PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality in the military


Achilles
03-13-2007, 12:13 AM
I thought about specifying "U.S. military" in the subject, but I think this could be a topic for international discussion.

Anyways...linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays)
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.Is there a valid argument for stating that homosexuals cannot or should not be allowed to serve their country via military service?

SilentScope001
03-13-2007, 12:20 AM
Is there a valid argument for stating that homosexuals cannot or should not be allowed to serve their country via military service?

Yes. :)

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.

To break it down:

We should not allow gay personnel to serve openly.

Why? Because homosexuality is immoral, and if gay personnel are to serve openly, we would encourge it.

It's an argument, and it's valid. Valid as in...if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

If homsexuality is immoral, and letting gay personell serve openly in the military would encourge it, and we don't want to encourge immoral stuff...then we should not gay personell serve openly.

Do you agree with the argument? Of course not! Attack the premises: If homosexuality is NOT immoral, or if Homosexuality will not be encourged if they are allowed to serve openly, then surely we can allow gay personell to serve openly.

I am for letting homosexual people serve in the military...it is a secular military after all, not supposed to aid any religion.

TK-8252
03-13-2007, 12:24 AM
Heh... how ironic. Supposedly, homosexuality is evil and immoral... but the U.S. military is perfectly moral and right.

Bigotry at its worst.

Ambrose
03-13-2007, 01:04 AM
While I do agree with you to a certain extend SilentScope, immorality is, unfortunately, relative here in the United States.

But in a practical sense, no I don't think gays should be able to practice openly in the military. Let's face it: the vast, vast majority of military servicemen are straight. In the service, a certain type of brotherhood is formed which I think would be severely impaired by open homosexuals. I know that I personally would find it very uncomfortable and would, out of reflex, treat an open homosexual differently from the rest of my troops, and given that, statistically, the majority of servicemen practice a religion that shuns homosexuality, I would say that its open presence in our ranks would severely impair that sense of brotherhood, and thus our combat effectiveness (the link between the brotherhood and combat effectiveness is a factor. Don't believe me? Read Flags of Our Fathers.)

TK-8252
03-13-2007, 01:12 AM
But in a practical sense, no I don't think gays should be able to practice openly in the military. Let's face it: the vast, vast majority of military servicemen are straight. In the service, a certain type of brotherhood is formed which I think would be severely impaired by open homosexuals. I know that I personally would find it very uncomfortable and would, out of reflex, treat an open homosexual differently from the rest of my troops, and given that, statistically, the majority of servicemen practice a religion that shuns homosexuality, I would say that its open presence in our ranks would severely impair that sense of brotherhood, and thus our combat effectiveness (the link between the brotherhood and combat effectiveness is a factor. Don't believe me? Read Flags of Our Fathers.)

So you'd rather have no brother at all as opposed to an openly gay brother who will protect your life like his own.

Maybe if you were in the military, you'd realize that it'd be better to have a slightly uncomfortable relationship with a fellow serviceman than to be lying dead or wounded on the battlefield, because someone couldn't be there to look out for you.

A lot of the gays discharged, by the way, were Arabic translators. Translators who are essential to the war effort, and are also in short supply.

Oh and, the first U.S. soldier wounded in the Iraq War is a gay guy.

Ambrose
03-13-2007, 01:15 AM
So you'd rather have no brother at all as opposed to an openly gay brother who will protect your life like his own.

Maybe if you were in the military, you'd realize that it'd be better to have a slightly uncomfortable relationship with a fellow serviceman than to be lying dead or wounded on the battlefield, because someone couldn't be there to look out for you.

Are you in the military?

And I wasn't talking from a personal perspective, I was talking from a practical perspective. If you expect a gay guy to join the Marines and be just another normal Marine, you are quite naive.

Maybe if you were in the military, you'd realize that it'd be better to have a slightly uncomfortable relationship with a fellow serviceman than to be lying dead or wounded on the battlefield, because someone couldn't be there to look out for you.

You make it sound like half of our military is composed of gay guys.

TK-8252
03-13-2007, 01:23 AM
Are you in the military?

And I wasn't talking from a personal perspective, I was talking from a practical perspective. If you expect a gay guy to join the Marines and be just another normal Marine, you are quite naive.

I'm not, but I don't think that it is at all fair the way you tried to justify discriminating against gays on the grounds that YOU might feel uncomfortable. To use that as a justification is selfish to say the least.

Maybe YOU would prefer to be dead or disfigured because you don't want to have to tolerate a homosexual... but I'm certain that not ALL soldiers feel that way.

You make it sound like half of our military is composed of gay guys.

Not nearly half, but I'm sure they make up their fair share of the ranks. I'd say the best way to honor their service isn't to call them evil and immoral... it's to tolerate them, the same way the military learned to tolerate blacks in the service.

Ambrose
03-13-2007, 01:32 AM
I'm not, but I don't think that it is at all fair the way you tried to justify discriminating against gays on the grounds that YOU might feel uncomfortable. To use that as a justification is selfish to say the least.

Maybe YOU would prefer to be dead or disfigured because you don't want to have to tolerate a homosexual... but I'm certain that not ALL soldiers feel that way.

I'd venture a guess that most do. I'm currently applying for the Naval Academy, and the numbers I've been shown indicate that the majority of officers graduating into the Navy and Marines are Christian, and thus would certainly feel uncomfortable.

Not nearly half, but I'm sure they make up their fair share of the ranks. I'd say the best way to honor their service isn't to call them evil and immoral... it's to tolerate them, the same way the military learned to tolerate blacks in the service.

I didn't call them evil. The issue of blacks in the service was a gradual thing. They fought in separate regiments up until post-WWII, I believe- and I think that was a wise move. Why? During and immediately after the Civil War, most white soldiers would not be comfortable with fighting side-by-side with blacks. Fact. Of. Life, idealism aside. Abraham Lincoln certainly understood this. And I think that if we're smart, we'll tread softly on this subject for some time.

Jae Onasi
03-13-2007, 01:39 AM
Well, all I can tell you is that when these guys are going through basic training, the last thing on their minds is sex--they're too darn tired from running, PT, learning rules and regs, running, doing KP and dorm maintenance, marching, running, learning to handle a machine gun, running and/or marching, and so forth. They're asleep before their heads hit the pillows. Not a very conducive setting to doing the Wild Thang. :)

Ambrose
03-13-2007, 01:42 AM
Well, all I can tell you is that when these guys are going through basic training, the last thing on their minds is sex--they're too darn tired from running, PT, learning rules and regs, running, doing KP and dorm maintenance, marching, running, learning to handle a machine gun, running and/or marching, and so forth. They're asleep before their heads hit the pillows. Not a very conducive setting to doing the Wild Thang. :)

You can't expect an openly gay guy not to get hazed, during or after basic training. More likely after.

And unless I'm mistaken, you're not with the guys you went through basic training with after basic training anyways.

TK-8252
03-13-2007, 01:43 AM
I'd venture a guess that most do. I'm currently applying for the Naval Academy, and the numbers I've been shown indicate that the majority of officers graduating into the Navy and Marines are Christian, and thus would certainly feel uncomfortable.

A soldier's religion is entirely irrelevant. There are Christians who are gay. There are Christians who accept homosexuality since they think it distracts from Jesus's message. There are atheists who hate gays. On top of that, our military's policies aren't based on religious principles to begin with.

I didn't call them evil.

I know you didn't, but it sure sounds like that's what General Pace is saying.

The issue of blacks in the service was a gradual thing. They fought in separate regiments up until post-WWII, I believe- and I think that was a wise move. Why? During and immediately after the Civil War, most white soldiers would not be comfortable with fighting side-by-side with blacks. Fact. Of. Life, idealism aside. Abraham Lincoln certainly understood this.

Gays in the military has been gradual as well. Originally, they were banned from service. Now, it's "don't ask, don't tell." But when is the next step going to come along, which is to drop the discriminatory policy? Maybe now that we're allowing convicted criminals into the military (wait, felons are more moral than gays?) to make up for the lack of recruits, gays will be allowed to service openly. But maybe not.

Achilles
03-13-2007, 01:46 AM
I'm reminded of Martin Luther King Jr's commentaries on the continual calls to "slow up" because "we're changing too fast". He was quick to point out that while the gentry were having their sensibilities "assaulted", real people with real lives were being repressed and treated like sub-human, 2nd-class citizens.

In the spirit of Rawls' veil of ignorance, I wonder if you would feel the same if you were a member of the group being persecuted. In other words, how do you think it would feel to live in an alternate universe where gays were the minority and heterosexuals were being discriminated against.

Full disclosure: I'm a heterosexual and I was disqualified from joining the armed services because of a childhood surgery.

Ambrose
03-13-2007, 01:56 AM
A soldier's religion is entirely irrelevant. There are Christians who are gay. There are Christians who accept homosexuality since they think it distracts from Jesus's message. There are atheists who hate gays. On top of that, our military's policies aren't based on religious principles to begin with.

The majority of the troops are Christian. The majority of Christians are quite uncomfortable about the idea of homosexuality. That means that the majority of the troops would be uncomfortable with it.

Just use your comparison to the integration of black troops into the military as an example.

The majority of the members of the Union Army (contrary to popular belief) were not fervent abolitionists. In fact, most of them believe that they as whites were superior to the blacks. The majority was clearly not comfortable with black fighting men being in their unit. As such, blacks were separated from whites in the military to prevent this major problem UNTIL the issue had settled (enough) for a fighting force to remain effective.

Gays in the military has been gradual as well. Originally, they were banned from service. Now, it's "don't ask, don't tell." But when is the next step going to come along, which is to drop the discriminatory policy? Maybe now that we're allowing convicted criminals into the military (wait, felons are more moral than gays?) to make up for the lack of recruits, gays will be allowed to service openly. But maybe not.

It took about 85 years for blacks to be allowed in the service. It took an additional 80-100 or so for them to be allowed to serve in the same regiments as whites.

Basically, the change will be as gradual as is necessary for public hostility toward gays to dissipate to the point where it won't be so much of a distraction. Because maybe it's not for YOU, but for me and many other prospective military men, it certainly would be.

Full disclosure: I'm a heterosexual and I was disqualified from joining the armed services because of a childhood surgery.

Much the same, you weren't allowed into the military because physical issues would impair your effectiveness as a fighting man. There's nothing WRONG with that, but for practical reasons you're just not allowed. Is that discrimination against people with past physical issues? Yup. But that's the military, and that's the reality of how it has to be.

Please, everyone, hang in there with the calm discussion that is happening for the most part. Homosexuality is a hot topic (no pun intended) and can create some very polarized feelings. Please don't post harassing or pejorative remarks. Thanks, Jae

SithRevan
03-13-2007, 02:13 AM
I have to ask a question, and I have noticed this has come up already. Who decideds whether or not something or someone is immoral or moral? How does homosexuallity make that peron immoral? Are they immoral becuase they happen to like the same sex? Also what if you had a family member who was a homosexual would you have the same views?

I mean really does it matter if you are gay? We all bleed the same color. Also about homosexuals being in the US military, personally I don't care who you are if you are watching my back on the streets of Baghdad your cool with me and even if you weren't I would still be cool with you because I don't see a reason to not be.

Well anyway I really don't know how to end this post so I am just going to say this. Homosexuals should be able to serve openly witout being slandered on thier prefrences.

Achilles
03-13-2007, 02:18 AM
Much the same, you weren't allowed into the military because physical issues would impair your effectiveness as a fighting man. There's nothing WRONG with that, but for practical reasons you're just not allowed. Is that discrimination against people with past physical issues? Yup. But that's the military, and that's the reality of how it has to be.Actually not at all. I was disqualified because of a blanket policy regarding that type of procedure (a small plastic piece was inserted into my esophagus to correct a problem with hiatal hernia). I would have most likely performed just fine as a soldier.

I think we might be getting off on a little bit of a red herring with the discussion regarding race in the military. Unlike race, homosexuality does not have a distinguishing physical characteristic. The way the current policy is written 50% of the active armed forces could be gay and no one would know. But if records were leaked tomorrow, there would be a scandal. So today = fine. Tomorrow = not fine. What changed?

CountVerilucus
03-13-2007, 03:27 AM
If the homosexuals are qualified for the job and follow orders then I am all for it.

Darth InSidious
03-13-2007, 10:24 AM
Um...I don't see the problem. They're still people.

If you have a problem with someone else based on sexuality, how are you any different from a person who has a problem with someone else based on race?

I don't agree with or think homosexuality is moral, but who am I to say that someone can't? I fail to see the harm in it for consenting adults, aware of the risks, to engage in such a relationship.

Achilles
03-13-2007, 03:03 PM
I fail to see the harm in it for consenting adults <snip> to engage in such a relationship. QFT/E

MetalMark
03-13-2007, 03:55 PM
Why would somebody feel uncomfortable if somebody else is gay???

I have 2 gay friends and they are in my group of best friends, I went swimming with, on holidays with them and they know I'm straight and I know they are gay. Than what's the problem?

I know I'm not in the military or something like that, but the situation is the same.

And then 1 of those gay friends of mine doesn't look gay or anything. If he doesn't tell you he is gay you wouldn't even know and that's the same for alot of other gay people. The stereo-type gay (overly female behaviour) is not the way all gays are most gays actually aren't.

Nancy Allen``
03-13-2007, 07:50 PM
I've worked with people who are homosexual, both those who are open about it and keep it to themselves. Both were open to ridicule but where as one it was mostly harmless stuff with the exception of one thug the open gay did make people uncomfortable and at times you don't know how to act around them. With the military, as with any occupation in my view, open homosexuals open themselves to being targeted, and the same would apply to those who are openly religious, openly Atheist, openly Democratic, Republican, ect. I don't like to say they should keep it in a box but while, in this case the military, people should be disciplined enough to serve with you despite that there is every chance that they'll turn on you because of it, especially if there is some thug who will use it against you.

Jae Onasi
03-13-2007, 08:57 PM
I don't think 'gays will get beat up by straights so we should exclude them' is a good reason at all.

Attacking a fellow soldier/sailor is assault and battery, regardless of the reason why the attack is committed, and that is completely wrong.

SilentScope001
03-13-2007, 11:15 PM
Do remember that gays ARE allowed to serve in the military, thanks to Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Military don't ask if you are Gay, and in return, you don't say that you are Gay. If you say you are Gay, you get kicked out of the services. But as long as you don't say you are Gay, you are a-okay. This general is in full support of the policy, but don't want people serving openly, for fear that it would promote homosexuality.

Gradual change is necessary. It is pratical, because it allows for people to change the idea of "morality" from "I hate Gays" to "Gays are okay, but not tolerated" to "Who cares about sexual orientaon? I don't. I'm marriage-blind." It's slow, but that's how social change goes.

JediMaster12
03-26-2007, 04:18 PM
You can't expect an openly gay guy not to get hazed, during or after basic training. More likely after.
And I am sure that they don't haze the straight ones as well :xp:
As Jae mentioned, any attack that brings physical harm is assault and battery with the degree differing on the severity of the assault and id a weapon was used or not.

While I do have this thing that homosexuality is wrong, I don't condem people for being what they are. I actually have a few gay friends that I hang with. As for the military, what right do they have to say that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve? It is my understanding that what is important is that the person can do the job and do it well a good show of professionalism. No I am not referring going all Zorro the Gayblade on me but I would like to think that skill and ability would matter, not what you are. Unfortunately it appears that society doesn't think that way.

Allronix
03-26-2007, 05:28 PM
On the topic of morality, and who should and should not be able to serve...

Bob Barr, a Republican Representative from Georgia, was shocked to find a thriving Wiccan community on US Military bases. Well, he got a burr under his saddle, gathered a bunch of like-minded "morality cops" and asked US citizens not to enlist or re-enlist in the U.S. Army until the Army terminated the on-base freedoms of religion, speech and assembly for all Wiccan soldiers. Now, no less than the commander in-(thief/chief), George W. Bush, has gone on record saying "I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made".

So, you kick gays out of the military on the basis of "morality." Do you kick out Wiccans? How about Muslims (after all, they follow the same faith as the enemy)? What about women, since females around straight men will "inevitably" lead to the dissention in the ranks and hanky-panky that folks argue will result from gays serving?

If someone wants to go into the military, and is going in of their free will, let them.

Nancy Allen``
03-26-2007, 08:03 PM
Let's face it, anyone who doesn't have the discipline to not persecute homosexuals, witches, Muslims or anyone else has no right to wear the uniform.

PoiuyWired
03-27-2007, 02:12 AM
There is muslims in the US Army, think there is also muslim chaplain.

Yes, Muslim, Jewish, Christian--Protestant and Catholic--most of the major religions of the world are represented and have chaplains in the military. --Jae

Dagobahn Eagle
04-07-2007, 09:26 PM
You can't expect an openly gay guy not to get hazed, during or after basic training. More likely after.And thus they should be kept out of the military altogether? ~snipped~. It's no better than saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because the kid would be 'bullied to death'.

The only way to deal with bullying, discrimination, and misconceptions of groups is integration. It has always worked. Take a homogeneous country of, say, 99-100% Europeans. Would it be wrong for that country to allow immigrants to enter, seeing that the first non-whites would be subjected to harrassment, discrimination, fear, and other unfortunate effects of humans being faced with 'the different'? Of course not. It's no different with different sexual preferences. As has been pointed out, if you're really afraid of homosexuals getting hazed, you include them into the Armed Forces. Integration 101.

Are children of inter-racial parents 'bullied to death on the playground' today?

The majority of the troops are Christian. The majority of Christians are quite uncomfortable about the idea of homosexuality.Source?

Bottom line: The only determining factor when it comes to inclusion is how effective the person will be. Not religion. Not gender. Not sexual preferences. Not political views. The person's efficiency. If a gay candidate can fight as well as a straight one, recruit him. It's beyond backward for such an advanced nation as the USA to refuse atheists boy scout membership, or to campaign against Wiccans' right to join the military.

Please avoid flame-baiting. Thanks, Jae

JediMaster12
04-09-2007, 01:27 PM
If a gay candidate can fight as well as a straight one, recruit him. It's beyond backward for such an advanced nation as the USA to refuse atheists boy scout membership, or to campaign against Wiccans' right to join the military.
Exactly what I said. The downside is that we live in a society where a majority of things are judged based upon appearance and what you are. That is the sad truth that we still have to battle.

Scyrone
04-10-2007, 02:33 PM
The majority of Christians are quite uncomfortable about the idea of homosexuality.

The majority of the troops are Christian.

That means that the majority of the troops would be uncomfortable with it.

So are we basing everything off of the majority? The majority of white wanted black people to be slaves, so according to you they were right. The majority of men in early America believed women should not have the right to vote, so they must be right too. The majority of the Germans blamed the Jews for all there problems, so they were right. The majority of Iraqis want us out of Iraq, which means they’re right. The majority of the world dislikes America as of now, that means they are right. Wrong. The majority is NOT always right. It mentions NOTHING in the Bible of Homosexuality.

Christians always misinterpret things in the Bible (not all Christians, but a lot). For example, if suicide was wrong, then why did Jesus kill himself? If drinking is wrong then why is water turned to wine and Jesus’ blood a wine? Doesn’t it say in the Bible “Drink with thy brother”? So basically Christianity is about suicidal, drunk, men who want to die faster? I would hope not. Homosexuality is not mentioned in the Bible, so Christianity cannot take a stance on something they are not taught of.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Basically saying that Gay people should have no freedoms or rights.

But as long as you don't say you are Gay, you are a-okay. This general is in full support of the policy, but don't want people serving openly, for fear that it would promote homosexuality.

Whats wrong with Homosexuality? I recently, on another Star Wars site, had a large argument with many members about Gay Marriage. The majority of the members said it was wrong. When I asked why it was wrong (without mentioning any religion because every religion is a bias in itself), none could answer because the only reason why people think it is wrong is because people say it is wrong.

It's slow, but that's how social change goes.

We are changing backwards. I am sure you were more free with your sexuality back in the 60s and 70s than now.

As for the military, what right do they have to say that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve?

I can’t believe the soldiers stand for this disrespect. The leaders of the army say, “You can’t be in the army if you are Gay.” What happened to “land of the free and home of the brave”? This basically says that the freedom that the soldiers fight for doesn’t exist, and it makes us ALL look like a bunch of hypocrites. E.g. if someone forced me to stand for the pledge of allegiance every morning (which I do not), then wouldn’t that be taking away there own ideal of freedom, disrespect what the soldiers fight for, and basically spit on the idea of freedom (since they so gladly take it away from me)? By taking away freedom you are basically disrespecting everyone who fights for freedom.

Jae Onasi
04-10-2007, 03:08 PM
To be honest, soldiers should be concentrating on fighting and military issues, not sex, other than making sure they know how not to make little copies of themselves all over the world.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-10-2007, 04:28 PM
It mentions NOTHING in the Bible of Homosexuality.Actually, the Bible condemns homosexuality all the time, or at least homosexual sex. Even Jessu said at one point that homosexuality was unfortunate (and I say 'unfortunate' because I can't remember the terms he used, but you can be sure he used stronger terms).

But then again, the Bible says a lot of things. Jesus himself also said that whoever did not wish to follow Him should be executed before His eyes.

Whats wrong with Homosexuality? I recently, on another Star Wars site, had a large argument with many members about Gay Marriage. The majority of the members said it was wrong. When I asked why it was wrong (without mentioning any religion because every religion is a bias in itself), none could answer because the only reason why people think it is wrong is because people say it is wrong.Well, to be honest, it's a bit more complicated than that. Homosexuality, anal sex, gay marriage and gay adoption all have 'arguments' against them. For example, opponents of gay marriage argue that the fixed traditions of marriage are part of keeping it together, and that altering it leads to disrespect for it, which in turn leads to rising divorce rates.

Bottom line is, they don't have any rational arguments against gay marriage, but they've certainly got something to bring to the field.

Nancy Allen``
04-10-2007, 06:52 PM
The Aids virus has been condemned as being the cause of homosexuals as well, that's an absolute lot of BS. Explain away those who died from Aids by having unprotected sex.

Jae Onasi
04-10-2007, 08:25 PM
AIDS--does not cause homosexuality. Nor does homosexuality cause AIDS, though it currently shows up in those living riskier lifestyles (multiple partners, IV drug abuse, etc). The reason why AIDS showed up more in the gay population, at least in the initial outbreak of the disease, is the type of physical relations they have makes them more prone to micro-tears and blood/body fluid exposure as a result.

Dagobahn Eagle, I'd be happy to see your Bible quotes...I don't think some of what you're saying is in there, and I believe there's only 1 specific verse in the OT that mentions that 'it's an abomination for a male to lie with a male' (I can find the reference if you really want)

I prefer civil unions for anyone not wanting a male/female marriage--marriage is a very specific term to me. Studies have shown that children do best in a family with a mother and father (no I don't have the studies atm, I can find them at some point), and neither male/male or female/female relationships or single parenting can meet the needs of a child completely in terms of role models of the opposite sex, i.e. lesbian parents or a single mother can't teach a child some of the masculine things/male role model issues another male can, and it's difficult for gay men or a single father to teach children some aspects of being or interacting closely with females. That's not to say that gay/lesbian/single/etc. parents can't be good parents, it's just that there is an ideal situation, and for those not in the ideal situation, they have to be prepared to do some extra work to meet the needs of the child that they can't meet in their specific situation.

When Jimbo was away in the army for 18 months, I tried to make sure the kids got to interact appropriately with the men in our church so they got the kind of male role-modeling that I would not be able to provide as a female. It was not the perfect situation, but it was an alternative for our kids so they could have good male role models during Jimbo's absence.

In terms of the military, don't ask/don't tell works for me, but surely any sexual discussion at a work place, gay or straight, invites sexual harassment charges, so it's better not to be discussing sex of any orientation at work. If I were in the military, I wouldn't want a male or a female chatting with me about how they feel about sex, even if I were single.

Emperor Devon
04-10-2007, 09:10 PM
Dagobahn Eagle, I'd be happy to see your Bible quotes...I don't think some of what you're saying is in there, and I believe there's only 1 specific verse in the OT that mentions that 'it's an abomination for a male to lie with a male' (I can find the reference if you really want)

Leviticus 18:22

"Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination."

"If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death."

"Their blood is on their own heads."

TK-8252
04-10-2007, 09:29 PM
Leviticus 18:22

"Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination."

"If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death."

It's physically impossible to have sex with a man as you would with a woman. Men don't have... yeah. :indif:

Jae Onasi
04-10-2007, 10:39 PM
It's physically impossible to have sex with a man as you would with a woman. Men don't have... yeah. :indif:

The moderators thank you for not over-sharing. :D

Scyrone
04-11-2007, 01:35 PM
Leviticus 18:22

"Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination."

"If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death."

"Their blood is on their own heads."

Exactly :D

Thank you for proving me correct.

Sex is not possible man to man, I would also think it an abomination if it was so. It does not say anything about Gay Marraige (you don't need to 'conjoin your love' when you are married), doesn't say anything about Gay Adoption (which would be an alternative to 'Gay S*x') and it doesn't mention anything about being Gay wrong. That is basically the direct interpretation from the Christian Bible.

Now if you wanted to say it is open to a multiple of different interpretations which include marraige, adoption, and being Gay, then it also proves that none of us are fully correct. Thus, making it impossible to judge whether it is wrong or not.

Also, if the verses can be so freely interpreted, then that would leave EVERYTHING open to interpretation in the Christian Bible, and that would leave your Bible open to everything being possibly wrong.

Gargoyle King
04-11-2007, 01:47 PM
I thought about specifying "U.S. military" in the subject, but I think this could be a topic for international discussion.

Anyways...linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays)
Is there a valid argument for stating that homosexuals cannot or should not be allowed to serve their country via military service?

There is no valid argument, period. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals should be treated more equally - they should enjoy the same rights as others. I'm a straight bloke with lots of gay friends, but they are some of the friendliest people you could ever meet and have been more loyal and truer friends than a lot of the heterosexual friends from my childhood. If gay civil marriages are now allowed (Sir. Elton John has just had a gay civil marriage in my country), then so should everything else, including homosexual people in the military. Their sexual preferences i believe are totally irrelevant and what counts is the person that they are and that they are good, loyal soldiers. The idea of homosexuality being 'wrong' or 'against God's plans' are really old fgashioned and don't do any justice in a modern society. If society changes over the years, then so should the morals or expectations of the society. My point is that i beleieve that there shouldn't be any debate whatsoever concerning this; homosexual people should be accepted, like anyone else, into the military by their ability to become a soldier and nothing else.

That is basically the direct interpretation from the Christian Bible.

Without meaning offence to anyone religous i think the bible is the best piece of fiction ever conceived.

Jae Onasi
04-11-2007, 02:24 PM
Trying to be discreet here....
The Bible in that particular section is saying 'don't have a specific kind of physical contact'. Male-male 'sex' has some higher health risks associated with it because of what happens with the anatomy over time. They are also at higher risk for colon infections and rupture as a result of this activity. In a culture with no surgery (which was really only available in the last 100 years or so with the development of anesthesia) and no antibiotics (the first antibiotic for widespread use was streptomycin and that was developed in 1935), any kind of colon infection was a death sentence. It still is a very dangerous kind of infection to develop today because it spreads like wildfire and can cause peritonitis, which can be deadly. That's just addressing one aspect of that particular type of physical contact--there are other physical consequences that can develop that today require surgery to correct but would have made life very uncomfortable several thousands of years ago because they would not have been able to fix the problem.

That particular rule was likely not put in because some religious forefather decided 'gee, I'm really squeamish about gays' but rather a recognition that a. gay relations don't produce offspring and b. gay relations in males can have very serious, and in that time life-threatening, consequences.

I've had my 'what the heck is that in there for?' moments when reading the Bible myself, but knowing a lot more about medicine and public health now than I did before college, I've begun to understand that some of those rules were there for very good reasons, even if they look archaic to us with our 21st century perspective.

Gargoyle King
04-11-2007, 02:46 PM
I've begun to understand that some of those rules were there for very good reasons, even if they look archaic to us with our 21st century perspective.

Do you think, therefore, the Bible could have been written to guide the future generations of humanity? I feel that the bible is fiction, that's my belief but i have always thought that the bible was written up for a reason - debates such as this; the Bible could therefore provide some very reasonable answers for some of today's problems.

Achilles
04-11-2007, 03:06 PM
That particular rule was likely not put in because some religious forefather decided 'gee, I'm really squeamish about gays' but rather a recognition that a. gay relations don't produce offspring and b. gay relations in males can have very serious, and in that time life-threatening, consequences. The problem with this is that it's supposition. God could have very easily tacked on, "because I'm concerned about your health". Instead, the language is "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13) and multiple reference to homosexuality as "an abomination". It would seem that "gee, really squeamish about gay" has a lot of evidence, whereas "concerned about your health" has none.

If you would like NT examples, I think Paul was extremely clear with his intent in Romans 1:26-27 & 1:31-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10.

To be honest, I find such thought games to be on par with trying to adapt Nostradamus' "prophecies" to current events. Any sufficiently vague historical text can be manipulated into having modern application. It seems that a perfect god would be fully capable of creating a perfect scribe to perfectly adapt his perfect word. Instead, we get the holy bible and the qu'ran.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-11-2007, 03:46 PM
To be honest, I find such thought games to be on par with trying to adapt Nostradamus' "prophecies" to current events. Any sufficiently vague historical text can be manipulated into having modern application. It seems that a perfect god would be fully capable of creating a perfect scribe to perfectly adapt his perfect word. Instead, we get the holy bible and the qu'ran.I agree, it's wishful thinking.

Dagobahn Eagle, I'd be happy to see your Bible quotes...I don't think some of what you're saying is in there, and I believe there's only 1 specific verse in the OT that mentions that 'it's an abomination for a male to lie with a male' (I can find the reference if you really want)I'll do my best. As a side note, I find the Brick Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com) to be an excellent source of the more bizarre and outrageous parts of the Bible.

- 'Bring him before me and slay him before me' is from Luke 19:27.

I couldn't find the one about Jesus condemning gays, but I'll keep looking.

[Homosexuals can't produce offspring.This is far from necessarily a bad thing. It hinders overpopulation, and gives orphaned children homes, as the homosexual couples that want kids can't produce their own.

As for 'gender roles', a mother can perfectly well tell a kid about the more masculine sides of life, just like a father can teach a kid about 'feminine things', whatever that would be (presumably politeness, etc.?). Gender roles are overrated anyway.

Achilles
04-11-2007, 04:20 PM
I'll do my best. As a side note, I find the Brick Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com) to be an excellent source of the more bizarre and outrageous parts of the Bible. Gotta love Brick Testament. :D
I'm also a big fan of Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm).

I couldn't find the one about Jesus condemning gays, but I'll keep looking. Not much from Jesus on gays (that I recall), however G.John does present Jesus as being "very secure with his sexuality". I don't think that helps you though :(

This is far from necessarily a bad thing. It hinders overpopulation, and gives orphaned children homes, as the homosexual couples that want kids can't produce their own. If it weren't so common elsewhere in the animal kingdom, I'd be more concerned.

Allronix
04-11-2007, 05:12 PM
For all the folks tossing about Bible quotes as your argument for keeping homosexuals out of the military, might I put in a reminder that not everyone follows your faith, reads your books, and attends your church. An incident similar to this in high school (the student government banned gays from holding student office) was what pushed me out of the broom closet.

Seriously, though, if Juhani and Belaya wanted to join the military, why the heck not? What argument can be presented other than ones out of a book that endorses selling your daughter into slavery, exiling women at "that time of the month," rules and regs for raping female POWs, and bans clam chowder in the same passages that outlaw gays?

Jae Onasi
04-11-2007, 06:11 PM
As for 'gender roles', a mother can perfectly well tell a kid about the more masculine sides of life, just like a father can teach a kid about 'feminine things', whatever that would be (presumably politeness, etc.?). Gender roles are overrated anyway.
Well, let me be a little more explicit. Women understand periods a lot better than guys ever will. I understand male plumbing quite well intellectually, but it's not the same as actually having a penis. I will never be able to fully understand getting caught in a zipper, hit in the cup by a ball, or how it really feels when a boy gets excited about a girl. My husband can never completely understand PMS, cramps, how we women feel about our physical assets, and how it feels to have a baby move in the womb or nurse a child. Children learn how men treat women by watching dad interact with mom (or other female figure). Children learn how women are supposed to be treated by watching how their fathers (or other male figure) interact with their mothers. It's not that single or same-sex parents _can't_ teach these things, but there are things that are more difficult and they may need outside help from someone of the opposite sex to assist on some issues. If you're in a male/female committed relationship, you have the roles covered--provided it's a healthy relationship of course--and that makes things a little easier.

I used to think gender roles were overrated until I had my own kids and discovered that no matter how much I tried to do things in a gender neutral way, boys still act a certain way and girls still act a certain way, and there's not thing one I can do to change the fact that estrogen and testosterone have very different effects on a body.

Achilles
04-11-2007, 07:24 PM
<snip valid physiological points which have nothing to do with sociological concept of gender roles>

Children learn how men treat women by watching dad interact with mom (or other female figure). I think this is dangerously close to be a set-up for a false dichotomy. Children learn how genders interact by observing genders interact. Certainly they get some of this from mom and dad, but mom and dad are not the sole source of such observations.

Children learn how women are supposed to be treated by watching how their fathers (or other male figure) interact with their mothers. Correct. This is one of the ways that children learn this.

It's not that single or same-sex parents _can't_ teach these things, but there are things that are more difficult and they may need outside help from someone of the opposite sex to assist on some issues. Outside help in what regard? If parental modeling were the sole source of gender role assignment, then this argument would carry a lot more weight.

If you're in a male/female committed relationship, you have the roles covered--provided it's a healthy relationship of course--and that makes things a little easier. Indeed this is true, but as I point out this relationship is only one small slice of the pie and as you correctly point out, there are a lot of conditionals attached.

Which is "better" from a gender role perspective:

1) A child growing up in an abusive, heterosexual household where unhealthy relationships with the opposite gender are modeled.
2) A child growing up in a single parent household (male or female) where relationships with the opposite gender are explained but not modeled.
3) A child growing up in a healthy, homosexual household where relationships with the opposite gender are explained but not modeled.

I imagine that you would want a fourth options that looks something like, "A child growing up in a healthy, heterosexual household where relationships with the opposite gender are explained as well as modeled.". However with conservative divorce rates being calculated at 41%, 60%, & 73% (1st marriage, 2nd marriage, 3rd marriage respectively), I think you'll agree that this 4th option is elusive, the 1st option is probable, and the 2nd option is very likely for at least part of the population.

I used to think gender roles were overrated until I had my own kids and discovered that no matter how much I tried to do things in a gender neutral way, boys still act a certain way and girls still act a certain way, and there's not thing one I can do to change the fact that estrogen and testosterone have very different effects on a body. Boys have estrogen and girls have testosterone too. No doubt that these hormones play a critical role in physiological development, but what their role is in psychological and social development is still being debated.

The reason for this is because, as I point out earlier, children are enculturated into their gender roles, in accordance with their cultural beliefs, since before birth. In other words, mom and dad can be gender neutral all they want, but society (the stronger force) is going to assault children with gender assignments their entire lives. Using an umbrella in a hurricane might seem like a good idea, but not likely to make a difference by itself.

Thanks for reading.