Another stick

[Roguish Lawyer]

Maybe this one is too obvious in this crowd, but let's try it:

"Don't ask, don't tell." Discuss.

And you can talk about gay marriage too if you want. :D

NDD, didn't you say you were going to find a lib?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Why hasn't "don't ask, don't tell" been repealed?

[NousDefionsDoc]

I'm your huckleberry.

Repealed? Is it a law?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'm your huckleberry.

Repealed? Is it a law?

Policy, law, whatever. Isn't it still the policy of the DOD?

[NousDefionsDoc]

I don't know.
I've got a good one on another board. College boy just told me that being gay is biological but not genetic. His Social Science and Studies professor told him so and unless I have a doctorate in social science I need to STFU and I am a dumbass. And his professor told him to say that if anyone tried to tell him different.

I am explaining to my new friend how I didn't sign the social contract, so he needs to watch the name calling. I made him cry yesterday. LOL

Anyway,
I think there have always been gay people in the military and "Don't ask, Don't tell" is just a catchy way of appeasing a voting block by Clinton. I would imagine SP4 justice would take care of it as it always has when it becames an "in your face" type of issue.

I would doubt that gay people would tend to gravitate towards units like SF for several reasons, not the least being peer pressure and the impossibility of keeping it "don't tell" in a Team environment.

I personally don't have a problem with them serving as long as they "don't tell." And not just gays. I don't want to know the sexual habits of anybody in the military. There are a lot of people that have weird ideas and not just in the sexual arena. I don't want to know who is a member of the John Birch Society, who likes to be tied up, etc. As long as it doesn't affect the unit, how would I know?

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Policy, law, whatever. Isn't it still the policy of the DOD?

I would think there is a big difference in terms of who has to be swayed to change the current status quo.

DoD policy would not have to be passed through Congress would it? Whereas if it is a law... it will never change in our current PC political climate. Who knows which it is?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Did my answer surprise you?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
College boy just told me that being gay is biological but not genetic.

What does that mean?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Did my answer surprise you?

No. You're a communist, so it makes perfect sense. :D

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
What does that mean?

Well, what I think it means is that they didn't choose to be gay as a choice, but since it has been proven to not be genetic, it must be biological.

My current question to him (as yet ignored) is well, they must have caught it like a disease then?

LOL

[Roguish Lawyer]

My understanding from discussing the issue with gays and lesbians is that it is not a choice, but rather some sort of preprogrammed disposition. If that is true, I think it becomes more difficult to distinguish between sexual orientation and other characteristics like race for purposes of social policy.

On the other hand, the line must be drawn somewhere -- you're not going to just accept the fact that someone was born to murder or molest children or animals. So where do you draw the line?

[Team Sergeant]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I don't know.
I've got a good one on another board. College boy just told me that being gay is biological but not genetic. His Social Science and Studies professor told him so and unless I have a doctorate in social science I need to STFU and I am a dumbass. And his professor told him to say that if anyone tried to tell him different.


I enjoy when people tell me that, that it’s a biological disorder and not one of conscious decision. So is cancer, so are a number of diseases. I would have asked college boy if that applies to pedophiles, serial rapists and all the other sick perverted bastards? And when he answers yes then ask why were depriving them of their civil rights? Maybe because of the widely held impression is that they are mentally sick.

The question is where does one draw the line in the sand?

Team Sergeant

[Roguish Lawyer]

I heard on TV the other day that most Americans oppose gay marriage, but they support "civil unions." The distinction is that they will tolerate homosexuals, but not endorse their behavior.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
The question is where does one draw the line in the sand?

Brilliant, just brilliant. LOL

[NousDefionsDoc]

My understanding from discussing the issue with gays and lesbians is that it is not a choice, but rather some sort of preprogrammed disposition.

Uh, how is this different than genetic?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Uh, how is this different than genetic?

I don't know. That's why I asked my question above.

Has it really been proven not to be genetic? I have no idea.

[NousDefionsDoc]

How many gay people do you know that had gay parents or relatives at all? I could google it, but I don't care.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I don't care either, but I googled it anyway. Don't know if this is right or wrong, but here it is.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nih-upi.html

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Many homosexual men appear to inherit a gene from their mothers that influences sexual orientation, a National Cancer Institute researcher reported Thursday.
The finding -- certain to add fuel to the already heated debate over gay rights -- supports earlier studies which suggested that inherited genetic factors at least play a role in determining sexual orientation.

``Being gay is not simply a choice or purely a decision. People have no control over the genes they inherit and there is no way to change them,'' said the study's lead author Dean Hamer, chief of the cancer institute's Section on Gene Structure and Regulation.

Hamer and his colleagues began by studying the family histories of 114 gay men and found more homosexual brothers, uncles and male cousins than would be expected in the general population. Some families had three generations of homosexual relatives.

``Since the uncles and cousins aren't raised in the same household but share genetic information, that suggested there was something inherited going on,'' Hamer said in an interview.

Following up on that suggestion, Hamer studied the DNA from 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and found 33 of them shared genetic markers on the X chromosome in a region known as Xq28.

The X chromosome is one of two sex-determining chromosomes; it is always inherited from mothers. Genes are arranged along 46 chromosomes, each consisting of tiny coils of DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, which carries the instructions to manufacture a particular body substance.

There was no such similar sharing in the same region among heterosexual men. The researchers have not yet compared the homosexuals' genetic information to the other group.

``We expect that this region will be important for both heterosexual and homosexual development -- that there will be a very small and subtle difference'' between the genes of each group, Hamer said.

However, the finding does not explain all homosexuality. Seven out of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers studied did not have the common genetic factor, the researchers said.

The research, published in the journal Science, was conducted as part of the National Cancer Institute's study of cancers such as Kaposi's sarcoma which afflict unusually large numbers of homosexuals.

Further study is being conducted to determine whether a similar genetic link occurs in families of homosexual women. Hamer said he also hopes to identify the specific gene involved in sexual orientation.

Gregory King, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign Fund, a gay and lesbian activist group, said he hoped Hamer's study would ``help Americans understand that most lesbian and gay people do not choose their sexual orientation.''

But King also expressed concern that anti-homosexual activists could misconstrue the cancer institute study.

``There will be concern among people who are lesbian and gay that this discovery will be misused to suggest that (homosexuality) is something that needs to be 'corrected,''' King said.

[NousDefionsDoc]

That study doesn't say anything as far as I'm concerned. Does it impress you?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
That study doesn't say anything as far as I'm concerned. Does it impress you?

No, but it contradicts your statement to the effect that we know that homosexuality is not genetic. I don't know one way or the other, but it seems to be an open issue at the least.

[NousDefionsDoc]

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

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

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

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/hc92.html

[NousDefionsDoc]

MAn! Most of it is from church websites. People really don't like gays.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

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

C'mon, NDD. That is an advocacy site. I don't care either way, but it seems pretty clear to me that there is research going in both directions and it is at least an open issue.

Have you ever asked a homosexual whether they feel they have a choice about their sexual preference? I've spoken to several who said that they would prefer to be straight but just can't change how they are.

IF this is true, the question seems to me to be whether homosexual conduct is something bad like bestiality or incest, or something that should be tolerated to some degree. Just like the Team Sergeant said. :D

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/hc92.html

Nice double helix .gif.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
MAn! Most of it is from church websites. People really don't like gays.

Yep. I noticed the same thing.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I know its an advocacy site, most of them are.

The subject is so controversial they are all going to take a stand. The funny thing is, it seems that the gay's don't wantit to be genetic becuase then somebody will want to "fix" it through genetic research. I can see that happening.

I don't really care. Either way. They're here and nothing is going to change that.

The real problem I have with them is the way they want to shove it in society's face. Not all, but a lot of them. If they would act more like mainstream society, they probably wouldn't have as many problems as they do being accepted in more places.

I can see how it would affect military order and discipline, but I am also sure there are gay people serving quietly and doing good things. The women seem to get that part better than the men to me. BTW, I don't consider lesbians to be gay, they're just a threesome with a pending draft choice.:lifter

I don't think every gay man in the military is there because its a target rich environment, nor do I think they're out to "turn" the rest of us. The answer is its probably best if they don't openly accept gays into the military, because no doubt a few bad apples would ruin it for the rest. I wonder how many openly gay people have tried to join the military and what they were like?

If it is finally determined to be genetic, I don't think there's much way to keep them out.

I don't think they should be allowed to adopt children, because I do believe they will influence the child to be gay, even depsite protests to the contrary. What an adult does is their business, but where children are concerned its a different matter all together in my book.

This topic makes my head hurt. There's no easy answer for the future. For the present, I say don't let them in, but eventually somebody will have to deal with it. My question is, if its genetic, how are they procreating?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
This topic makes my head hurt.

:boohoo

Just kidding. OK, let's stop then. Perhaps others will have something to say.

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I My question is, if its genetic, how are they procreating?

That is how we know that it is not the right thing to do.

Darwin's law. Their "kind" doesn't survive in nature. No different than a giraffe with a 3" neck... or a toothless crocodile.
Freaks... LOL


There.. that should spice things up from our lib lurkers. :munchin

[myclearcreek]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
MAn! Most of it is from church websites. People really don't like gays.


This is an interesting statement, NDD. While I agree there are some fringe churches who teach hate, I have never been involved with one. If one believes the Holy Bible, then they cannot agree with the practice of homosexuality. The two cannot purely co-exist. To agree that homosexuality is okay as a practice, one must say that they do not agree with parts of the Holy Bible. It is not a matter of liking or disliking a human being, but the behavior.

I have worked with some folks who were openly participating in the homosexual lifestyle. We got along just fine, agreeing to disagree without letting it affect our work.

My wish list - return the behavior to illegal status and enforce it, no adoptions for those who have engaged in the behavior and continue to condone it as a lifestyle.

That should add fuel to the fire Sacamuelas started. :munchin


Edited to add comments rather than multiple posts...

[Roguish Lawyer]

I must say that I expected more sailor jokes in this thread. I am disappointed. LOL

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
The funny thing is, it seems that the gay's don't wantit to be genetic becuase then somebody will want to "fix" it through genetic research. I can see that happening.

Actually, homosexuals go both ways on this issue (no pun intended). Some favor the genetic argument and use it against individuals and groups trying to convert gays ("Sparky...sit!...roll over!... Don't be gay, Spark! Don't be gay!")*. Others oppose the genetic argument for the very reason you cite. They fear someone will come up up with a gene therapy to "cure" homosexuality.

I personally don't have much of an opinion either way. Perhaps people are more genetically predisposed, but I think environment and improper socialization (overbearing mothers and all the otehr stereotypes) probably play a greater role. My intuition for this is that even gay couples tend to fall into "straight" gender roles (Ren's the pitcher and Stimpy's the catcher).

Regarding the original topic, "don't ask, don't tell", it strikes me as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences - discharges for homosexuality increased considerably after the policy came into effect. For over two centuries, once you got past the entrance questionnaire and unless you were applying for a security clearance, there was already an informal policy of "don't ask, don't tell" in the armed forces. As long as you did your job and stayed in the closet, no one cared. But the Clinton Administration came along and made it a policy because they didn't trust the SP4 mafia or Army tradition (I doubt more than 1 in 10,000 Clintonites even know what a SP4 mafia is).

The reaction of soldiers? You don't trust us enough to manage an informal policy, watch how rigorously we enforce the formal policy! In so many cases, you didn't have to ask, and quite a few soldiers couldn't manage the "don't tell" part. So out the door they went.

BTW, I was in airborne school (D/1-507, the Rock) when the policy came out. First joke to make the rounds: "What's the number one pick-up line for a gay paratrooper?"
.
.
.
"May I pack your chute?"


* "Don't be gay, Spark!": http://new.wavlist.com/tv/038/104_dontbgay.wav

Trivia question: what actor who has played SF officers in two films was the voice of Stan's gay dog Sparky?

[SilentObserver]

I have always thought that the environment which kids are raised has as much or all to do with their sexual orientation. Some people are born with certain personalities and how they are raised and thier childhood environment has a lot to do with how they turn out. I do think homosexuality is a choice, but i do think the person's experience makes it easier to make that choice. Do I personally think there is any instance that makes homosexuality ok...no. But that is just my opinion. There is evidence on both sides of the issue, but i would say it is probably impossible to find research that hasn't been biased at some point either by funding or a personal agenda. Also the only evidence I have to support my opinion is from my child psych class I took at school, which by the way didn't cover sexual behavior because it was with kids. And from the gay guys I have met in my life, a majority of them came from a female household with no dominate male role model. I think that is more than a coincidence.

SO

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I must say that I expected more sailor jokes in this thread. I am disappointed. LOL

This is the Army, not the Navy.

New techniques added to bayonet/pugil stick training in Mr. Clinton's Army:
(1) Crotch stroke to the butt.
(2) Head stroke to the crotch.

[myclearcreek]

Originally posted by SilentObserver
And from the gay guys I have met in my life, a majority of them came from a female household with no dominate male role model.

The ones I knew mostly came from traditional families, but had experienced homosexual abuse in their childhood. The young man who spoke at our self-defense class last week was raped on several occasions by three different males and is now in a homosexual relationship.

[ktek01]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer


Trivia question: what actor who has played SF officers in two films was the voice of Stan's gay dog Sparky?

George Clooney. That episode was a riot. I also heard the same thing about discharges going up, but I thought it had more to do with dumbasses misinterpreting the policy as a pass to come "Out of the closet". Thought the don't ask part made it ok, forgot all about the don't tell part, or something like that.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by ktek01
I also heard the same thing about discharges going up, but I thought it had more to do with dumbasses misinterpreting the policy as a pass to come "Out of the closet". Thought the don't ask part made it ok, forgot all about the don't tell part, or something like that.

Actually, looks more like kids got the word that it was an easy way to get out very early without a hassle, and with lots of free legal support.

A few Basic training installations had the majority of the discharges.

TR

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Actually, looks more like kids got the word that it was an easy way to get out very early without a hassle, and with lots of free legal support.

A few Basic training installations had the majority of the discharges.

TR
Pre-DA/DT, when I was in Basic, we had a guy in my company kicked out for coming out. Our 1SG didn't actually believe him, but figured, either he was gay and couldn't stay in, or he was a liar and a quitter, so he didn't want him in. As an aside, the 1SG was a tough old guy who wore a 187th RCT combat patch for Korea and had 40 years in, active and Reserve (our drills were from the USAR's 78th Division, AKA the "Jersey Lightning" AKA the "Squashed Tomato").

[lrd]

Originally posted by myclearcreek
The ones I knew mostly came from traditional families, but had experienced homosexual abuse in their childhood. The young man who spoke at our self-defense class last week was raped on several occasions by three different males and is now in a homosexual relationship. I've met men that have come from this background, while others come from the background that NDD discussed. It doesn't really address female homosexuals, though.

I think that the flaunting of any extreme behavior in a highly disciplined lifestyle like the military will cause problems.

[Airbornelawyer]

This is a 1998 DOD Study, with analysis and data on discharges from 1980-1997: Report to the Secretary of Defense: Review of the Effectiveness of the Application and Enforcement of the Department's Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Military (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/rpt040798.html). It shows that discharges declined in the late 1980s and early 1990s but accelerated when the DADT policy came into effect.

SInce that study, annual discharges generally rose for several years and then declined:

1998: 1,149
1999: 1,034
2000: 1,212
2001: 1,273
2002: 976

The 2003 numbers will probably be released sometime this month.

[Airbornelawyer]

One of the stats in there supports TR's point. In 1997, 58% of dischargees had less than 1 year TIS and 82% had less than 4 years TIS.

[37F5V]

Three things warrant an official investigation (check me on this Reaper):

1. Statement (i.e. I am a peter puffer)

2. Act (unless you walk in on this one.. Good Luck....)

3. Marriage (Becoming more common in the PDRK)

keep in mind this only warrants the Command to check it out and investigate.... Little pussies trying to get out of their obligation to God and Country DO NOT have a free ticket out.

I really hate the "Don't ask Don't tell policy".

[ktek01]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Actually, looks more like kids got the word that it was an easy way to get out very early without a hassle, and with lots of free legal support.

A few Basic training installations had the majority of the discharges.

TR

Ahh, very good point. I dont get it though, would you rather go home and tell your friends you couldnt hang and quit, or that the Army kicked you out for being gay? :eek: LOL, I bet that is how a poser is born.

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by PSYRGR
Three things warrant an official investigation (check me on this Reaper):

1. Statement (i.e. I am a peter puffer)

2. Act (unless you walk in on this one.. Good Luck....)

3. Marriage (Becoming more common in the PDRK)

keep in mind this only warrants the Command to check it out and investigate.... Little pussies trying to get out of their obligation to God and Country DO NOT have a free ticket out.

I really hate the "Don't ask Don't tell policy".

IIRC, no investigation is required, particularly for a soldier in his initial entry training. Investigate what? He just admitted that he was. Remember, "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue."

PVT Tentpeg tells his drill sergeant that he has discovered that those other guys in the shower excite him, and he feels that he cannot refrain from his newly discovered homosexuality.

He is pulled from training and processed for a Chapter Discharge, no investigation or proof required.

Note the number of discharges that came from Randolph AFB. Coming out was quite the rage there for a while.

ktek, since no one at home knows why he is back, little Johnny can claim injury, non-adaptability, or whatever lie he wants to make up next.

There are people leaving because of their sexual orientation, but probably less than half of those discharged really are homos.

TR

[Pandora]

This topic always causes me pause for a visceral gut check:

As a parent, if my child one day shared with me that they were gay, how would I react?

Extrapolating that specifically in light of this thread...

- would I lean to a belief that it was genetic to avoid deep examination of the minutiae of the home environment?

- knowing the off-spring intimately- strengths and weaknesses - and knowing the kid to be raised to be patriotic, loyal, strong - how would I feel about the kid going into the military?

- Would I dissuade the kid based on the policy, or encourage him/her to serve proudly?

This one makes my brain hurt every time I think about it.

[37F5V]

Originally posted by The Reaper
IIRC, no investigation is required, particularly for a soldier in his initial entry training. Investigate what? He just admitted that he was. Remember, "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue."

PVT Tentpeg tells his drill sergeant that he has discovered that those other guys in the shower excite him, and he feels that he cannot refrain from his newly discovered homosexuality.

He is pulled from training and processed for a Chapter Discharge, no investigation or proof required.

Note the number of discharges that came from Randolph AFB. Coming out was quite the rage there for a while.

ktek, since no one at home knows why he is back, little Johnny can claim injury, non-adaptability, or whatever lie he wants to make up next.

There are people leaving because of their sexual orientation, but probably less than half of those discharged really are homos.

TR

I guess the IET environment would have different rules apply... Either that or USASMA is supply me with some serious bad info.:D

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I've got a good one on another board. College boy just told me that being gay is biological but not genetic. His Social Science and Studies professor told him so and unless I have a doctorate in social science I need to STFU and I am a dumbass. And his professor told him to say that if anyone tried to tell him different.

I am explaining to my new friend how I didn't sign the social contract, so he needs to watch the name calling. I made him cry yesterday. LOL



Blaaaw! "Where do you go to school?"

"University of Northern Iowa"

[Solid]

NDD- I had to do some psychology coursework on this topic, and the issue is absolutely not resolved. It is likely that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality that is 'activated' by the environment the subject is in. Sometimes, however, it's simply a lifestyle choice made by an individual in the same vein as other abnormal sexual practices (S+M etc). Nothing is definite, but statistics point in this general direction, and it's plausible (has 'face validity').

One thing I learnt is that EVERYONE has an opinion on this, and the dubious statistics to back it up. This is a socially sensitive subject, so I would be very careful beliveing what I read. The above conclusion was reached by a large number of tests from various highly accredited sources.

I hope that helped a little, I can grab statistics if necessary.

Solid

[pulque]

As a molecular biologist, I agree that most of what we are going to read in popular press about "found genes" is going to be sound bytes that do not mean anything in themselves. I am reading an excellent book right now called Brave New Brain (Nancy Andreasen). In one chapter, she explains in an accessible way the methods, practices, and problems of locating genes. Many diseases are "complex", and cannot be explained by one gene. Also, genes are more flexible than you would think. An example of a complex disease is cancer.

Mental and behavioral diseases are though of as complex, with VERY few exceptions. Progress may be made, but the goal of disease research is to help people that are in distress, not to prove that anything is "genetic". Homosexuality is not a disease, only Sexual Orientation Disturbance is a disease. The Amercian Psychiatric Association has not considered Homosexuality a disease since 1973, when they changed (http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/ archives/730008.pdf) the entry in the DSM-II (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Short, recommended reading if interested.

I wouldn't make any generalizations about whether gays want there to be a genetic basis or not. There is a pretty good reason for that particular group to not want it.. its called eugenics, some would say its the concept that was misused by Hitler. The idea behind eugenics is that we can breed out genetic impurities (diseases). Eugenics also had a bad run in the U.S., with forced sterilization of thousands of women of "weak character". James Watson, a co-discoverer of the double helix structure, is a current proponent of eugenics (is trying to clear its name of the bad associations). He thinks we should use eugenics to give parents more choices, and to make prettier women.


*edit: spell

[NousDefionsDoc]

Are people born gay?

[pulque]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Are people born gay?

Common sense tells me that sexuality doesn't really begin in infancy, if not delayed until puberty itself. I think at the very least, the mind must have developed beyond ontogeny to develop preferences.

or do you mean a cultural statement in which is implicit the belief that being "born" is a process that lasts beyond the womb?

Its a pretty interesting question, actually.

As a group, too. How did it come to be that communists, and democracy, be united in feeling threatened by homosexuals as a group? Is homosexuality the product of capitalism? How long have homosexuals been around?

[NousDefionsDoc]

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[Sacamuelas]

Is it just me or do SOLID and PULQUE both seem to be graduates of the same "Using BS big vocabulary to avoid taking a stand on a issue" seminar?

Or are you guys just afraid to be on the wrong side of an issue with NDD? come one...buck up. It is fun to see a little butt kickin!:munchin

Come on Pulque.. the title of "AProfSoldier resident LIB" hasn't been claimed yet. Go for it! LOL

[pulque]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
ANSWER THE QUESTION!

oh! you said hillbilly style.

As a simple old woman from the hills, people are born to be wild. I do not enjoy seeing people prosecuted by either law or institution for who they are.

[NousDefionsDoc]

You still haven't answered the question. DAMN!

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by pulque
I do not enjoy seeing people prosecuted by either law or institution for who they are.

That's it my lady. Now take that theme and RUN with it.

"Feel the force of the dark side run through your veins... LIBERALISM is powerful yougn Jedi-ess. LEt yourself feel the anger of repression and discrimination.... get in touch with your need for entitlement and special treatment"

NOW post....:D

[pulque]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas

Come on Pulque.. the title of "AProfSoldier resident LIB" hasn't been claimed yet. Go for it! LOL

I've noticed the lack of lib. People are going to feel sorry for you. I know I do :boohoo



LOL

[myclearcreek]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Are people born gay?

Am I confused or is this not the question you wanted answered?
You probably know what I think already, but no, I do not believe they are.

Pulque's turn...

It would be interesting to read Nancy Andreason's answer to that question, since she was quoted.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Thank you MiQuebradaClara. Now that's an answer.

[pulque]

Originally posted by Sacamuelas
LEt yourself feel the anger of repression and discrimination.... get in touch with your need for entitlement and special treatment"

NOW post....:D

Everyone is entitled to fight, even liberals. How is that special? Are you suggesting, NDD, that when gay people say "I was born gay" that they are using that as a tactic in their fight? I see.

[NousDefionsDoc]

No, I'm not suggesting anything. I am asking you a yes or no question. I want to know what you think.

[pulque]

Common sense tells me that sexuality doesn't really begin in infancy, if not delayed until puberty itself. I think at the very least, the mind must have developed beyond ontogeny to develop preferences.

no, I dont think people are born gay. thanks for helping me clarify that.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Thank you. Damn sacamuelas, it was like pulling teeth!:D

[Sacamuelas]

Welcome to MY life!! LOL

NOw I am just waiting for Guy to knock my teeth out for calling him crazy in the other thread!! :eek:

[pulque]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Thank you. Damn sacamuelas, it was like pulling teeth!

sacamuelas, i apologize that it just fell out. next time i'll have a bigger one :D

[myclearcreek]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Thank you MiQuebradaClara. Now that's an answer.

De nada.

[Solid]

I'd say that some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality.
Otherwise, the onus is on the environment and I'm no behaviourist, so I'm not about to believe that the environment (while a significant factor in development) is entirely the cause of homosexuality.

Interesting discussion.

Solid

[DoctorDoom]

x

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by DoctorDoom

So they're queer, they're here, it's biological

Good post. MO'! LOL

I bet you have that on a Tshirt in your "closet" you live in!!!

[DoctorDoom]

x

[Sacamuelas]

Originally posted by DoctorDoom
FOUR HOURS and that's all you came up with?!?!?

Some of us don't stay up all night surfing gay porn sites. I was asleep... you Mo' LOL :lifter

[DoctorDoom]

x

[Guy]

I could care less what they do. I just don't like them pushing their type of lifestyle on others and in turn deny the average person their freedoms.

I definitely HATE the comparison of the gay movement as compared to the civil rights movement...that shit pisses me off!

Am I a HOMOPHOBE?That's what I have been called before! The answer is NO! "I just don't like being around your type...that doesn't mean I fear you".

[NousDefionsDoc]

Well,
I agree about comparing it with the civil rights movement. That's ridiculous.

As far as the environmental vs genetic - I don't know, but I don't think its genetic. And DD, I don't think I agree with you about it being biological but not genetic. The way I see it, if its biological its either genetic or you catch it like a disease.

If its biological, why are there more gays and bis in Brazil than anywhere else in LATAM? And no, they don't move there, they are Brazilian.

I don't know for sure, but I think it is more choice than anything else, but that doesn't explain the urge that some apparently have.

If it is genetic, I think that changes a lot, at least for me as far as their "rights" go. I also don't like them shoving their lifestyle in everybody's faces nor the attempt to make it "normal". Its not normal. It my not be an aberation of nature, but its definitely not the standard.

I also don't care what they do, but the public sillyness needs to stop. They have chosen to define themselves by that, not me. And if that's the way they're going to define themselves, by sexuality, I don't want them around my kids or in my Army. When I went in the Army and they ask me who I am, I didn't define myself by saying "I am heterosexual." Its stupid to define yourself by an activity that you do four hours a day 5 times a week. Or in sacamuela's case, once a year on his birthday. Whether its hetero or homo sexual.

I am also not a phobe. And I couldn't care less what they do in the privacy of their own homes. But they can't leave it at that and it will cause problems. I think this marriage thing could be a bigger deal than a lot of people think.

Look at what happened when we let women have the vote.:lifter

LOL

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Guy
I could care less what they do. I just don't like them pushing their type of lifestyle on others and in turn deny the average person their freedoms.

I definitely HATE the comparison of the gay movement as compared to the civil rights movement...that shit pisses me off!

Am I a HOMOPHOBE?That's what I have been called before! The answer is NO! "I just don't like being around your type...that doesn't mean I fear you".

C'mon Guy, can't you just learn to celebrate diversity?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
C'mon Guy, can't you just learn to celebrate diversity?

Where can I buy that shirt?

[pulque]

its a busy day at the gene factory, but I will be back later. I disagree completely that you can catch homosexuality like a disease.

also, I did not quote Nancy Andreasen in my post above. I'm sorry if it seemed that way. Her book does not mention homosexuality, it is about the biology of mental disease. I mentioned the book because it is a good resource for understanding the difference between biological and genetic when it comes to psychology.

[Guy]

Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
C'mon Guy, can't you just learn to celebrate diversity?

Diversity in firearms, YES! This other type, NO! They wear HOMOSEXUALITY on there chest like...it's a badge of honor.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Where can I buy that shirt?

You can't. You can only get it when you order a man's gun.





It only comes in women's sizes and has darts on the sides at the chest.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You can't. You can only get it when you order a man's gun.

I was recently persuaded to go with the HK USP .45. Maybe a .40 for Catwoman too. That work for you?

[Sigi]

Originally posted by Solid
I'd say that some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality.
Otherwise, the onus is on the environment and I'm no behaviourist, so I'm not about to believe that the environment (while a significant factor in development) is entirely the cause of homosexuality.



I agree with this. I don't read alot on this subject so I don't know everything, but it really hasn't been proven their not predisposed, correct?

People are predisposed genetically for a number of traits, why not homosexuality? Some look for the lifestyle and some don't. But to blanket the entire populace of homosexuals as choosing their sexuality is ludicrous and lazy.

Plenty of good people are homosexuals. Talented, professional, productive citizens. If you a good person I could care less either way.

That leaves me with more opportunites. :D

[NousDefionsDoc]

Why a .40 for Cat Woman? I don't like .40. I don't see what you gain and you can't find ammo for it anywhere but the US. You can pick 9mm up off the ground and it grows on trees. - LOL. Either get her a 9mm or a .45. If you get her a .45, you'll have an excuse for reloading equipment. Plus, you can always shoot her ammo if you run out. LOL

The HK is a good choice. Get her one too. If you both have the same, it won't matter what one she grabs, she'll know how to work it.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Why a .40 for Cat Woman? I don't like .40. I don't see what you gain and you can't find ammo for it anywhere but the US. You can pick 9mm up off the ground and it grows on trees. - LOL. Either get her a 9mm or a .45. If you get her a .45, you'll have an excuse for reloading equipment. Plus, you can always shoot her ammo if you run out. LOL

The HK is a good choice. Get her one too.

.40 is a bit lighter. We're not going to be carrying weapons abroad. 9mm is a .45 set to stun, or so I am told.

But I welcome other comments on this subject.

[NousDefionsDoc]

You mean the gun is lighter?

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Where can I buy that shirt?

http://www.thoseshirts.com/

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You mean the gun is lighter?

Yes.

[pulque]

IMO, a person is not born gay. A person could be born predisposed to being gay. Environment, both physical and social, can have an impact if you are predisposed. BUT if every gay person were to stop having children (passing on their genes), I think there would still be gay people. If suddenly being gay in the open ("in your face") were illegal, i think there would still be gay people.

:munchin

[Solid]

Substantial research compares (through statistics) homosexuality to schizophrenia. A large amount of information suggests that (S) arises genetically as a predisposition, not as a certainty. Furthermore, this predisposition arises even in individuals whose genetic inheritance for the past five generations has not included the (S) gene- it may have something to do with a mutation of a certain chromosome, I can't remember which number.
This predisposition is then enhanced by environment- figures rise greatly in monozygotic twin studies where the twins grew up in the same environment, when compared to studies where the MZ twins were seperated at birth.

The point is- if there is a genetic disposition to schizophrenia, why not to homosexuality, also?

BTW- homosexuality is NOT a disease, and has not been so in the DSM IV for quite some time.

Solid

[Roguish Lawyer]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/8286311.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

John Kerry favors civil unions for gays

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says he believes people are born gay but are not guaranteed the right to marry within their own gender.

"I think it's entirely who you are from birth, personally," Kerry said in an interview to be broadcast on MTV. "Some people might choose, but I think that it's, it's who you are. I think you have ... people need to be able to be who they are."

Asked why he favors civil unions instead of marriage if people are born gay, Kerry replied: "What is distinct is the institutional name or whatever people look at as the sacrament within a church, or within a synagogue or within a mosque as a religious institution. There is a distinction. And the civil state really just adopted that, and it's the rights that are important, not the sort of ... the name of the institution."

In a transcript released Friday by MTV for its Tuesday special "Choose or Lose: 20 Million Questions for John Kerry," the presumptive Democratic nominee said he favors civil unions to give people partnership, inheritance and other rights.

"I think that people have a right in America to be who they are," Kerry said. "I believe very strongly that we can advance the cause of equality by moving toward civil union."

President Bush supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a measure Kerry opposes on the grounds that marriage is a state issue. Kerry has said he would outlaw job discrimination against homosexuals, extend hate-crime protection to them, and allow them to serve openly in the military.

Bush has continued President Clinton's policy allowing gays to serve in the military if they are not open about their homosexuality.

---

People like independent candidate Ralph Nader less today than they did when he ran for president in 2000, according to a poll released Friday.

Some 21 percent said they have a favorable view of Nader, while almost twice that many, 37 percent, have an unfavorable view, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey.

People were evenly split - 24 percent favorable and 24 percent unfavorable - on the consumer activist four years ago when he ran as a Green Party candidate against Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush.

Many Democrats blame Nader for the Bush victory in the close 2000 election, though Nader says the blame falls on Gore for running a poor campaign, and on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Former President Carter told fellow Democrats on Thursday that he would advise Nader to go back to "examining the rear ends of automobiles and don't risk costing Democrats the White House this year, as you did four years ago."

Those who want to see Democrat John Kerry defeat President Bush this year have asked Nader not to run, a plea he has rejected.

Liberals were more likely to see him favorably in 2000 - 33 percent to 17 percent unfavorable. But they are split about evenly, according to the poll.

Republicans' views of Nader have grown more negative, despite claims that his presence in the race helped Bush win the presidency. In 2000, 33 percent of Republicans viewed Nader unfavorably while 18 percent had a favorable view. This year, 42 percent of Republicans view Nader unfavorably.

The poll of 1,596 adults conducted Feb. 23 to March 22 had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

(Associated Press Writer Will Lester contributed to this report.)