Gays serving openly in the military

[Roy]

Saying most marines are closed minded minded bigots is as closed minded as them saying most homosexuals are limp wristed. How many marines do you know that you can say most? I agree with you for the most part, but you can't agrue against generalizations by using other generalizations.

If you ask ten different marines for their opinion, you'll get ten different opinions coming from ten different directions.

If you ask ten different homosexuals for their opinion, you'll get ten different opinions coming from ten different directions.

[discspeed]

Saying most marines are closed minded minded bigots is as closed minded as them saying most homosexuals are limp wristed. How many marines do you know that you can say most? I agree with you for the most part, but you can't agrue against generalizations by using other generalizations.

If you ask ten different marines for their opinion, you'll get ten different opinions coming from ten different directions.

If you ask ten different homosexuals for their opinion, you'll get ten different opinions coming from ten different directions.

Yeah, that's my bad, I should not have made a generalization like that. I'm just thinking about the guys I knew who joined the Marines out of high school and they were pretty macho and homophobic.

[Jesse B 707]

Saying most marines are closed minded minded bigots is as closed minded as them saying most homosexuals are limp wristed. How many marines do you know that you can say most? I agree with you for the most part, but you can't agrue against generalizations by using other generalizations.

If you ask ten different marines for their opinion, you'll get ten different opinions coming from ten different directions.

If you ask ten different homosexuals for their opinion, you'll get ten different opinions coming from ten different directions.

Yeah, that's my bad, I should not have made a generalization like that. I'm just thinking about the guys I knew who joined the Marines out of high school and they were pretty macho and homophobic.

Roy has a good point but out of the 10 or so guys ive known who have joined the service probly 7 of them would fit this stereotype well....just sayin (and i live in northern Cali)

[SkaBob]

The Marines are a special branch in terms of the mental conditioning they instill into their recruits by the time they're out in the field. They produce a far more aggressive soldier that's far more likely to give in to their temper when shit hits the fan.

You have to expect it. Marines are shock troops.

I know of only one person that came out of the Marines well adjusted and not in need of anger management classes, and it was a woman.

I do think out of guys, the ones that say "Yeah, I wanna be a MARINE!" rather than "I want to serve my country", you will find a high incidence of a certain type of personality.

[Beable]

Arguing about whether being gay is a choice or not is a distraction from the real topic. The implication there is that if being gay WAS a choice, it would be OK to discriminate against gays for choosing wrong. At a more basic level, I would argue that the choice of two consenting adults to do whatever they want to each other is no one else's business. Who cares if it's genetic or not? Just mind your own business and let homosexuals do everything that everyone else does.

Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is fairly offensive. I understand why you were doing it in the context of the genetic debate, but the core problem with pedophilia is that children cannot consent to have sex in our society. There is a power imbalance between adults and children. This power imbalance is not present in a consensual homosexual relationship between two adults.

[Jsw]

Blah blah Blah.... This power imbalance is not present in a consensual homosexual relationship between two adults.

Actually, in 100% of gay relationships usually one partner chooses to be the "wife", generally its the more flamboyant, effeminate one.

[Beable]

And thus gains all the power?

[Jsw]

And thus gains all the power?

Well played

[sunspot]

Mostly to Sunspot,

[quote[I understand that a percentage of homosexuals have a wishy washy sexuality that can be influenced by environmental factors and at some point experience will influence them to make a choice one way or another. I acknowledge that. What about the good percentage of homosexuals that clearly show that orientation from an early age? Like I said earlier, I think sexuality is a spectrum, not black and white. There are super masculine men, and effeminate men, and same with females. There are also super-gay people. People who everyone knew they would be gay by the time they were 5 years old or earlier. Many gay people fit this description. I work with kids and I have seen this. When my cousin "came out" at 17 (who btw NEVER showed any interest in the opposite sex before coming out) NO ONE in my family was the least bit shocked or surprised. It was still a little awkward as I have a fairly conservative family, but we all half suspected for some time. Some people are born gay.

One of the problems that we often do in dealing with behavior is interpolating our ideas in to what we think a person is going to be. How do we know that a certain child is going to be gay? Usually, we take general markers about femininity in little boys (masculinity in girls) and assume their sexual orientation. Basically, we encourage them to become that way because we see them act a certain way, and by doing this we make this the standard of judging between who is gay and who is not.

I don't think that this perception is entirely wrong, however I think we have to be balance in our approach and I think it can be argued against homosexuality and not for it. Even then, when we do judge, we base our perspective on other factors, namely environment and culture, not genetic. As you are saying, there are effeminate men and masculine women that are straight. Obviously, if they displayed these certain characteristics while they were young, then they could be "type caste" into a homosexual role. At that point, it becomes more psychological than genetic.

Whether genetic or from hormonal influences in the womb, they come out that way with no choosing involved. The 50% of identical twins sharing homosexuality makes as strong of a case for a genetic influence as it does against it. 50% is still a lot.

For homosexuality to be genetically influenced it has to be 100%. I don't see how a case can be made for it being positive.

BTW, I have a lot of respect for the way you express and support your views.

I appreciate the respect. Thanks for doing the same.

I understand this is a sensitive topic. People often get riled up to the point where dialogue can not go any further. In most cases, people have to resolve to agree to disagree.

I'm also pretty sure you are a pastor, correct? If you don't mind sharing, how do you counsel those who come to you and are sure they are gay? As I said earlier, my cousin has been raised in the church and has a very strong christian faith. This faith and the way his church has reacted has helped him get through this period of "coming out" in a healthy manner. I'm thankful that he has had that faith and support because I think it has kept him from "going wild" in terms of being promiscuous and putting himself at emotional and physical risk. If his church had taken a more conservative or hard line approach I think it could have sent him in the opposite direction.

No, I'm not a pastor. I may be someday. Most importantly, I'm a believer in Christ.

There are two things I would like to address before I give a more detail response:

1. If I were to counsel someone who was gay or dealing with the issue I would do so out of gentleness and respect.

2. The issue of being gay is no different than any other issue that is addressed in the Bible. The amount of attention it gets is good and bad. Good, in the sense that it needs to be address. Bad, in the sense that it's not the only problem the Bible addresses.

Expounding on point 2, adultery doesn't get as much as attention as homosexuality. Adultery is a huge problem around the world and little is said about it. Some one may mention Tiger Woods and say "What about him? He got a ton of flack for what he did". The main thing with the Tiger Woods story wasn't about the struggle he went through and how to deal with it, but the exploitation of what the culture deemed as a "family" man and the fall that took place once the media discovered that he was promiscuous. Even after all this is over with, the issue of adultery is not going to be talked about or disputed like homosexuality.

The reason for this is that people have different standards for different things and the standard of homosexuality is on is the standard of trying to be normal.

In my eyes, the question is not what do I say to those who are struggling with being gay, but those who are struggling with many different issues.

The Bible is explicit about God's standards. We all fall short of God's standards. God's standard is like a bull-eyes, we all miss the mark. This is what sin is. We are prideful, arrogant, lustful, vengeful, violent, hateful, full of self, and so on. When asked if we are good we say with an emphatic "Yes". We, however, are not. Look at the laundry list of things that we have fallen short of, and do on a daily basis. We constantly and consistently break the law of God.

This is why Christ became our substitute, to die in our place for our sins. We deserve wrath, but God extends mercy. God desires to take a broken relationship and mend it back.

I would remind the person that sin is sin and we all have it. It manifest itself in different ways. A person may be giving into the temptation of one thing and not another. One may struggle with homosexuality and the other adultery. Both are missing God's standard.

I believe that a Christian needs to saturate himself in the Bible. They need to pour over the scriptures and seek God's help in areas of struggles and temptations. Prayer and seeking God's help is the key.

[stoneman]

Mostly to Sunspot,

[quote[I understand that a percentage of homosexuals have a wishy washy sexuality that can be influenced by environmental factors and at some point experience will influence them to make a choice one way or another. I acknowledge that. What about the good percentage of homosexuals that clearly show that orientation from an early age? Like I said earlier, I think sexuality is a spectrum, not black and white. There are super masculine men, and effeminate men, and same with females. There are also super-gay people. People who everyone knew they would be gay by the time they were 5 years old or earlier. Many gay people fit this description. I work with kids and I have seen this. When my cousin "came out" at 17 (who btw NEVER showed any interest in the opposite sex before coming out) NO ONE in my family was the least bit shocked or surprised. It was still a little awkward as I have a fairly conservative family, but we all half suspected for some time. Some people are born gay.

One of the problems that we often do in dealing with behavior is interpolating our ideas in to what we think a person is going to be. How do we know that a certain child is going to be gay? Usually, we take general markers about femininity in little boys (masculinity in girls) and assume their sexual orientation. Basically, we encourage them to become that way because we see them act a certain way, and by doing this we make this the standard of judging between who is gay and who is not.

I don't think that this perception is entirely wrong, however I think we have to be balance in our approach and I think it can be argued against homosexuality and not for it. Even then, when we do judge, we base our perspective on other factors, namely environment and culture, not genetic. As you are saying, there are effeminate men and masculine women that are straight. Obviously, if they displayed these certain characteristics while they were young, then they could be "type caste" into a homosexual role. At that point, it becomes more psychological than genetic.

Whether genetic or from hormonal influences in the womb, they come out that way with no choosing involved. The 50% of identical twins sharing homosexuality makes as strong of a case for a genetic influence as it does against it. 50% is still a lot.

For homosexuality to be genetically influenced it has to be 100%. I don't see how a case can be made for it being positive.

BTW, I have a lot of respect for the way you express and support your views.

I appreciate the respect. Thanks for doing the same.

I understand this is a sensitive topic. People often get riled up to the point where dialogue can not go any further. In most cases, people have to resolve to agree to disagree.

I'm also pretty sure you are a pastor, correct? If you don't mind sharing, how do you counsel those who come to you and are sure they are gay? As I said earlier, my cousin has been raised in the church and has a very strong christian faith. This faith and the way his church has reacted has helped him get through this period of "coming out" in a healthy manner. I'm thankful that he has had that faith and support because I think it has kept him from "going wild" in terms of being promiscuous and putting himself at emotional and physical risk. If his church had taken a more conservative or hard line approach I think it could have sent him in the opposite direction.

No, I'm not a pastor. I may be someday. Most importantly, I'm a believer in Christ.

There are two things I would like to address before I give a more detail response:

1. If I were to counsel someone who was gay or dealing with the issue I would do so out of gentleness and respect.

2. The issue of being gay is no different than any other issue that is addressed in the Bible. The amount of attention it gets is good and bad. Good, in the sense that it needs to be address. Bad, in the sense that it's not the only problem the Bible addresses.

Expounding on point 2, adultery doesn't get as much as attention as homosexuality. Adultery is a huge problem around the world and little is said about it. Some one may mention Tiger Woods and say "What about him? He got a ton of flack for what he did". The main thing with the Tiger Woods story wasn't about the struggle he went through and how to deal with it, but the exploitation of what the culture deemed as a "family" man and the fall that took place once the media discovered that he was promiscuous. Even after all this is over with, the issue of adultery is not going to be talked about or disputed like homosexuality.

The reason for this is that people have different standards for different things and the standard of homosexuality is on is the standard of trying to be normal.

In my eyes, the question is not what do I say to those who are struggling with being gay, but those who are struggling with many different issues.

The Bible is explicit about God's standards. We all fall short of God's standards. God's standard is like a bull-eyes, we all miss the mark. This is what sin is. We are prideful, arrogant, lustful, vengeful, violent, hateful, full of self, and so on. When asked if we are good we say with an emphatic "Yes". We, however, are not. Look at the laundry list of things that we have fallen short of, and do on a daily basis. We constantly and consistently break the law of God.

This is why Christ became our substitute, to die in our place for our sins. We deserve wrath, but God extends mercy. God desires to take a broken relationship and mend it back.

I would remind the person that sin is sin and we all have it. It manifest itself in different ways. A person may be giving into the temptation of one thing and not another. One may struggle with homosexuality and the other adultery. Both are missing God's standard.

I believe that a Christian needs to saturate himself in the Bible. They need to pour over the scriptures and seek God's help in areas of struggles and temptations. Prayer and seeking God's help is the key.

ROCK ON Sunspot! Nice post,thanks.

[discspeed]

From my perspective adultery and homosexuality are not even on the same playing field. Adultery is a selfish abuse of trust. Even from a Christian perspective...you are cheating on your beliefs/God and the one person in your life that you have made a societal/religious commitment to, where engaging in homosexual relations does not hurt/deceive others. Perhaps premarital sex and homosexuality are more equivalent from that perspective. Either way, I truly believe that same sex relationships for homosexuals are as valid and can be every bit as fulfilling and healthy as conventional relationships are for straight persons.

(The rest of this is not directed toward anyone in particular)
I have a difficult time finding respect for those who attempt to deny homosexuals their pursuit of happiness and equal rights when that quest does them no harm whatsoever. If you do not believe homosexuality is right, then you can choose to be straight, hang out with straight people, and teach your kids your beliefs. You should not attempt to take that choice away from others imo by fighting to deny them rights under thinly veiled guises for discrimination such as "preserving the sanctity of marriage". Marriage is a social institution. It is religious for those who choose to make it so, but it is not prerequisite.

[sunspot]

From my perspective adultery and homosexuality are not even on the same playing field. Adultery is a selfish abuse of trust. Even from a Christian perspective...you are cheating on your beliefs/God and the one person in your life that you have made a societal/religious commitment to, where engaging in homosexual relations does not hurt/deceive others. Perhaps premarital sex and homosexuality are more equivalent from that perspective. Either way, I truly believe that same sex relationships for homosexuals are as valid and can be every bit as fulfilling and healthy as conventional relationships are for straight persons.

I could see how that from our perspective adultery and homosexuality seem different. From a biblical standpoint, they are both consider wrong because they break the standard that God has created. When a person engages in homosexuality they may not, in our perspective, be hurting anyone. In God's eyes, they are actively going against his plan and standard.

One of the problems that we have as humans is justifying what we think it right. People find excuses for anything to justify their behavior. For example, if you have ever watched "To catch a predator" then you know what I'm talking about. Every time Chris Hansen comes out and bust these guys who try to hook up with a minor, they all give a lame, absurd, hilarious excuse. It's all a ploy to justify what they are doing.

If we are all surrounded in the same milieu of filth then everything that we see isn't filth it appears right and correct because that's all we know. A fish will never know if the fish tank is dirty. The only person that will know is the owner, the one looking on the outside in. The owner has certain standards to keep the fish tank from deteriorating into a complete and utter mess. This is somewhat analogous to our perspective and God's, so is it any wonder that we justify our own behavior as well as others.

(The rest of this is not directed toward anyone in particular)
I have a difficult time finding respect for those who attempt to deny homosexuals their pursuit of happiness and equal rights when that quest does them no harm whatsoever. If you do not believe homosexuality is right, then you can choose to be straight, hang out with straight people, and teach your kids your beliefs. You should not attempt to take that choice away from others imo by fighting to deny them rights under thinly veiled guises for discrimination such as "preserving the sanctity of marriage". Marriage is a social institution. It is religious for those who choose to make it so, but it is not prerequisite.

I think this is sort of a slippery slope. If there is no definition of what marriage should be, then who's to say that a person can't marry their teddy bear?

To have a high standard on marriage isn't a bad thing. To say that such and such can't marry because it violates the sanctity of marriage isn't wrong. We have standards in everything. A person who is bound to a wheelchair can't enlist in the front lines of the army. Why? Because they don't meet the requirements of the military. Is it wrong? No, because there will be more harm than good if we were to allow such a thing to happen. We don't allow blind people to drive. Why? It would be harmful to everyone else on the road.

Sure, people could get to together and have coalitions against what appear to be discrimination against blind people and handicap people. People start getting on the bandwagon of support and try to make it a law where the blind can drive and the handicap can serve on the front lines. People ignore the standards that have been set up for the sake of equality, and in the end they get behind something that is a determinant to society.

Some may say, well it's obvious that the blind and handicap on front lines can hurt others, homosexuality is not like that. The results in homosexuality appear less apparent than the other two examples but the outcome is the same, and it follows the same idea of not realizing the standard that has been put in place.

[stoneman]

We need a thumbs up smiley. I'd have used it.

[discspeed]

One of the problems that we have as humans is justifying what we think it right. People find excuses for anything to justify their behavior. For example, if you have ever watched "To catch a predator" then you know what I'm talking about. Every time Chris Hansen comes out and bust these guys who try to hook up with a minor, they all give a lame, absurd, hilarious excuse. It's all a ploy to justify what they are doing.

Their excuses/rationalizations are absurd because we all know that they were about to do serious and irreparable harm to a young person. Children do not possess the ability to protect themselves from this sort of predation and have no idea of the implications of these sort of acts on their futures. The perpetrators know this is wrong, if they lack morality, they at least know it is a societal taboo. This is not really comparable to homosexuals. Once again, they are not hurting or preying on anyone. Unless they are conflicted because of specific personal religious or moral beliefs that they hold true, then they are not rationalizing their behavior because it is not wrong to them. Once again, the pedophile comparison is undeserved and is hugely different because of the predator/victim roles and because there is no recognized moral structure that allows for this sort of thing (unless perhaps you're a member of NAMBLA ).

If we are all surrounded in the same milieu of filth then everything that we see isn't filth it appears right and correct because that's all we know. A fish will never know if the fish tank is dirty. The only person that will know is the owner, the one looking on the outside in. The owner has certain standards to keep the fish tank from deteriorating into a complete and utter mess. This is somewhat analogous to our perspective and God's, so is it any wonder that we justify our own behavior as well as others.

This line of reasoning seems very judgmental to me. It seems like an easy way to point out the perceived filth of "others" who are not hurting anyone rather than dealing with the darkness inside of one's self. I think religion should be about being the best you can be personally in God's eyes rather than tarring and feathering those who choose to live/believe a different way, once again causing harm to no one. I believe people have the right to the freedom of pursuit of happiness (even if it is outside of someone else's religious/moral beliefs) if they are not antisocial (causing harm). Live and let live, deal with that in which you have the most control (yourself), and trust God to be the judge. That's just my opinion.

I think this is sort of a slippery slope. If there is no definition of what marriage should be, then who's to say that a person can't marry their teddy bear?

I think this is very obviously different from a committed homosexual couple who wish wish to publicly be acknowledged and be afforded the same benefits as straight couples. Comparing a human to a stuffed animal seems to make light of the issue.

To have a high standard on marriage isn't a bad thing. To say that such and such can't marry because it violates the sanctity of marriage isn't wrong. We have standards in everything. A person who is bound to a wheelchair can't enlist in the front lines of the army. Why? Because they don't meet the requirements of the military. Is it wrong? No, because there will be more harm than good if we were to allow such a thing to happen. We don't allow blind people to drive. Why? It would be harmful to everyone else on the road.

Sure, people could get to together and have coalitions against what appear to be discrimination against blind people and handicap people. People start getting on the bandwagon of support and try to make it a law where the blind can drive and the handicap can serve on the front lines. People ignore the standards that have been set up for the sake of equality, and in the end they get behind something that is a determinant to society.

Some may say, well it's obvious that the blind and handicap on front lines can hurt others, homosexuality is not like that. The results in homosexuality appear less apparent than the other two examples but the outcome is the same, and it follows the same idea of not realizing the standard that has been put in place.

I think you recognized the limited validity of your examples in that last paragraph. I think what it comes down to here is the separation of church and state and the allowance of people a pursuit of happiness that does not infringe on the rights of others. I believe our founding fathers recognized these things as critical to a long lived and prosperous state. I do not believe that a single institution such as a single religion should be controlling how people in our country live. If you look at governments around the world that are not secular and allowing of different beliefs they stifle freedom and it always ends ugly as this is the one thing people are willing to fight and die for. If our country were ruled by a single group's vision of what God wanted then even slightly different denominations of the same basic religion would be at war with the institution (protestants vs catholics, sunnis vs shiites). This is why governments' must try and forge some common ground and basic prosocial moral principles aside from strict religious and moral codes. From this perspective I think it makes sense to allow homosexuals the pursuit of happiness through fighting openly for their country and being included in state recognized unions rather than allowing those who believe in a specific religious principle to deny them these freedoms. Allowing this freedom will not change the quality of life of those who seek to deny this, however, it will greatly improve the quality of life of homosexuals. Once again, these are just my opinions.

[Jesse B 707]