Joshua could finish a battle. There are also multiple flat-earth references. This is fine, like I said, but I don't believe that the Bible is true word-for-word anyway.

Your interpretation of the Cain thing is...well, let's just say that's a pretty wild interpretation that I think would be totally rejected by most people who take the Bible literally, and well, pretty much anyone else too. So there's something -- anything -- in the Bible to indicate that man was already on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve's creation? And I am the one who is "reaching beyond comprehension"? At the time when Cain was banished, the supposed human population of the world was Adam, Eve, Cain, any other kids Adam and Eve had, and any kids/grandkids their kids had. I know the idea is that people lived a lot longer then than now, but sheesh.

I pick out 3 inconsistencies, you pick out roughly the same number of references to homosexuality. The point is: we each see what we want, but neither should be used to form public policy.

But we seem to agree that the Founding Fathers were dieist, correct?

My understanding is that many of them were; I don't know about all.

We may or may not agree about their intent on the Constitution; although their writings state that God is intregal part of the Constitution's success and future.

A general statement like that does not necessarily point to an intent to fund overt religious practice with public dollars, or to have explicitly religious practice in government settings.

The service to God being not what YOU want is not in relation to the Constition. I was simply stating that the only religion I know of the stresses the opposite is Wicca and many other pagan faiths (note: pagan faith is an accepted term to refer to earthly faith, not a smear - before you go off on that).

I have no idea what you're on to here. I don't know what you mean by "the opposite."

You seem to think that if a Jew changes the rules, it's ok with Jehovah. You also seem to think that if a Christian changes the rules, that's ok too.

It's not about "changing the rules." It's about finding ways to build a consistent religious practice that honors the rules while recognizing that it may not be possible to observe them in the exact same way that the ancient Israelites did. In fact, Jewish observance has never looked the same from one historical period to another. It has evolved and changed, as religious civilizations do evolve and change. Jewish religious life and practice had *not* changed over the centuries, the Jewish people would not have survived. We owe our survival as a people to the fact that we *were* able to change in order to live and survive in the many different historical times and places and conditions we have had to live and survive in.

I don't expect you to understand any of this. We've been arguing far too long by now for me to expect you to understand what I'm saying. I simply am responding to your statement, is all.

Just don't imply that Christians are misguided Bible believers.

The problem with this statement is that it assumes only one way to be Christian: your way, which is to hold that the Bible was literally written by God, that every word in it is literally, straightforwardly true, and that it is meant to be "obeyed," in a very literal way. Because you start out with this assumption, which is totally impervious to any shift or modification, it follows, naturally and logically, that you also believe any Christian who does not make these assumptions is not Christian, is not doing what God wants, is not honoring the Bible, and so on. This, of course, means that the pastor of an Episcopalian church in a town near mine, whom I know from when I used to live in that town, is not a Christian. It also means that my ex-husband's second wife, who has no religious practice at all, is not a Christian, either. And *that* means that there is absolutely no difference between my ex-husband's second wife, who is not religious at all and never goes to church, and this pastor I know at that local Episcopalian church. Neither of them are Christians. And that way of defining "Christian" or any specific religion is extreme, and if you want to know the truth, frightening to me. With all due respect.

And that's the same crutch that extremist Muslims use when blowing themselves up and killing innocents. It's just a specific religious understanding of God. Either some "understandings" are wrong or they are not, Kathy. Go ahead and tell me these Muslims are correct in relation to the Q'uran. They are not. There are either true Muslims or untrue Muslims.

You are making an error in logic. Muslim extremists have one, particular, specific "understanding" of Islam that is distorted, perverted, and not at all in accordance with what Islam is truly about. That does not mean that the larger concept of human beings having varying understandings of religious precepts is distorted or perverted.

Likewise, there are true Christians and untrue Christians. They cannot all be right. There is right and wrong. Many liberals seem to think just about any moral code is acceptable. A successful nation MUST have a common moral code that is agreed upon, or it will erupt into anarchy.

This kind of absolutist, black-and-white thinking is the very essence of extremism, JD. I'm sorry, but it is. Even the Christian religious right doesn't really believe that all human behavior is either right or wrong. If they did, they would condemn torture when the C.I.A. does it as unequivocally as they do when Syria, or Egypt, or Libya does it. Instead, they call it a "false moral equivalency."

"They cannot all be right" misses the point. In some areas of life -- actually, in most areas of life -- there are shades of gray. Black and white are not the only possible legitimate choices. The entire world lives in the gray zone, JD. No one lives in an all-black or an all-white world (these terms are figurative, of course) except extremists and fanatics. Again, with respect, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

"Is there anything in the Bible to indicate that man was already on Earth at the time of Adam...."
I offered that description up as possiblity, not fact. Along with the fact that the order or Creation mimicks that offered by science, that explaination fits. You asked for ANYTHING to indicate that man was already here.......You already asked and answered that yourself - CAIN is an example. Is it not?

Buth this is beside the point. Those particular examples (Creation of soul and science) is my particular take on things in the Bible that have nothing to do with God's commands. Where the Bible is silent I should be silent. In this case I was not silent. Those were just thoughts that float around in my head. I'll find the answer to that and more when I'm face to face with God. It's just like the people who fight over the meanings in Revelation (the most devisive book in Christianity). It just doesn't matter what WILL happen, only that you better be prepared when it does.

"Neither should be used to form public policy".
Well, we've already legalized murder, or as you call it, abortion.
We now wish to normalize homosexuality.
You are forming public policy based upon atheistic principles. What gives atheists more of a right to call policy than Christians?

"A general statement like that does not necessarily point to an intent to fund overt religious practice with public dollars, or to have explicitly religious practice in government settings."

Kathy I DID NOT SAY TO FUND OVERT RELIGIOUS PRACTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do you keep saying that???? I keep saying what John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people". Apparently, you think John Adams is full of crap. Let me guess. He and Jefferson didn't intend the Constitution for "today's world" either. I do not think they were full of crap, Kathy. They were wise beyond there years, and created a beautiful document. Why do you refuse to accept THEIR maintaining that God is woven into the Constitution?


"The problem with this statement is that it assumes only one way to be Christian: your way, which is to hold that the Bible was literally written by God, that every word in it is literally, straightforwardly true, and that it is meant to be "obeyed," "

Kathy, there are figurative portions of the Bible. Otherwise, when Christ said that Peter was his "rock", then Peter literally turned to stone prior to building His Church. I know that not every single word is literal. That's silly. But you dismiss even the blatantly explicit commands from God in both Testaments. You keep claiming "literal literal" and don't even acknowlege God's wishes in most (yes MOST) Christian bodies that homosexuality is condemned. That is LITERAL because it is specifically addressed - no trick words - no false translations. Every translation of the Bible that I have seen prohibits homosexuality.

Did you say that a pastor at a Episcopalian church is "not Christian"? How can that be?
Episcopalians are Christians. Does that mean they cannot sin? No. You're being silly.
Alcoholics can be Christians as well. But they have to face their disease and turn away from it. As are gambling addicts, murderers, rapists, and just about everything else under the sun.

Here's a tidbit of information for you. Do you remember Jeffrey Dahlmer? He's remembered for some pretty disgusting activity, is he not? Did you realize that shortly before he was killed in prison, that he accepted the Gospel of Christ, was baptised, confessed and repented? If his heart was pure (only God knows this) that means he'll be in heaven. Some denominational "men of God" refused to hear his confession and baptise the man because they could not see beyond his earthly actions. One preacher, from a Church of Christ (I believe) was the only one that would go. Your pastor friend, I assume he's gay or you wouldn't have mentioned it; is living in a sinful state. He, too, could turn away from that. If he chose to. If he's merely a pastor that shows love and compassion to gays, then that is awesome. He is supposed to do that, as do I. But he, nor I, should do anything to propitiate or condone the behavior.

"You are making an error in logic. Muslim extremists have one, particular, specific "understanding" of Islam that is distorted, perverted, and not at all in accordance with what Islam is truly about."

Isn't that the very same thing I said about certain Christians - and you chastised me for it?
Let's change the words and see how that logic sounds to you:

"You are making an error in logic. Christians who condone homosexuality have one, particular, specific understanding of Christianity that is distorted, perverted, and not at all in accordance with what Christianity is truly about."

How's that logic now. Wait. That's YOUR logic.

"Cheer up everyone, you know what they say..."

Monty Python addressed both gays in the military AND the difference between religion and God over thirty years ago. Let me suggest that we "Always Look On The Bright Side of Life" when discussing Military Fairies.

Everything will work out in the end. Hell's fire even non-believers know that!

h/t Crooks and Liars

By "fund overt religious practice" I mean overt religious practice -- not overt Christian or Jewish, etc., practice. Overt religious practice. John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." SO. WHAT. So what, JD? So what? How do you get from that to "John Adams wanted all of us to pray in the public square every day and put crosses on hillsides and the 10 Commandments in front of courthouses, mention God in speeches at every opportunity, put it on the White House letterhead, have national prayer breakfasts where every member of congress has to attend, have daily bible study groups on the floor of the Senate, etc., etc., etc.? What IS the huge significance that you see in John Adams complimenting the Constitution and the American people? "Our Constitution is really, really cool, because it was made for a really awesome and great people, moral and religious," so that's supposed to mean he wanted everyone to say "God! God! God" "Let's pray!" at every opportunity? Can't a man make a simple statement of values or belief without it meaning he wants America to acknowledge God in the public square as many times as humanly possible?

You keep claiming "literal literal" and don't even acknowlege God's wishes in most (yes MOST) Christian bodies that homosexuality is condemned.

I don't acknowledge that "God's wishes" have any relevance for secular law. For the millionth, billionth, zillionth time, I might add. I also make what I feel is a rational assumption that if one instruction is repeated 100 times, and another is repeated two or three times, that probably means the one that's repeated 100 times is more important. If God says "Men, don't have sex with other men," two or three times in the Bible; but says "Men, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, welcome in the stranger, comfort the afflicted, stand up for the persecuted and oppressed, don't exploit your workers," and so on, constantly, all the time, on almost every page, then I conclude God really, really, really wants us to remember that and take it seriously. If there is one biblical message that is most blatant and obvious, it is the importance of social justice. So your endless, endless hammering on about the importance of the second least mentioned topic in the Bible (the first least mentioned is abortion, which isn't mentioned at all) has very little, if any, merit.

By the way, here is a link that *you* may find of interest.
http://www.seattlefirstbaptist.org/Default.asp?...

My pastor friend is not gay, and also not male. Your analogizing Jeffrey Dahmer's sin to the supposed sin of homosexuality is beyond disgusting. It's as vile as anything I can think of. As is the idea that confession and baptism shortly before he died wipes out a lifetime of mass murder. I think that's just about the best dis-recommendation for your religious views that I can possibly imagine.

And now I do believe this will be my last comment in this thread. One thousand, one hundred forty-one comments -- probably only about a third of which added anything new to the discussion -- are enough.

Wow.

1. "Bible Barely mentions homosexuality." - That's right. We should ignore that only mentioned a couple of times.
2. "homosexuality not the main teaching" - Neither was the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus. point?
3. "Homosexual texts are from 'troubled texts' requiring deeper interpretation" - okay. Go ahead and give me your interpretation then. Oh you forgot to because there is no other interpetation for "homosexuality is abomination".
4. "our modern view of homosexuality isn't shared with those who lived in biblical times" - Please! Our modern view of being dressed modestly isn't either. This point makes itself.
5. "Jesus embraces 2 sexual minorities of his day" - He also embraced prostitutes. Once again, point? He embraced all. He told the prostitute "you are forgiven. Depart and sin no more". SIN NO MORE.
6. "It is difficult to take a moral issue from the Bible and apply it today" - Only if you are dishonest with yourself and don't mind dismantling God's Word. God sees now as yesterday simultaneously.
7. "Jesus and Paul condemn judgmentalism" - How then did Jesus say, depart from me sinner, I never knew you. Isn't that a judgement? We are not to judge the heart of others. We must judge in our everyday lives. "Is this guy getting ready to stab me?" is a judgment.
8. "No single sexual ethic or morality in the Bible" - Once again old versus new convenant stuff. Polygamy was done away with. Endogamy was required to keep the lineage pure until the coming of the Messiah. After that, it was not needed. Interacial relations are throughout the Bible.


Wow. You a pastor at this congregation, Kat?

Kat. I didn't make that up about Dahlmer. It happened.
If a Christian believes in forgiveness from God, then who are they to say that God does not forgive?
And I made it quite clear that if his heart was pure. If you sincerely ask God's forgiveness, he will forgive - His words not mine. You don't believe that?

And I KNEW you'd turn this into a "Jeff is calling homosexuality a sin and it's disgusting" situation. I did not call it sin, Kathy. My God did. I refuse to hate and dispise homosexuals. I refuse to mistreat homosexuals. I refuse to condone their behavior. And I refuse to accept their campaign to accept their behavior as normal - no matter how many media outlets they take hostage.

You're right. It's about time for this thread to end. I'll never convince you to actually be consistent with the Bible/Torah/Cat in the Hat or whatever book it is you follow. Judging by the comments you've made, I think you make up your faith as you go along. I could be wrong on that. But I will remain consistent, because I do not try to take away from the bible or add to it.


"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
2 Timothy - 3:16

"Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. Trouble and anguish have taken hold on me: yet thy commandments are my delights. The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live. I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O LORD: I will keep thy statutes. I cried unto thee; save me, and I shall keep thy testimonies.
-Psalm 119

My God!

So many comments just to try to justify discrimination against a segment of our population?

Unvelievable.

And most of it in the name of God? Your God, my God, our God?

Even more unbelievable

Dorian

Dorian,

If you remember correctly, I had no problem with gays serving their nation. I propose no discrimination against gays, nor do I support any person that condones that gay sailors aren't productive and useful servicemen. Not once have I done that. I have stated that I refuse to say that homosexual behavior is condoned by God, nor will I support any legislation or executive order that presents homosexuality as acceptable "normal" behavior.

But when Kathy backs up her claims with Jewish/Christian references, she is wrong. As Christians, we are to love ALL of our fellow man. We are not, however, to condone, support, or turn a blind eye to ungodly behavior implemented with our money (tax dollars). And that is ONLY Christians. I know that their are many non-Christians/Jews in America. They can support it if they chose. I merely stated that Christians should obey the God in which the claim to have faith. I refuse to accept that they just rewrite the Bible or claim that it "isn't for today's world" in order to justify their agenda. I think that is a very fair statement.

JD:

I am on travel and it is difficult to access the internet and post regularly. But out of respect for your opinions, let me reply and summarize mine.

First, I am totally perplexed by your conflicting statements and claims.

You say you have no problems with gays serving their nation, then you turn around and state that you will oppose any legislation (i.e. repeal of DADT) that would allow them to serve (By the way, legislation is not intended to define morality nor to legislate that a homosexual is "abnormal.")

Second, you have claimed in the past that you love your fellow human beings and then you turn around and call your fellow homosexuals' behavior "UnGodly behavior."

Whose God, by the way. Yours?

Finally, we should not use God, the Bible, or our Founding Fathers to, today AD 2009, deny our fellow human beings equal rights because of sexual orientation.

You have every right to oppose such, but so do now a large part of the American people have the right to oppose your views and support equal rights for gays and lesbiams.

Anyway, good discussion, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

By the way, My God is my conscience, my heart, my soul, my mind. As long as a human being does OK by those, I think he will do well by anyone's God.

Dorian,

Who's God? Mine? No, not necessarily.
The founding fathers had a "generic" dieist God in mind. Christian God, Jewish God, Muslim God, Greek God, Hindu God, etc. Their point was that, no matter what you call Him, keep Him in the mix, because the Constitution will only work or succeed with that condition. This is not theocracy which says, worship this way or else. This is simply the inclusion of God, in any form. I would assume they made those statements, since the absence of God (present company exluded of course) typically means evil.