“Don’t ask, don’t tell” and the cuddly, homo-friendly US military
Copyright Danny Miller @ Jew Eat Yet
There’s an interesting comment-piece by Stephanie Gutman over at the Telegraph which neatly feeds into the right-wing narrative that gay rights have gone too far, that political correctness has gone mad. It plays to the notion that we must rein in all these millions of rules about what people can say, think and do, using a fair dollop of ‘common sense’ and ignoring as a joke many things which might otherwise call for a bit of rigidly enforced political correctness in the form of a horsewhip. But enough of my editorializing.
“President Obama is searching desperately for a sop to throw his Left-wing base, and he must have thought he’d found one in the statement in his State of the Union address: “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
“Like so many of the SOTU lines, this was a piece of flim-flam. [...] When Obama announced his new goal, the television cameras cut to the chiefs of the Navy, Army, Air force and Marines. They sat stony-faced.
“Are the service chiefs homophobes? I don’t think so. The US military is generally a very tolerant place. As one of my soldier friends put it, “I never saw any kind of witchhunt. Most commanders had their plates full with doing their jobs.”
“No, the main reason the brass resist changing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell now, while the country is immersed in two wars, is because they recognise that withdrawing the policy would create a new protected category and a new opening for battles over perceived discrimination.
“In other words, since it would be illegal to discharge for homosexuality, many discharges brought for other reasons will be challenged as if they had been brought for homosexuality, as we see in the civilian world when, for instance, a woman fired for lateness insists she was fired because she is a woman and demands a full fledged discrimination trial.”
Hang on, the US military is tolerant? An antidote to such a view should be the most recent rape statistics:
- There were 2,923 reported sexual assaults in the 2008 fiscal year, up from 2,688 in 2007 [63% of this number were allegations of rape or aggravated assault - Ed]
- There 251 incidents in combat areas, including 141 in Iraq and 22 in Afghanistan
- Investigations took place in 2,763 cases. In 832 cases, action was taken, including 317 courts-martial, a rise of 38%
- Of the 6.8% of women and 1.8% of men who indicated they had experienced unwanted sexual contact, the majority – 79% of women and 78% of men – chose not to report it.
This increase in courts-martial is a result of unprecedented public pressure, resulting from journalists throwing the spotlight on women who served in the military. Military policy actually changed in 2005, to improve the rate of reporting the various types of sexual assault, and even still estimates are that those cases which are reported are a small fraction of the incidents actually going on. A March 2009 DoD report suggests ninety percent aren’t reported.
Some of the stories are simply shocking and go beyond the statistics provided above by the BBC, by interviewing veterans who served. The following is an extract from an article written by Helen Benedict in The Nation.
“The double traumas of combat and sexual persecution may be why a 2008 RAND study found that female veterans are suffering double the rates of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder for their male counterparts.The double traumas of combat and sexual persecution may be why a 2008 RAND study found that female veterans are suffering double the rates of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder for their male counterparts.[...]
“When Specialist Suzanne Swift reported her sergeant for repeatedly raping her over months and then refused to redeploy under him, the army tried her by court martial for desertion and put her in prison for a month.
“When Cassandra Hernandez of the Air Force reported being gang-raped by three comrades at her training acadamy, her command charged her with indecent behavior for consorting with her rapists.
“When Sergeant Marti Ribeiro reported being raped by a fellow serviceman while she was on guard duty in Afghanistan, the Air Force threatened to court martial her for leaving her weapon behind during the attack. “That would have ruined by career,” she said. “So I shut up.”
“All the men who were accused in these cases went unpunished. Several of them even won promotions.[...]
“Even those few men who are found guilty of sexual assault or rape tend to receive absurdly mild punishments, such as suspension, demotion, or a scolding letter for their file. In 2008, 62 percent of offenders found guilty received mild punishments like this. This amounts to a tiny fraction of the men accused of sexual assault. One particularly grotesque example of this sort of justice is the 2006 case of army sergeant Damon D. Shell, who ran over and killed 20-year-old Private First Class Hannah Gunterman McKinney of the 44th Corps Support Battalion on her base in Iraq on September 4. Shell pleaded guilty to drinking in a war zone, drunken driving and “consensual sodomy” with McKinney, an underage junior soldier to whom he had supplied alcohol until she was incapacitated. Having sex with a person incapacitated by alcohol is legally rape, and using rank to coerce a junior into a sexual act is legally rape in the military, too. Yet a military judge ruled McKinney’s death an accident, said nothing about rape, and sentenced Shell to thirteen months in prison and demotion to private. Shell was not even kicked out of the army.”
So US military personnel are completely understanding and tolerant of homosexuality, even though back in the good ol’ US of A, it’s widely denigrated and attacked, but the attitude to women is almost routinely crude and brutal? Something doesn’t quite stack up.
While it would probably be too simplistic to say that these forms of discrimination emanate from a single, shared, source, they do have a lot in common – especially the emphasis on the link between masculinity and male sexuality which, in an organization designed to blow shit up, is not in short supply to begin with. This is reflected in the view of the heirarchy that women should not be permitted to sign on as frontline combatants.
Simply put, the US military is not the environment one expects tolerant attitudes to thrive, as exemplified by the attitudes to women, and some effort should be made to correct that.
Repealing DADT is a good way to bring many gays and lesbians, who have contributed to the military, out of the closet. A Democratic Congress can amend the USC to get rid of the policy, and it has plenty of support from various former brass, contrary the ‘stony-faced’ image of those who were sitting in the US House of Representatives when Obama gave his State of the Union.
There’s good reason for the attitudes of the brass; during large combat operations, expulsions for being gay actually drop, presumably as it’s a case of “Every man for the front!” Pragmatism about US military recruitment and retention means that the military needs to be open to anyone and can’t waste time throwing people out after a costly and time-consuming investigation initiated because they happen to mention that they’re married to someone of the wrong gender.
Columnists who spin this one as a sop to Obama’s left-wing base are just dressing up their own homophobia as political cynicism. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell gets a lot of attention in college campuses which attempt to ban recruiters on the grounds that the armed forces discriminate, or as a result of a specific hate-crime [e.g.] that provokes media furore, but by and large the Left has a lot of other things to worry about right now – like healthcare and jobs. Anyone who thinks this will swing the mid-terms in November is a fool.
Finally, dismissing attempts to repeal DADT on the grounds that it is going to create another ‘protected group’ which might result in additional litigation is simply not good enough. It may well create such cases, but litigation is the means whereby the individual can defend him or herself against the institution. Even at the expense of frivolous cases where defendants cheekily assert that the dual circumstances of a sanction against them and their membership of a minority constitutes evidence of discrmination, one would have thought the Right would have been all for this.
Apparently not when the issue at stake is homosexuality.
What is really the difference between DADT and an environment of “open” homosexuality? It’s all about homo/bisexuals acting out their homo or bisexuality towards other military colleagues. And that, in practice, is mostly about having the right to (homo)sexually harass others camouflaged under some shpiel about freedom of discrimination. It’s too bad for the rest of us that DADT can’t be applied to all other spheres of society. In every non-military job environment that I’ve been in where there were homosexuals and bisexuals, they constantly attempted to harass others with homosexual behaviors. Constantly. And, in my experience, there are at least as many closeted bisexual women (often married) as homosexual ones. Assuming a woman is exclusively heterosexual because she is married is nowadays an extremely naive position. Assuming that human beings keep their sexuality to their “bedroom” is one of the today’s greatest fallacies. They don’t and a troubled work environment is the result. Corporations would do much better to investigate such problems, because closeted homosexuals and bisexuals constantly make unwanted advances towards others, with varying degrees of aggressiveness, and they create all kinds of relationship problems for people in the workplace.
The difference between DADT and an environment of open homosexuality is not relations between colleagues, it’s where you don’t lose your job because you’re gay and someone finds out about it.
All the rest of your comment is just homophobic bilge. I’m straight and I could tell you at least as many (and probably more morally repugnant) stories about straight couples, or straight individuals and their behaviours towards others.
There’s no bar to intimating that you’re straight, and talking openly about your homelife, especially in the military when serving in the field. Why should there by such a bar on gay people?
“The difference between DADT and an environment of open homosexuality is not relations between colleagues, it’s where you don’t lose your job because you’re gay and someone finds out about it.”
No, it’s where you don’t get to keep your job after harassing your colleague with your homosexual attitudes and behaviors. Many military personnel attest that they already know who are the homosexuals, despite DADT. DADT just keeps them in check. If they present problems, they’re out with their homosexual behaviors.
“I’m straight and I could tell you at least as many (and probably more morally repugnant) stories about straight couples, or straight individuals and their behaviours towards others.”
How come you can’t tell any stories about homosexuals and bisexuals? Are you too dishonest to face the truth about them? How come you can only face problems about heterosexuals? Talk about a warped, extremist pro-homo attitude.
“There’s no bar to intimating that you’re straight, and talking openly about your homelife, especially in the military when serving in the field. Why should there by such a bar on gay people?”
Because it’s unwanted homosexual behavior, it’s sleazy homosexuals, it’s bigoted homosexuals that are the problem, and it’s people who insist on lying like you who are the problem. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
Harassment is already an offence under the US Military Code of Justice. Why does homosexuality have to be an offence too? If what you’re worried about is harassment, then advocate one rule on sexual harassment for both gays and straights.
As for the behaviour being unwanted, or sleazy, or bigoted (though I’m curious as to where you get that from), again, this sort of thing can be covered by harassment rules. Why is unwanted heterosexual behaviour any different?
But yet we don’t ban heterosexuals from the army…
Lastly, and more as an addendum, you have twisted my wording. I have stories about both sexual preferences, but you have enough anti-gay bile built up to do for both of us. I was attempting to rebalance it by pointing out that for every story you have attacking gays, there are others in which we straights don’t look too good.
Harassment is already an offence under the US Military Code of Justice. Why does homosexuality have to be an offence too? If what you’re worried about is harassment, then advocate one rule on sexual harassment for both gays and straights.
==================
Because homosexuality is an inability to be heterosexual. No reason to even be in the military or anywhere else. Why are you so obsessed with shoving homosexuality on society?
Heterosexual men and women do not shower together, go to the bathroom together, etc for real practical reasons. Why should homos be shoved onto heterosexuals?
This issue was raised, for example, for men and women in submarines. There’s no question there would be problems, lots of them. You can put any harassment policy in place, people are much more problematic.
Does it make sense to have a million problems that don’t exist right now, just because people like yourself are desperate to lie about the reality of homosexual problems? No.
You’re a bit hysterical aren’t you?
How do you know that homosexuality is an ‘inability’ to be heterosexual? And if that is the case, then why does it matter more than, say, an inability to have blue eyes and blonde hair?
It has about as much effect on one’s ability to be a soldier or do anything else, for that matter. I think the problem here is that you just don’t like gays.
The fact is that there are many people in the military who are gay. So the problems you are describing already exist, it’s just nobody talks about them. So what’s the problem in allowing them to be talked about?
Lastly, and more as an addendum, you have twisted my wording. I have stories about both sexual preferences, but you have enough anti-gay bile built up to do for both of us. I was attempting to rebalance it by pointing out that for every story you have attacking gays, there are others in which we straights don’t look too good.
=================
Have I twisted your wording? The day you post all these stories about homosexuals being slimes of people, at least you can say you have “rebalanced.” Until then, the only thing you posted here was “anti-heterosexual bile.” In case you didn’t notice, you only mention problems with heterosexuals. That’s your “balance” for you.
“As for the behaviour being unwanted, or sleazy, or bigoted (though I’m curious as to where you get that from),”
It’s called the real world.
Are you denying that homosexuals are heterosexuals can be equally bigotted, demeaning and so forth? I’ve already said clearly that they can, all you seem to be trying to do is justify you own anti-gay stance by trying to find anti-hetero language in what I’ve said.
Nothing in the article is anti-hetero.
“You’re a bit hysterical aren’t you?”
Why? Because I question all the problems in your line of thinking?
“How do you know that homosexuality is an ‘inability’ to be heterosexual? ”
How do you know all the causes for every homosexual attitude and behavior to counter-argue?
“And if that is the case, then why does it matter more than, say, an inability to have blue eyes and blonde hair?”
Because the color of your eyes has nothing to do with attitudes and behaviors. Human sexuality is completely different.
You haven’t questioned any problems in my line of reasoning. What you’ve done is throw about a lot of assertions and veiled insults against gay people.
Simply put, your argument boils down to the assertion that gay people are more predisposed than straights to commit offences that deserve expulsion from the military.
Have you any evidence? You haven’t provided any.
Are you denying that homosexuals are heterosexuals can be equally bigotted, demeaning and so forth? I’ve already said clearly that they can, all you seem to be trying to do is justify you own anti-gay stance by trying to find anti-hetero language in what I’ve said.
Nothing in the article is anti-hetero.
====================
Then why would talking about homosexual problems be anti-gay? I’m just flinging back at you your double-standard labeling practices. Look at your comments: If one points out a problem with homosexuals, they’re anti-gay; if one points out a problem with heterosexuals, they’re, uh, OK. It’s ridiculous.
“Are you denying that homosexuals are heterosexuals can be equally bigotted, demeaning and so forth? ”
I’m exactly pointing it out. I’m also pointing out how much it’s only the problematic heterosexual behavior that gets criticized and discussed.
You know why there aren’t more homosexual harassment and violence cases in the military? Because they aren’t allowed to be there. Simple.
By the way, there was a study showing numbers where 1/3 of women were assaulted in the military, a figure much higher than the BBC data.
There was another one still which suggested 90% of women in the US military are sexually harassed. I was going by the DoD figures for this one year, as it is post-2005, so post-reforms on the reporting of sexual harassment and assault.
Moving on…
I don’t have a double standard. The army does. I have nowhere denied – and you don’t seem to be able to get your head around this – that gay people can be just as problematic as straights.
But we’re not banning straight people from the military. Why the double standard?
You pointed out that they are different so they should be treated differently. I asked why, then, should blonde hairs and blue eyes shouldn’t be treated differently?
You said it was because hair and eye colour don’t affect behaviour – implying homosexuality does. Importantly, when taken in line with your other comments – which attack the ideas of gays in the military – the implication is that homosexuality affects behaviour adversely, so that gays are worse than straights.
You’ve still provided no evidence to back up this assertion. You are homophobic.
(Edit: as a final point, nothing in the article attacks heterosexual people on the basis of their heterosexuality. My use of the rape statistics is an attempt to point out that the army has far from rid discrimination from its ranks when it comes to women, and women have been struggling to gain equality for decades, while homosexuality has only really been out of the closet since the 1980s. Thus, as I am not categorizing people by their sexuality, I am not indulging in discrimination. You, on the other hand, definitely are categorizing people by their sexual preference. Is there another word you prefer than homophobia?)
That’s a bit pathetic; I might as well note that plenty of Conservatives have just as much a fetish for denouncing homosexuality as liberals have for calling for equal rights, and conservatives commit just as many crimes.
You don’t really have a point here, you’re just trying to be insulting – and it’s not working. I’ve never claimed to be a liberal.
You pointed out that they are different so they should be treated differently. I asked why, then, should blonde hairs and blue eyes shouldn’t be treated differently?
You said it was because hair and eye colour don’t affect behaviour – implying homosexuality does. Importantly, when taken in line with your other comments – which attack the ideas of gays in the military – the implication is that homosexuality affects behaviour adversely, so that gays are worse than straights.
==============
No, you misconstrued my reply. Homosexuality is about what’s in your mind and how you behave. It’s a ridiculous (and totally fallacious) analogy to eye color– which has nothing to do with human psychology, emotions, attitudes, social conditioning, or behavior.
I was just pointing out how ridiculous your analogy to eye color was.
It’s not a ridiculous analogy unless homosexuality inspires people to behave in a manner which sees them kicked out of the army.
In the cases you mentioned, like harassment, it’s not homosexuality that is at fault. It’s all sexuality – straight people are just as guilty.
So there are no grounds for assuming a link between homosexuality and abusive behaviour, or sleazy behaviour. Thus my analogy fits perfectly, as there are similar grounds for assuming a link between hair and eye colour and this sort of behaviour.
None.
For a new slant on homophobia, please read my latest post on the subject which turns out to be a secular challenge to gay America in the form of 3 practical questions. John W. McAlister. Ethical Universe
As a rudimentary insurance against spam, I search most comments to see if they’ve been posted elsewhere, and I note yours has been posted at ABC news. Nevertheless I feel impelled to respond to your three questions because I see in them a great deal of homophobia – and this is a bad thing when it ceases to treat homosexuals in just the same way as heterosexuals, i.e. as individuals.
First, to the notion that homosexuals might try to increase their ‘political power’ by increasing their numbers, the assumption here is that heterosexuality is the basic sexual preference and that homosexuals can consciously gain at the expense of heterosexuals. This is to grossly distort the issue. Sexual preference is not a type of branding, you run an ad campaign to get people to switch. It is something felt on an emotional and chemical level by real people. If they want to be gay, great. If gay people want to extol the virtues of being gay that’s fine too – freedom of expression should be a right in a free society.
Second, to the notion homosexuals can ‘recruit’ people under the age of consent, this is preposterous. Gay people don’t act in a corporate fashion. Where they do come together is to correct discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference. It’s also preposterous because, like heterosexuality, the act of intercourse below the age of consent is prescribed by law. If an individual transgresses that law, they shall suffer the consequences. This does not tell us anything about homosexuals in toto, which is the only way you seem to treat them.
Third, are you seriously suggesting that child abuse and homosexuality (or sexual permissiveness generally) are coterminous? What absolute rubbish! Heterosexuals provide background information before working with children, so do homosexuals – and this is how we as a society protect our young people.
As an addendum to your third question, I think it’s a massive generalisation to associate ‘far left liberal agenda’ (seriously? Look up liberalism, then look up the political spectrum) with the decline in traditional family values. Women going to work during two world wars and not being content to return to complete subjugation by their husbands might have had something to do with it. The decimation of the US manufacturing base and the increasing casualization of labour and massive inequalities wreaked by capitalism might also have had something to do with it.
Finally, you haven’t provided a new slant on homophobia, you’ve merely dressed up an old slant – utterly repugnant discrimination – in some ambiguous and pretentious wording.
Well Dave, you do go on! Perhaps ‘ye protesteth’ too much. Homosexuals really want to be treated as individuals? Why then do you march in the streets as a group, strutting around and shouting such slogans as “we are queer and we are here – to stay?” This does not sound like individuals acting alone to me! I do wonder, however, whether it is even legitimate to call homosexuals a minority at all; they definitely are a social and/or ethical classification; but we as a society can not afford to ‘protect’ every classification amongst us, now can we?
Protest too much about what, exactly, you little snot? Are you oh-so-subtley intimating that I might be gay?
Does marching around in the street together mean we forego our right to be treated as individuals?
As for whether or not we can afford to protect the homosexual minority, or any minority, insofar as a minority is not defined by actions that harm the welfare of the majority, I don’t see any reason why we can’t protect all minorities.
Hang on, the US military is tolerant? An antidote to such a view should be the most recent rape statistics:
* There were 2,923 reported sexual assaults in the 2008 fiscal year, up from 2,688 in 2007 [63% of this number were allegations of rape or aggravated assault - Ed]
* There 251 incidents in combat areas, including 141 in Iraq and 22 in Afghanistan
* Investigations took place in 2,763 cases. In 832 cases, action was taken, including 317 courts-martial, a rise of 38%
* Of the 6.8% of women and 1.8% of men who indicated they had experienced unwanted sexual contact, the majority – 79% of women and 78% of men – chose not to report it.
======================
I don’t know how reliable these numbers are, but they aren’t in any way significantly different than numbers for the non-military population. There’s your “tolerant” raping non-military for you. And just to spell it out, there is no indication or study showing that liberals like yourself, if taken as a group, commit any less sexual crimes than other people.
The figures are from the BBC, which claims to have taken them from the Department of Defense. Said department admits that the figures are way too low for what is actually going on.
And as for ‘spelling it out’, what are you spelling out? I’ve never contended that liberals commit less crimes so I don’t really see what you’re getting at.
I was just noting how interesting it is that liberals– who call themselves tolerant because they have an obsession with homosexuals– rape and abuse other human beings in large numbers. It’s an interesting labeling practice, this one.
You said it was because hair and eye colour don’t affect behaviour – implying homosexuality does. Importantly, when taken in line with your other comments – which attack the ideas of gays in the military – the implication is that homosexuality affects behaviour adversely, so that gays are worse than straights.
You’ve still provided no evidence to back up this assertion. You are homophobic.
==========================
Because where is the evidence that human being are clones who are all alike? I don’t see it anywhere. There are differences between groups of people in different historical periods, cultures, genders. You have to be pretty demented to deny this. Why should heterosexuals be exactly the same as homosexuals? The two are not the same. Already in the countries where same-sex marriage was legalized, homos shunned marriage almost totally. Why aren’t they just like heterosexuals and why don’t they just go and get married like heterosexuals when it is legalized? Why do statistics show over and over again that homosexual men are much more promiscuous than any other group? Why were more than 80% of the Catholic priests who abused minors homosexuals? You haven’t disproved that homosexual women harass more than heterosexual ones. Where’s your proof that people are all exactly alike?
“so that gays are worse than straights. You’ve still provided no evidence to back up this assertion. You are homophobic.”
And you are obsessed about homosexuals. There is nothing good about having a homosexual mindset. And you only lose out on being heterosexual.
Your logic doesn’t follow, and you’ve also ignored my most recent comment.
What does it matter if human beings aren’t clones? They’re obviously not, and no one is trying to deny that people are different in different historical periods, cultures and genders. But people are also different within groups – no group is composed of clones either, so why should one individual’s harassment of another act as a bar on an entire group?
Categorizing people according to a sexual preference, and setting that preference as a guide to behaviour, and denigrating that behaviour, then extrapolating to the whole category of people is a series of logical fallacies – and this is what we designate homophobia.
Incidentally, what’s wrong with having a homosexual mindset? You’ve said “there is nothing good” about it, so what is bad about it?
What is good about it?
What does it matter if human beings aren’t clones? They’re obviously not, and no one is trying to deny that people are different in different historical periods, cultures and genders. But people are also different within groups – no group is composed of clones either, so why should one individual’s harassment of another act as a bar on an entire group?
==================
Who says it’s only one? Can you identify who is a harasser prior to harassment? to rape? Who has a sexually sleazy mindset?
You can’t even say what causes homosexual behavior nor sexually violent behavior. How do you know who is being violent to whom in the world of sexuality? Do you have a special crystal ball?
You are also in denial of the obvious: among same-sex heterosexual people there is never any sexual harassment or violence! This only happens when you shove homos and bisexuals onto heterosexuals. And the military is pretty segregated, in part, for this reason. It’s obvious that military men, given the choice, don’t want a bunch of slimy homosexuals neither with them, nor with the power to sexually victimize them.
There’s another thing you didn’t talk about, reported on the Net:
“When you read things like this, you should also keep in mind that the vast majority of discharges for homosexuality are voluntary admissions. In other words, people who claim to be gay (some of whom aren’t even gay) in order to get out of their military contracts. In fact, this was the case in every homosexual discharge that occurred in my own units in my 15 years in the military. How do I know this? Mostly because many of them openly declared that was why they had suddenly “outed” themselves. It’s now an easy out, something we don’t need during wartime.”
You’re still ignoring inconvenient points in my argument.
Also, the bit you quote like it’s some revelation in your last reply is from the article I’ve quoted extensively from above.
Lastly, I think you’re arguing in circles now, defining abusers and homosexuals as essentially the same group. Anyone who wants to judge our respective arguments has some twelve or so comments each on which to do so, but you’re not going to be convinced: your distaste for having homosexuals in the military (or anywhere else, according to one of your comments) is not predicated upon reason, so it will not be undone by reason.
It’s not a ridiculous analogy unless homosexuality inspires people to behave in a manner which sees them kicked out of the army.
In the cases you mentioned, like harassment, it’s not homosexuality that is at fault. It’s all sexuality – straight people are just as guilty.
So there are no grounds for assuming a link between homosexuality and abusive behaviour, or sleazy behaviour. Thus my analogy fits perfectly, as there are similar grounds for assuming a link between hair and eye colour and this sort of behaviour.
None.
==============
What a bunch of distorted nonsense.
And what inspires a homosexual or a bisexual or a heterosexual to sexually harass someone else? How do you know that the causes of every act of harassment are the same? What a ridiculous notion. Look at your answer, “it’s all sexuality.” It doesn’t even make grammatical sense. You can’t even define the word homosexuality in a way that makes sense.
If it’s “all” sexuality, then every person would be a harasser, because we all have a sexuality, and that’s not the case. If homosexuality has nothing to “inspire” sexual harassment, then there would be no homosexual harasser, and that’s also not the case. In case you haven’t noticed, for all your replies, you haven’t explained what causes every single homosexual attitude and behavior in humans, nor what causes humans to be sexually violent. Also, sexual harassment is not apart from sexuality, it is included in sexuality. So to say that homosexual harassment is separate from homosexuality is absurd.
You’re not reading what I’m saying, or you’re misunderstanding it. Let’s try again.
It doesn’t matter what causes every individual act of harassment.
It doesn’t matter BECAUSE harassment is not unique to homosexuals. Ergo, homosexuals can’t be singled out for discrimination on that basis.
If you are imputing something to the contrary, present your evidence.
As for your above query, “What’s good about it [homosexuality]?” you can’t answer everything with a question. You said it wasn’t good – so it doesn’t matter what I think is good about it – I’m asking why you said it wasn’t good. Do you have an answer or don’t you?
Incidentally, I would argue that sexual preference has no intrinsic value (i.e. that homo- and heterosexuality are neither bad nor good), except for reproduction of the species and by all accounts we’re doing fine with that.
If sexuality’s only value is for reproduction, then homosexuality has no value to the human race at all, the latter which I agree with. So there is nothing good about homosexuality concerning reproduction, it’s only bad. However I definitely do not agree that human sexuality is only about reproduction. But it is always best if a child can be conceived by both a father and a mother who love each other. Homosexuals can never do this, because their sexuality is not natural and it’s not made for reproduction. Just like pedophiles cannot conceive with children or animal-lovers cannot conceive with animals. It was not meant to be. They can only reproduce by unnatural means, without the love of both the father and the mother.
Heterosexuality is magnificent, because exactly it means two sexes and not just one. Homosexuality is so disordered because it’s so narcissistic. It shuns and it hates difference. It hates two different sexes coming together to create life and love. Why do homosexuals only obsess about their own sex? What’s good about it? Nothing.
What a horrible thing for the human race if there were only homosexual men on Earth. Imagine if all you had was a bunch of homos and babies in sci-fi artificial incubators. No women, no difference, no two sexes, no heterosexuality. So grotesque, so poor and mediocre. Heterosexuality is so magnificent because it says we need two, it takes two to tango, and we complement each other. You cannot grasp this.
Then there is the problem of why so many male homosexuals hate masculinity or have an exaggerated masculinity, and why so many lesbians clearly hate femininity and everything that stands for being a woman. They are desperate to be men. Completely disordered. Then there is the issue of a certain number of male homosexuals who are extremely misogynist and lesbians who hate men. What’s good about this? It’s not a question of preference, it’s a result of having a mountain of psychological problems. Another issue people like you are in denial about.
Then there is the question of harassment and violence, promiscuity, high risk behaviors, a sleazy mindset, found in high numbers among homosexuals. What’s good about it?
And why do they hate marriage so much? What’s good about how homosexuals hate marriage? Obviously a problem you can’t even grasp.
Then there is the problem of how much they lie. Is there anything that homosexuals don’t lie about? In general, they lie about what they are, about how they behave, and, like you, they lie about every single case of homosexual harassment, rape, abuse, battery, assault, and lack of ethics that refer to homosexuals. In general, they favor mass abortions, porn, prostitution. What’s good about this? Nothing. Their goal is to shove homosexuality down everyone’s throat as normal and good. What’s good about this? Nothing.
Why be homosexual? Nothing good about it. Why are people homosexual in the first place? A question you have run away from answering.
Alessandra, it’s difficult to know where to start. So let’s try just one small thing.
Many homosexual people want to get married. You know those protests in California after the state banned same-sex marriage? Do you think they would have happened if all homosexual people hated marriage and didn’t want to get married?
With that in mind, can you accept that gay people have different opinions from each other – some oppose marriage, some want to get married.
Tim, please go read the statistics on countries where homosexual marriage IS LEGAL. The great majority of homosexuals do not get married in any country where it has been legalized and this majority states they DO NOT want to get married. You’re clearly very ignorant on the subject. Nobody is talking about ALL homosexuals being clones. How do you explain that the majority of homosexuals in countries where homo marriage is legal DO NOT get married? Why don’t they want to get married? Why are they so hateful of marriage, so incapable of respecting the institution and being a part of it? Can you accept reality if it is not in accordance to your stupid pro-homo stereotypes?
Dave, save your breath.
I always know I’ve won an argument when my opponent starts flinging invectives around indiscriminately. Say, good night Dave!
I always know I’ve won an argument when my opponent starts flinging invectives around indiscriminately. Say, good night Dave!
===========================
They are not happy with just invectives, imprisonment is next. See what has just happened in Quebec:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=122113
Asking questions, disagreeing, and any thinking, speech or research that does not submit to the ignorant homosexual agenda is now a crime.
They just can’t debate things out, they must repress any kind of thinking or data that shows they are wrong.
What a repressive, repugnant society.
I’ll probably regret this, but I have to ask. What homosexual agenda?
The desire to be treated equally?
That’s a neat way to dodge the argument, but whatevs.
Dave, I am far from avoiding a good discussion – in fact, I’m trying hard to promote them. Please join me on my website to discuss homophobia and many other current issues important in our limited time here.
John W. McAlister
Ethical Universe
There’s so much here, but I must point out that according to recent studies, homosexuality seems perfectly natural.
Studies have shown that around 11-12% of giraffes are homosexual, and smaller studies have revealed a comparable rate for other species, who live in the wild and hence are under more evolutionary pressure than homo sapiens is at present.
Latest studies (I wish I could reference these studies, but google has proved fruitless – I definitely read it recently) show homosexual behaviour in around 12% of the human population. If anything, occurrences of such traits would be higher due to mankind’s (sic) lower dependence on reproduction for survival via our evolution thus far. I refer to technology, culture, etc.
I must specify here that I am responding to Alessandra’s comments, not those in the article itself.
You forgot to mention how “natural” it is to kill and eat your own babies. As to your most stupid argument that if it happens in nature with some species, it is therefore “natural”, meaning and fine and good, you’re one of the “smart ones.”
Also, Alessandra raised the point of homosexuals not getting married – call me naive but I put this down to:
a) a ‘civil partnership’ is seen by many as inferior to marriage between heterosexuals
b) in the US, the fact that such a partnership is not enshrined in the constitution is a worry
c) some homosexuals refuse to marry until their union is officially exactly the same as a marriage between heterosexuals
“What a horrible thing for the human race if there were only homosexual men on Earth. Imagine if all you had was a bunch of homos and babies in sci-fi artificial incubators. No women, no difference, no two sexes, no heterosexuality. So grotesque, so poor and mediocre. Heterosexuality is so magnificent because it says we need two, it takes two to tango, and we complement each other. You cannot grasp this.”
Not everyone is homosexual, but some people are born that way. To put this argument in a different context:
What a horrible thing for the human race if there were only infertile men on Earth. Imagine if all you had was a bunch of infertile men and babies in sci-fi artificial incubators. No virile men, no heterosexual procreation. So grotesque, so poor and mediocre. Fertility is so magnificent because it says we need two, it takes two to tango, and we complement each other. You cannot grasp this.
Why don’t we sanction and exclude all infertile heterosexual men on this basis? If the only purpose of men is to procreate and produce ancestors, surely we should remove childcare regulation, too? Lock up those who ‘fire blanks’ because they are utterly useless, and encourage men who can procreate to impregnate as many women as possible! That’s what the human race needs right now is more of this kind of thinking, and I’m shocked no-one else has thought of it.
Oh wait, hold on… That wouldn’t work (Yay! Massive overpopulation!) and, moreover, is morally repulsive.
All I’ve done here is take your arguments against homosexuality to their logical conclusions.
Also, Alessandra raised the point of homosexuals not getting married – call me naive but I put this down to:
a) a ‘civil partnership’ is seen by many as inferior to marriage between heterosexuals
b) in the US, the fact that such a partnership is not enshrined in the constitution is a worry
c) some homosexuals refuse to marry until their union is officially exactly the same as a marriage between heterosexuals
=============================
I’ll just call you very un- and misinformed. Please see my reply to Tim for countries where homosexual marriage IS legal. Then please answer the questions.
“Not everyone is homosexual, but some people are born that way. ”
How do you know?
Let’s see what you think about biology. Are people born bisexual? Are people born sexual harassers? Are people born anorexics, gambling addicts, pedophiles, zoophiles, pimps? Are people born murderers or thieves or rapists? Are people born hating the idea to get married? Are people born hating faithfulness? Are some men born hating masculinity? Are people born with a promiscuous mindset? Are people born addicted to pornography?
There isn’t a shred of evidence for the “born homosexual” theory. It’s just a show of the utmost ignorance about human psychology and sociology.
“What a horrible thing for the human race if there were only homosexual men on Earth. Imagine if all you had was a bunch of homos and babies in sci-fi artificial incubators. No women, no difference, no two sexes, no heterosexuality. So grotesque, so poor and mediocre. Heterosexuality is so magnificent because it says we need two, it takes two to tango, and we complement each other. You cannot grasp this.”
All I’ve done here is take your arguments against homosexuality to their logical conclusions.
==================
No, you didn’t. In fact, you didn’t even address the question. Did you imagine the picture above? Is this great for humanity? It’s horrible. I’m sure it’s the kind of world you dream of, sterile and homo-obsessed, but for the rest of us, it’s not what the human race was meant to be.
“What a horrible thing for the human race if there were only infertile men on Earth. Imagine if all you had was a bunch of infertile men and babies in sci-fi artificial incubators. No virile men, no heterosexual procreation. So grotesque, so poor and mediocre. Fertility is so magnificent because it says we need two, it takes two to tango, and we complement each other. You cannot grasp this.”
Your analogy breaks down already in the second line. If the only remnants of the human race were infertile, there are no babies from these men, incubators or no incubators. In any case, what a horrible picture indeed when there is no loving heterosexual reproduction in the human race.
“Fertility is so magnificent because it says we need two, it takes two to tango, and we complement each other.”
Another breakdown in the analogy. It’s not fertility that says we complement each other as two sexes, it’s heterosexuality. Many people with a homosexual mindset are fertile, but they are disordered in their minds, therefore incapable of procreating with a loving heterosexual partner, because they are incapable of loving someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuality it’s not natural for reproduction and it wasn’t meant to be for human procreation.
“What a horrible thing for the human race if there were only infertile men on Earth.”
Indeed. In case you didn’t notice, this would be the end of the human race.
“If the only purpose of men is to procreate and produce ancestors,”
What a stupid red herring that the ONLY purpose of men is to procreate. It is the purpose of having a heterosexual sexual reproduction system to reproduce heterosexually, but no one is arguing that people have only one purpose and it is procreation. Human beings have a heterosexual sexual apparatus meant for heterosexual sex. The fact remains that homosexual sex is always sterile, incapable of creating the miracle of life in human beings. And that’s not what the human race is about. You obviously cannot grasp this.
@Comment 40 – my comments on gay men not getting married are based around my own discussions with homosexuals, including one of my close friends. He is in a long-term, stable relationship but doesn’t want to get what he sees as something that’s almost-marriage-but-not-quite. There are still differences between the rights of married heterosexual couples and married homosexual couples here in the UK.
—————
@Comment 41 “Let’s see what you think about biology. Are people born bisexual? Are people born sexual harassers? Are people born anorexics, gambling addicts, pedophiles, zoophiles, pimps? Are people born murderers or thieves or rapists? Are people born hating the idea to get married? Are people born hating faithfulness? Are some men born hating masculinity? Are people born with a promiscuous mindset? Are people born addicted to pornography?
There isn’t a shred of evidence for the “born homosexual” theory. It’s just a show of the utmost ignorance about human psychology and sociology.
—————
I’ll take these one at a time.
Born bisexual? Bisexuality is more difficult to determine than homosexuality, but I accept that people can be born with an attraction to people of both sexes.
Born sexual harassers? No, most people’s childhood environment dictates a lot of how they behave towards other people. Sexual harassment is a social behaviour issue.
Born anorexics? Again, no. Anorexia is a mental disorder that develops in certain people whose perception of themself becomes distorted.
Born gambling addicts? Umm, no. Gambling is addictive though, and it’s no surprise that certain people do become addicted to it. It’s an adrenaline rush.
Born paedophiles/zoophiles? Paedophilia and zoophilia often have a lot to do with childhood experience, but the line society draws over the age of consent, etc varies widely from country to country, showing that it is more of a social construct than any kind of innate rule programmed within us.
Pimps/murderers/thieves/rapists? Gimme a break. There are many and varied reasons that people commit crime, but short of an inherited psychological disorder, these reasons are not present at birth.
As for the “born homosexual” theory, both the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the American Academy of Pediatrics state that homosexuality is innate, and that childhood experience has no measurable affect on an individual’s sexuality.
Then they are at odds with Narth and the APA. The APA, for example, states:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”
Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new APA position statement, it is clear that efforts to “prove” that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed. The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.
I couldn’t find the RCP and the AAP statements affirming that there is a homosexual gene. Do you have the links or can you explain what evidence they have for their statements? Or are you just repeating what they are saying without even knowing the basis for it?
You also agree that the environment and childhood experiences can profoundly damage and deform a person’s mindset about sexuality, degenerating it completely. If the environment can turn what would have been a normal, healthy heterosexual into a pedophile, that is, deform their sexual minds along an age-orientation axis, why couldn’t the environment do the same to deform someone along a hetero to homo axis? If you can deform a person to have desire for animals, why can’t you deform them to have desires for both sexes or for the same-sex?
The answer is you obviously can. In fact, you can deform a human mind in any way imaginable, and it happens after you’re born, not before.
A lot of my other questions have to do with behaviors based on psychological problems where people, to a large extent, don’t have much choice. It’s not because a person didn’t choose to be a gambling addict that it must be good for them. It’s not because a person didn’t choose to be a pedophile, that they were born to be that way. It’s to show how ridiculous the modern claim of homosexuals is: “I didn’t choose it, therefore it must be good and be determined by genes.” What ignorance.
Modern homosexuals and pro-homos are extremely detrimental to society exactly because you want to squash any inquiry and research into the process of changing a person’s mind from an innate heterosexual into a homosexual, whether in childhood or later on in life.
The AAP’s views can be found in this document: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;113/6/1827
and the RCP’s here: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf
“It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.”
I am not stating conclusively that homosexuality is definitely solely decided before birth, but at the very least the factors mentioned by the RCP have shown very strong correlation to homosexual bahaviour.
You assert that “there is no gay gene”. Given our lack of knowledge about the complex behaviour of genes, which often function in partnership or groups to produce traits, how can you make this statement?
—————
“You also agree that the environment and childhood experiences can profoundly damage and deform a person’s mindset about sexuality, degenerating it completely. If the environment can turn what would have been a normal, healthy heterosexual into a pedophile, that is, deform their sexual minds along an age-orientation axis, why couldn’t the environment do the same to deform someone along a hetero to homo axis?”
Paedophilia is wrong because of the ramifications for the child involved – because they are incapable of giving consent or understanding what it is they are doing. What two consenting adults choose to get up to is an entirely different subject. Paedophilia has a definite victim – who is the victim in consenting, adult homosexual experiences?
—————
“Modern homosexuals and pro-homos are extremely detrimental to society exactly because you want to squash any inquiry and research into the process of changing a person’s mind from an innate heterosexual into a homosexual, whether in childhood or later on in life.”
In 2009 the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded:
“Efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates. Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation. Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.”
I lifted that last quote directly off wikipedia, but the quote itself is from this study: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
@Comment 43 – I was attempting to draw parallels between your arguments against homosexuality (ie that it cannot result in procreation) and turning them into arguments against infertile men, because they too are incapable of producing children. If homosexuality is “not natural” and “wasn’t meant to be” then what about condoms? These aren’t natural and prevent procreation, so they should be outlawed, yes? Sex is not simply a vehicle whereby babies can be conceived, it is an act of emotion. Lust, love, whatever… Sex does not have just one purpose.
@Comment 45 – “Human beings have a heterosexual sexual apparatus meant for heterosexual sex. The fact remains that homosexual sex is always sterile, incapable of creating the miracle of life in human beings. And that’s not what the human race is about.”
—————
The fact remains that a scientist with a needle and a microscope can create the “miracle” of life in human beings, outside of any heterosexual sexual experience. Of course if everyone was gay, the human race would be in trouble, but not everyone is. Is there a problem if a certain section of the population neglects to produce children? What about heterosexual people who go through life without having children? Are they doing humanity a dis-service? Is their choice abhorrent and shameful? Of course not. Why is homosexuality treated so differently?
Scientists with needles can engineer conception, but it’s horrible compared to the way nature was meant to be. You can put a baby in a robot’s arm and feed it with a tube in its mouth and say that’s the same thing as being nursed by a loving mother, but you’re only lying to yourself.
Is there a problem with being homosexual when that’s not what you were meant to be? Of course. Just like being a gambling addict, anorexic, or a pedophile. What is good about it?
Secondly, you are excluding from the discussion all the sexuality problems that homosexuals display, such as when they harass others, when they sexually exploit or objectify others. In every environment where I’ve interacted with homo and bisexuals there was a ton more sexual harassment than in environments where there are only heterosexuals. Thanks to people like you, of course. Your lies here don’t address real problems with homosexuals.
And the other smaller question, but curious enough about how hypocrite homos and bisexuals are, is the issue that most of them hate admitting they are homosexuals (or bisexuals). But they argue it’s so horrible that they can’t do it in the military because of DADT, when they choose to do exactly that, i.e., lie and keep quiet in civil life most of the time. Interesting, I say. Repealing DADT is about homosexuals shoving their homosexuality onto people around them, specially subordinates. It has nothing to do about simply speaking outloud that they are homosexuals.
Alessandra, can you provide any evidence for your assertions about trends in countries where homosexual marriage is legal (the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Sweden, Norway and S Africa according to the gospel of Wikipedia). I’d be interested to see figures for, say, the % of 16-30yr old heterosexual couples who have married in the last 5 years vs the % of homosexual couples.
I am glad you at least recognise that homosexual people are not clones, that they are individuals and have different ideas, values, attitudes and behaviours from each other – just as heterosexual people do.
I’ll let you provide them yourself. Do the research, get the stats, and come back and post them. It will be an educational experience for you.
And please don’t misconstrue my viewpoint. Just because people aren’t clones in either groups, it doesn’t mean that having a healthy heterosexual mind is equal to having a disordered homosexual one.
“You also agree that the environment and childhood experiences can profoundly damage and deform a person’s mindset about sexuality, degenerating it completely. If the environment can turn what would have been a normal, healthy heterosexual into a pedophile, that is, deform their sexual minds along an age-orientation axis, why couldn’t the environment do the same to deform someone along a hetero to homo axis?”
Paedophilia is wrong because of the ramifications for the child involved – because they are incapable of giving consent or understanding what it is they are doing. What two consenting adults choose to get up to is an entirely different subject. Paedophilia has a definite victim – who is the victim in consenting, adult homosexual experiences?
===========================================
You have avoided the question of how a would-be healthy heterosexual baby gets turned into a pedophile. That is, when we ask how did someone come to display a pedophile mind, since it’s not in their genes, we are talking about their psychological and mental structures and dynamics which got deformed, dysfunctional, and degenerate.
The cause for pedophilia is not in someone’s genes, it’s their deforming experiences along their lifetime. The question you are avoiding is that the human mind can be deformed in any sexual aspect, whether age, same-sex, animals, whatever. And what good does that do someone? No good at all.
“Paedophilia is wrong because of the ramifications for the child involved”
No, it’s dysfunctional independently if there is any child involved. It is a deformed way to have a sexuality. Humans are supposed to develop themselves to have an adult sexuality and not a pedophile one. Someone with a pedophile mind, even if they don’t commit crimes, already have a messed up mind. And they are losing out on having a healthy, adult sexuality.
Alessandra: “Modern homosexuals and pro-homos are extremely detrimental to society exactly because you want to squash any inquiry and research into the process of changing a person’s mind from an innate heterosexual into a homosexual, whether in childhood or later on in life.”
================
You:In 2009 the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded:
================
Thanks for not reading anything that was posted. I’m not talking about therapy but about the process a human being goes through from being a heterosexual baby to arrive at having a deformed homosexual psychology several years later. It’s the same question that one can posit about how a pedophile arrives at that state. They aren’t born like this, but several years later, they present a certain sexuality mindset. You have offered no information that is a valid explanation to either phenomenon.
Concerning your quotation on therapies, one also needs to mention that the rate for curing pedophiles, that is, changing their deformed sexuality to a healthy adult sexuality, is about the same as for treating homosexuals, at our current state of therapeutic practices. Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean that pedophiles have a pedophile gene!
“I am not stating conclusively that homosexuality is definitely solely decided before birth, but at the very least the factors mentioned by the RCP have shown very strong correlation to homosexual bahaviour.”
I don’t see where the strong correlation has been proven.
“You assert that “there is no gay gene”. Given our lack of knowledge about the complex behaviour of genes, which often function in partnership or groups to produce traits, how can you make this statement?”
I can make it based on looking how the human mind can be deformed after birth in any which way, concerning sexuality or anything else. It is ridiculous to state that the human mind is deformed after birth for every type of dysfunctional desire (animals, dead people, fetishes, rape, excrement, children, obese people, etc etc) and only when it refers to same-sex it is determined before birth. It’s completely illogical to single this type of desire out from after-birth impacts, it makes no psychological sense to exclude it, it has no basis on research or knowledge about the way humans develop or interact concerning sexuality, personality development, or power or violence. Furthermore, humans are meant to be heterosexual, and they come with a heterosexual biology.
I also make this statement because I’ve read some of the history of psychology, science and sociology. When humans don’t want to face social problems in their own societies which produce psychological dysfunctional behaviors, they have, often enough, ignorantly sought to “blame it all on biology.”
You might like to read this:
http://www.albionmonitor.com/11-14-95/geneticscrime.html
As one very nice example, if you’ve heard of the early 20th century eugenics movement, it sought to explain poverty and crime by saying these ills were caused by certain genes.
The more someone tries to explain a very complex socio-psychological phenomenon by saying there’s some gene that has never been found that causes it, the more ignorant and intellectually disingenuous I think they are. I’ve also taken a look at the rebuttal studies for some of the major homo “gene-proving” studies, and it’s a question for specialists to debate, the genetics claims and study designs. As far as I know, there isn’t a single homosexuality gene study that has not been refuted.
It makes as much sense to look for a homosexuality gene as it does to search for a pedophile gene, a rapist gene, or a gambling gene.
As far as I can see, homosexuality is much more the product of a variety of complex personality development problems, social interaction problems, and definitely culture. The narcissistic element is immense and very clear in most homosexuals. Then, it’s clear that there are different expressions of homosexuality. Not all homosexuals have the same homosexual dynamics inside their minds. A lot of lesbians are desperately looking for self-affirmation through a mirror image. Then there are all those people who have a sexually objectifying, a perverse and a perverted sexuality, which they also want to find an echo to. There are the ultra-promiscuous. Then there are questions of doing psycho-sexual violence to others, specially lesbians and bisexuals harassing women. They can’t do it to men, they go after women. Then there are all the issues of extreme discomfort, deformation or rejection of either masculinity or femininity. Why do some homosexuals abhor masculinity to the highest degree possible? This is a psychological issue, it has nothing to do with genetics. I don’t see people who want to shove homosexuals in the military offering any good explanations to any of these phenomena, nor the problems they create in real life.
“…the human mind can be deformed after birth in any which way, concerning sexuality or anything else. It is ridiculous to state that the human mind is deformed after birth for every type of dysfunctional desire (animals, dead people, fetishes, rape, excrement, children, obese people, etc etc) and only when it refers to same-sex it is determined before birth.”
—————
Since when have fetishes been dysfunctional desires? People who enjoy sex with ‘obese people’ or involving ‘excrement’ are not dysfunctional individuals – they merely enjoy sex in a way that doesn’t conform to what the mainstream says is acceptable.
—————
“Furthermore, humans are meant to be heterosexual, and they come with a heterosexual biology.”
—————
This is a huge normative statement to make – who says humans are ‘meant to be’ heterosexual? What evidence is there that proves this? For the sake of survival of the species, it makes sense for a large proportion of humans to be heterosexual, but this does not mean that homosexuality is ‘wrong’.
I suggest that instead of coming at the question with your moral judgement of other people first and foremost, that you seek instead to understand other people and the choices they make. Furthermore, you continually request evidence to back up criticisms of your argument while simply stating that certain adtivities are ‘wrong’ and make a person ‘dysfunctional’. How about you start coming up with some facts to back up what you believe, instead of vague moralistic drivel?
—————
“There are the ultra-promiscuous… Why do some homosexuals abhor masculinity to the highest degree possible?”
—————
Firstly, there are plenty of ultra-promiscuous heterosexual individuals around – it’s not a problem restricted to the gay community, yet you treat it as such.
Maybe some homosexuals abhor masculinity because it represents the culture that calls them faggots, poofs and fairies, judges them at every opportunity, and seeks to stop them living their lives in the way they want.
“There are the ultra-promiscuous… Why do some homosexuals abhor masculinity to the highest degree possible?”
—————
Firstly, there are plenty of ultra-promiscuous heterosexual individuals around – it’s not a problem restricted to the gay community, yet you treat it as such.
==============
No at all. But why are the ultra-promiscuous homosexuals like this? What do you know about what goes on in their minds that produces this behavior?
(I meant “not at all – I have said nowhere that there aren’t heterosexuals who are ultra-promiscuous. Bogus criticism.)
Since when have fetishes been dysfunctional desires? People who enjoy sex with ‘obese people’ or involving ‘excrement’ are not dysfunctional individuals – they merely enjoy sex in a way that doesn’t conform to what the mainstream says is acceptable.
=======================
Since its a sign that a person has a mountain of deeper psychological problems that produce those fetishes. You’re too ignorant to know what goes on inside the mind of a person who has a sexual desire to eat excrement or to have sex with extremely obese people or children or animals. They don’t “simply” enjoy sex in different ways, in fact, what happens in their minds is much more complex (and dysfunctional). And its a product of psychological problems. What do you know about goes on inside the mind of a pedophile or someone who is sexually obsessed about obesity? Nothing. You’re completely ignorant about psychological dynamics related to sexuality. Your “explanation” that they “simply” enjoy attests of the simple-mindedness with which you view the world of sexuality.
It is irrelevant if the mainstream wants to eat excrement or not, or to have sex children with children or not. You still offer only ignorance to explain why they have such people have this particular mindset. People don’t become anorexic “simply because they enjoy dieting”; they don’t become gambling addicts “simply because they enjoy poker.” And they don’t become pedophiles ‘simply because they “enjoy” sex with children.’ Yours are incredibly ignorant “explanations” to very complex psychological dynamics.
Alessandra: “Furthermore, humans are meant to be heterosexual, and they come with a heterosexual biology.”
—————
You: This is a huge normative statement to make – who says humans are ‘meant to be’ heterosexual? What evidence is there that proves this? For the sake of survival of the species, it makes sense for a large proportion of humans to be heterosexual, but this does not mean that homosexuality is ‘wrong’.
I suggest that instead of coming at the question with your moral judgment of other people first and foremost, that you seek instead to understand other people and the choices they make. Furthermore, you continually request evidence to back up criticisms of your argument while simply stating that certain adtivities are ‘wrong’ and make a person ‘dysfunctional’. How about you start coming up with some facts to back up what you believe, instead of vague moralistic drivel?
=============================
Thank you for your advice, but every time I asked for an explanation why a pedophile had become one, or why they desire to have sex with children, or why someone developed a homosexual mindset, you only gave ridiculously ignorant replies. “Early uterine environment?” Please explain how that makes a person homosexual or a bisexual. If a never-found homo gene wasn’t enough of a kooky theory to explain homosexuality, now this. Does the early uterine environment determine which babies are going to have sex with horses when they grow up too? In what way exactly? What’s the process?
And in case you haven’t noticed, if you don’t agree with a statement that says something is wrong or dysfunctional, you’ve just made a moral judgment yourself. Every single argument you have made here is a “moral” argument, whether you are in favor or against something. If you don’t like morality, that is, to discern right from wrong, you should be quiet and not opine on anything. That is the only way to escape *morality.*
At least you wouldn’t waste so much bandwidth with “early uterine environment” and “they simply enjoy this and that” nonsense.
=========
“This is a huge normative statement to make – who says humans are ‘meant to be’ heterosexual? What evidence is there that proves this?”
Who says they aren’t? And what evidence is there? You haven’t offered anything that stands up to scrutiny.
” For the sake of survival of the species, it makes sense for a large proportion of humans to be heterosexual, but this does not mean that homosexuality is ‘wrong’.”
If you can’t even know what causes homosexuality, nor to explain why there are so many psychological problems in homosexual dynamics, your affirmation that it is not ‘wrong’ is not based on knowledge.
Maybe some homosexuals abhor masculinity because it represents the culture that calls them faggots, poofs and fairies, judges them at every opportunity, and seeks to stop them living their lives in the way they want.
===================
Or maybe they have much more profound and complex psychological problems that you don’t know anything about?
I would bet a trillion dollars that you could put any of these ultra-effeminate homosexuals in an environment where nobody called them poofs, nobody judged anything, they would all have their behinds kissed by people like you, and they would still go on being ultra-effeminate. The root of the problem is much deeper in my opinion. Anyways, in many places today in society, that’s exactly the environment people like you have created, and do you see any changes in the ultra-effeminate? No.
And if someone’s masculinity (which is a major part of a man’s psychology) can be so deformed by a reaction to their cultural environment, why couldn’t their sexual desire be deformed any which way as well by environmental experiences?
@Comments 58/59 – If there are both homosexual and heterosexual people who are ultra-promiscuous, I don’t see why I have to explain why those who are homosexual are like this. They are simply ultra-promiscuous people who are also homosexual, while other ultra-promiscuous people are heterosexual. Promiscuity is a choice of lifestyle independent of other factors.
@Comment 60 – fetishes are not the product of ‘dysfunctional’ psychological processes, they are the product of psychological processes. There is nothing dysfunctional about a fetish. Thus my use of the word “simply”. I don’t mean that the underlying psychology is simple, but that the result is not some majorly dysfunctional outcome. I understand what leads people to develop such things, but as I’ve mentioned before, if there is not a victim of what they are doing then there is nothing wrong with it.
fetishes are not the product of ‘dysfunctional’ psychological processes, they are the product of psychological processes. There is nothing dysfunctional about a fetish. Thus my use of the word “simply”. I don’t mean that the underlying psychology is simple, but that the result is not some majorly dysfunctional outcome. I understand what leads people to develop such things, but as I’ve mentioned before, if there is not a victim of what they are doing then there is nothing wrong with it.
========================
You’re telling me what’s right and wrong again! For someone who likes to tell others they can’t speak on what is wrong or right, you certainly love to impose your morality in just about every single comment. If you haven’t noticed, you show yourself to be a major moralist spewing a bunch of moralistic drivel on sexuality.
And I think your extremist view is very irresponsible. Committing a crime is not the only problem people can have. We’re back to almost the same question. If you turn the human race into humans who only want to eat excrement as a sexuality practice, it’s not only sexually speaking that the human race is dead. It is also completely dysfunctional from every healthy sexual relationship aspect. The same for pedophiles or for zoophiles or for zillions of other dysfunctional psychological configurations. Evidently, you cannot grasp what even a minimally healthy relationship and sexual practice is for human beings, and to discern responsibly and knowledgeably what is functional or dysfunctional.
@Comment 61 – early uterine environment, more specifically the levels of hormones the foetus is exposed to in such an environment, has been correlated to instances of homosexuality. Whether this is a direct or indirect cause (ie whether it simply causes them to act during childhood in a way that lends itself to later homosexuality or actually causes homosexuality) has not been proven, and is very difficult to determine.
If you’re such a psychology buff, you must be familiar with the “exotic becomes the erotic” school of thought that is one example of possible indirect causation. If young boys spend more time with young girls than other boys, they tend to be homosexual when they’re older. It’s not a foolproof link, but is an example of a theory.
You also claim that by disagreeing when someone makes a moral judgement such as those you make, I am taking a moral position myself. I am simply refuting your arguments, and personally regard sexual choices as an amoral part of life. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ sexuality or sexual practice, as long as there is not an innocent victim (such as a child or an animal, before you drag paedophilia and zoophilia into this again). Two consenting adults, in my eyes, are free to do whatever they want to each other, whatever gender, weight, age, etc the participants are. Incidentally, I do not like ‘morality’, and its connotations of absolute knowledge of right and wrong. I do, however, reserve the right to opine on whatever I damn well please, including the issues raised here.
@Comment 61(ii)
Me: “This is a huge normative statement to make – who says humans are ‘meant to be’ heterosexual? What evidence is there that proves this?”
You: Who says they aren’t? And what evidence is there? You haven’t offered anything that stands up to scrutiny.
—————
And neither have you. Stones, glass houses, etc.
You: If you can’t even know what causes homosexuality, nor to explain why there are so many psychological problems in homosexual dynamics, your affirmation that it is not ‘wrong’ is not based on knowledge.
You don’t know what causes homosexuality either, you keep mentioning dysfunctional brain processes without being at all specific. I don’t see any more problems within homosexual dynamics than in heterosexual ones – both sexualitites have their problems. Your affirmation that it is ‘wrong’ is similarly not based on knowledge.
@Comment 62 – It is their human right to act however effeminately they want – I suggest that there can be deep psychological problems in those who judge such behaviour in an effort to fit in with the masculine, alpha male stereotype. Dare I mention over-compensation and fear of one’s own homosexual thoughts?
Masculinity isn’t so much a feature of a man’s psychology, but by a man’s surroundings and a culture which prizes such behaviour. If someone wishes to act effeminately, then they are perfectly entitled to, in the same way that some men hover at the other end of the spectrum, the hyper-masculine behaviour that sees them act violently, etc.
It is their human right to act however effeminately they want – I suggest that there can be deep psychological problems in those who judge such behaviour in an effort to fit in with the masculine, alpha male stereotype. Dare I mention over-compensation and fear of one’s own homosexual thoughts?
===============
And where is the proof that being ultra-effeminate is a choice? You have offered none. Just saying “maybe it’s because they don’t like being called poof” is just ignorance. Have you ever investigated what goes on inside their minds? No. Maybe it’s because they saw a red parrot once, or were captured by a UFO! How’s that for throwing out theories without any basis on investigation? Also to say that it’s a human right to have a completely dysfunctional psychology is quite ludicrous. Is it a human right for a gambling addict to gamble away all their money? According to your brilliant interpretations of human psychology, just because someone displays a certain behavior, it must be enshrined as a human right; just because someone wants something, it must be right. (There’s your extreme morality again!) What nonsense.
Only demented people would argue that it is a human right for an anorexic to keep her weight at starvation levels “because it’s her golden human right to eat however she wants, it’s her damn business, and anyone who dares think it’s unhealthy must have deep psychological problems for judging her behavior.” Thank you for a brilliant way to posit that anyone who understands something is dysfunctional is the one who is dysfunctional in the first place! How clever. Indeed, all the doctors treating anorexics must be jealous of how thin they are and have great fears of their own closeted anorexic thoughts! That’s why they try to get them to eat more! Why didn’t the rest of us think of that? Can you go more downhill than this?
You know what is most clear in your discourse, it’s how people like you hate to face how many serious psychological problems human beings have with sexuality and relationships. Hits close to home, perhaps?
I also think your idea that humans choose different masculinities or femininities, as if we were talking about choosing to wear a red or green t-shirt, is again an extremely simplistic and a very distorted view on all the complex psychological components that construct gender states for each person.
You keep equating homosexual/effeminate behaviour with ones that are actually damaging. Gambling addicts end up flat broke, anorexics end up dead if not treated, but an effeminate man is just an effeminate man. Their behaviour does not lead to any kind of dire consequences, it is just a form of social behaviour that you happen to find abhorrent.
—————
“You know what is most clear in your discourse, it’s how people like you hate to face how many serious psychological problems human beings have with sexuality and relationships. Hits close to home, perhaps?”
—————
Wow, way to score a cheap shot there, three cheers for you, arsehole. For your information I’m well aware of the kinds of psychological issues involved with sexuality and relationships, probably more than most.
Of course my cupport for homosexuals stems entirely from my own sexual experiences, because how could a “homo-obsessed liberal” come to this stance in any other way? Surely not because of a fundamental belief in human rights or some other such fanciful concept?
Here is someone who has much more knowledge on what happens in the military:
From 1992 to 1994, I served as chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. During that time, President Clinton ignited a firestorm when he tried to force the Department of Defense to admit known homosexuals into the military. Key obstacles were the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ ) and department regulations stating that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” The uniform code prohibits indecent assaults, indecent acts, indecent liberties with children and sodomy. Each of those rules makes good sense in the unique military environment.
Even as Congress was wrestling with Mr. Clinton’s proposal on homosexuals, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Fort Hood, Texas. Homosexuals had advertised a Fort Hood restroom as a gathering spot for casual sex. In just seven days, criminal investigators observed 60 men publicly committing serious acts on post. Officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and enlisted personnel participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of rank.
The Army dealt with the matter discreetly, and the chief of public affairs referred to it as a “potentially explosive issue.” It was “explosive” because it contradicted the administration’s campaign to portray gay GIs as “perfect gentlemen – a boon to the force.”
At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being committed frequently by homosexual GIs. To be certain, homosexuals weren’t the only soldiers committing crimes, but the administration’s proposals would have placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions invite serious trouble.
Activists claim the risk of crimes from same-sex offenders is no greater than it is between servicemen and women. They are wrong. Women are not required to sleep and shower under the watchful eyes of men.
Homosexuals dismiss concerns regarding privacy in showers and in the barracks. But the risk is high. At Fort Sill, Okla., in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care.
Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a second-story window. At Marine boot camp, an aggressive female recruit was discharged for sexually touching and soliciting fellow Marines. Her intimidating manner caused fear and distrust throughout her platoon. At Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out training.
Rep. Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke firmly against dropping the ban on homosexuals, stating that it would cause “disruption” and “serious problems.” Mr. Skelton is correct.
Assaults aren’t the only problem. Few things threaten unit cohesion more than consensual sex between homosexuals while others are present. The Fort Hood incident demonstrates how public sex among homosexual officers, NCOs and enlisted men destroys respect for rank. How would men respond to such officers and noncoms in battle?
If widespread misconduct of that severity could happen with the prohibitions now in effect, how much worse would it become if consensual homosexuality were lawfully sanctioned – and made the subject of sensitivity training?
====================
Obviously, activists can care less, because they only thing they care about is their demented homosexual fanaticism, and at most, will only listen to such experiences while comfortably sipping a drink on their couches.
@Comment 64 – I’ve already told you that I regard sexuality as an amoral area. When I say “it’s not wrong”, I am not saying, “It is right”. This is not a world of black and white, wrong and right. You are the one casting judgements on people for their behaviour, I am merely saying that such behaviour is acceptable.
—————
“If you turn the human race into humans who only want to eat excrement as a sexual practice…”
—————
What if we turn the human race into humans who are in every part of their anatomy the same as blades of grass? Or what if we turned everyone into chickens? Sexual fetishes are not contagious, they’re not going to spread like a virus throughout the human population. Your argument is farcical and doesn’t even deserve an answer.
http://laiglesforum.com/
I have a military friend in the UK who knows what it is like to serve with openly homosexuals in the military. His experience is that the homosexuals are promoted ahead of heteros and then they in turn promote those who will go along with their proclivities and serve as playmates. Heteros not only take a back seat in promotions but, more importantly, are harassed.
The military is not supposed to be for sex games, but you are letting political correctness change that perspective.
The yellow media has widely repeated the claim that “300 homosexual language experts have been fired under DADT, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic.” The claim relies upon a mendacious representation of data found in a 2005 GAO report that examines separations for homosexual conduct over the 10-year period 1994-2003. Even a cursory reading of that report reveals that few, if any, of the 300-plus individuals could conceivably be deemed “experts” – many didn’t even complete their language training. And of the over 50 (actually 54) ostensibly fluent in Arabic, only 20 achieved any sort of proficiency at all and none of these scored high enough to be considered fluent in the language.
===============
The first and foremost objective of a homosexual activist is to lie.
Another reason to worry:
Homosexual and bisexual men are, by an enormous margin, the greatest group spreading AIDS in the US.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure
These people’s behavior are a health hazard. And all the money spent on their treatment, especially when it is an outcome of their dysfunctional sexual behaviors (promiscuous, irresponsible, disrespectful, perverted), could be much better applied to fight child, elderly, and animal abuse, pollution, and a million other ills where the victims did nothing to deserve their abuse.
Secondly, I have also seen statistics showing that, among heterosexual African-American women with HIV/AIDS, the contamination largely came from their male partners, who were bisexual and transferred AIDS to them, always lying about their sexual practices. Evidently, the statistics show just how many homosexuals and bisexuals are disproportionally vile people, who will not refrain from spreading AIDS because it’s, in the words of JonnyRed, their little “human right.”
If you haven’t read the episode summary in the TV guide, this is the part where I stop replying to bullshit and get on with my life.
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/09/06/military.obesity/index.html
Paul Crane said he lost everything when he was kicked out of the Army after 15 years — for being 8 pounds overweight.
Every year, between 3,000 and 5,000 service members such as Crane are forced to leave the military for being too fat.
——
Although there’s a difference between someone who sits behind a desk all day and someone whose work involves physical activity, it’s completely discriminatory to discharge someone with a career military sedentary job because they ate a few more Twinkies.
I don’t see pro-homos crying about how unjust it is that good men and women who had a few more chocolate bars were expelled from the military–if they were in sedentary jobs. Additionally, the chunky don’t harass other people in the showers because of their overweight condition, and fat men don’t get military women pregnant because of their preference for two large fries.
There were a lot more fat people that were discharged than DADT cases, but are liberals wailing and putting on their drama queen shows about it? Are they calling the President to overturn this horrible discrimination against the fluffier of our military?
No, they can care less, those hateful waist-line bigots.