Another Gay/Lesbian Thread for Moon....

[jackson33]

Moon; I'm guessing you want another Gay/Lesbian Thread to discuss you personal opinions on. I'll answer your recent post with this thread, where your welcome to continue. As for the Lesbian Nurse thread, it would be my suggestion you delete the following post, as it's an important issue outside promoting any particular lifestyle...

 

Jackson33, so far you have equated Homosexuality with smoking as though second

hand homosexuality is passed on through contact. (please expand on this

idea)[/Quote]

 

I have no idea where you got this idea and I don't even believe 2nd hand smoke is harmful.

 

Fear of turning the military into a gay bar (please explain)[/Quote]

 

Not really, I just don't feel the military structure should be used as the next playground for promotion of a lifestyle that belongs practiced in the bedroom, in private and with out comment.

 

Fear of Homosexuals imposing their preference on every one else (please explain)[/Quote]

 

Actually, over the years I've written or spoke, very little on this issue. However it concerns me that some young folks, may be tempted, while beginning puberty to experiment and further believe the first sexual experience, whether enjoyed or not, can lead to the persons life long practices. "Joey, has two mommies", does not have an equal out their "Joe, has a mother and a father".

 

 

Asserted that homosexuality is learned behavior (this

has been shown over and over on these forums to be false, either stop asserting

it or show some proof other than "you talked to someone who is

gay")...[/Quote]

 

Well it's a bit more complicated than a "someone" and over years in business it's quite a number of people, but YES IMO, sexual preferences (ALL) are learned behaviors and often change course.

 

Yes, I understand some biologist and/or advocates believe being gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/cross dressers or having any sexual preference are genetically explained, but then I can find just as many who claim becoming a thief or mass murderer are also pre-determined, in some manner.

 

 

Asserted that signing up to be in the military some how says you do

not have to deal with homosexuals in any way (please explain why the military

should be the last bastion of society where a man can hide from homosexuals) [/Quote]

 

If you have really followed my post, this issue, as your claiming, you already understand I do not oppose G/L or any persons right to sexual preference, so long as it's with in other law. However not every person believes as I do and for a variety of reasons. If in the military, how I would react after being out on the town with a girlfriend, found my room mate making out with Charlie, would be mild to the reactions of others that can be and often are extreme. At this time, according to policy, this should not be happening. If lifted and any person not wishing to be associated with an open policy, IMO should be allowed a reasonable escape from their contract.

 

 

Asserted that having gay soldiers would piss off the enemy if they

believe homosexuality is immoral (please explain, do gay soldiers wear pink

uniforms? )[/Quote]

 

Much of the World we are policing (so to speak) have rigid laws on G/L activity. To then proclaim those activities honorable, would be a laughing matter to some of our enemies, and disgraceful to some of our allies. I do NOT, however put much weight on this argument as most those I'm referring to already dis-approve of our general culture.

 

 

Then you showed how easy social change in the military is

easy, Eisenhower just integrated by saying that was the way it would done... If

it can be done for black people then why can't it be done for gay people? [/Quote]

 

Peoples skin color and sexual preferences, have nothing in common. To me, this has always been a false analogy. If arguing your position, I would suggest religious preferences. In this case, Obama with a majority in Congress, could have got the DADT policy lifted, period, end of discussion.

 

 

So far i have seen no one who asserts that overt gay behavior should be

allowed any more than overt sexual behavior between heterosexuals should be

allowed. [/Quote]

 

Nor have I, but then I haven't seen a lot of straight couple pride parades, demonstration to promote one man one woman partnerships or in fact, straight couple cruises

 

 

Can you back up any of this stuff ? [/Quote]

 

Moon, you know I could and I could find just as many saying the exact opposite. You and I are offering personal opinions, based on life experiences. Although I was not molested by three people at age 3 or ever had sexual relation with anyone, until I was in the Air Force and experienced only what every male does, sperm sack overflow, I feel my life has been as close to the normal as anyone. Now I was breast fed and I'm sure someone bathed me and it's likely I saw things by maybe age 10, that could have been activated some gene, but it never happened. What did was a short curly headed blond Mexican in "boys town" Acuna, Mexico and I pretty well followed that experience through life.

[Moontanman]

Moon; I'm guessing you want another Gay/Lesbian Thread to discuss you personal opinions on. I'll answer your recent post with this thread, where your welcome to continue. As for the Lesbian Nurse thread, it would be my suggestion you delete the following post, as it's an important issue outside promoting any particular lifestyle...

 

 

 

I have no idea where you got this idea and I don't even believe 2nd hand smoke is harmful.

 

I got it from you, you stated the comparision in the other thread...

 

Not really, I just don't feel the military structure should be used as the next playground for promotion of a lifestyle that belongs practiced in the bedroom, in private and with out comment.

 

Again i ask you, what makes you think the military would be turned into a gay bar if homosexuals were officially allowed in the military, you made the assertion, now back it up or shut up...

 

Actually, over the years I've written or spoke, very little on this issue. However it concerns me that some young folks, may be tempted, while beginning puberty to experiment and further believe the first sexual experience, whether enjoyed or not, can lead to the persons life long practices. "Joey, has two mommies", does not have an equal out their "Joe, has a mother and a father".

 

Your homophobic world view might make it look this way but that not how it happens, the idea that homosexuality is learned behavior has been shown to be false over and over, only in your mind does it explain homosexuality... BTW you have written quite a bit on this subject every time it comes up, never anything but your homophobic opinions but still quite a bit of it...

 

 

 

Well it's a bit more complicated than a "someone" and over years in business it's quite a number of people, but YES IMO, sexual preferences (ALL) are learned behaviors and often change course.

 

Well you are welcome to your opinion but your opinion is not supported by evidence, can you really say you were not told what you wanted to hear by the people involved?

 

 

Yes, I understand some biologist and/or advocates believe being gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/cross dressers or having any sexual preference are genetically explained, but then I can find just as many who claim becoming a thief or mass murderer are also pre-determined, in some manner.

 

Well you covered them all for sure, sad you don't have clue...

 

 

 

If you have really followed my post, this issue, as your claiming, you already understand I do not oppose G/L or any persons right to sexual preference, so long as it's with in other law. However not every person believes as I do and for a variety of reasons. If in the military, how I would react after being out on the town with a girlfriend, found my room mate making out with Charlie, would be mild to the reactions of others that can be and often are extreme. At this time, according to policy, this should not be happening. If lifted and any person not wishing to be associated with an open policy, IMO should be allowed a reasonable escape from their contract.

 

Why do you think that Charlie will be making out with his bunk mate? As I have stated before sex on base should be against the rules, heterosexual or homosexual or is coming home finding Charlie fucking a female service member not as bad? Yes i noticed that you have no problem with homosexuals as long as they keep and know their small place in society, mighty white of you Jackson, mighty white of you...

 

 

 

 

Much of the World we are policing (so to speak) have rigid laws on G/L activity. To then proclaim those activities honorable, would be a laughing matter to some of our enemies, and disgraceful to some of our allies. I do NOT, however put much weight on this argument as most those I'm referring to already dis-approve of our general culture.

 

Then why did you bring it up as a reason not to allow gays in the military?

 

 

Peoples skin color and sexual preferences, have nothing in common. To me, this has always been a false analogy. If arguing your position, I would suggest religious preferences. In this case, Obama with a majority in Congress, could have got the DADT policy lifted, period, end of discussion.

 

Yes skin color and sexual orientation do have something in common, you are born that way, end of discussion!

 

 

Nor have I, but then I haven't seen a lot of straight couple pride parades, demonstration to promote one man one woman partnerships or in fact, straight couple cruises

 

Again i ask what does that have to do with gays in the military?

 

 

Moon, you know I could and I could find just as many saying the exact opposite.

 

I am not talking about opinions here Jackson, real science, real scientific studies not some small talk in a bar.

 

You and I are offering personal opinions, based on life experiences. Although I was not molested by three people at age 3 or ever had sexual relation with anyone, until I was in the Air Force and experienced only what every male does, sperm sack overflow, I feel my life has been as close to the normal as anyone. Now I was breast fed and I'm sure someone bathed me and it's likely I saw things by maybe age 10, that could have been activated some gene, but it never happened. What did was a short curly headed blond Mexican in "boys town" Acuna, Mexico and I pretty well followed that experience through life.

 

No i am not offering personal opinions, real science has studied these things, I have offered proof in other threads, you on the other hand only have your opinions, anecdotal evidence at best, you are making the claims about gays lets see you back up your assertions with something other than "IMO"

[jackson33]

Moon; Our main disagreement seems to be (maybe except, me being homophobic) is that sexual preference (noting the meaning of preference) is an inherited trait and the person involved literally has no choice in determining his/her fate, where sexual gratification is involved. I'll assume we're also talking regressive genes, since obviously, gay/lesbians have not become extinct, which by itself destroys the genetic component, IMO.

 

1- When or where does preference (a strong liking) by genetics and/or learning take different paths. I like chocolate Ice Cream yet my sister (50% my similar genetic make up) prefers Strawberry would not indicate a genetic component to taste and obviously a learned preference.

 

2- On the other hand identical twins, with 100% in similar genetic make up have been studied extensively and particularly those that were raised apart and differently have many traits that seem to be consistent with the other, BUT homosexuality is not consistent.

 

3- The following two of maybe 3,546 such articles I could link with IMO show only inconclusively at best any connection to genetics (opposed to learned) proof of a genetic component. For example, for half those identical twins to be inclined toward homosexuality while raised together (learned behavior), yet only 11% of those raised separately (possibly genetic) have such tendencies, where is the consistency.

 

Twin Studies

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar are two people, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying. So, you create a study set of pairs of people, divided into categories according to how genetically similar they are, as follows: [/Quote]

 

http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/thegaygene.htm

 

A number of studies have looked at homosexuality in twins, all with similar results. For example, in one study, if one identical twin was gay, the other was also gay 50% of the time. If they were fraternal twins, they were both gay 22% of the time. And if one was adopted, the chances fell to 11%.[/Quote]

 

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

 

Both articles were designed to show genetics as the cause, so don't come back with corroborating contentions in them, I'm well aware of the arguments.

 

Since I enjoy the challenge, lets get one thing straight, if you wish to continue any discussion with me on this issue. I doubt there is any member of this forum, that is more open to choice or individualism (which includes being religious), with in the law, than myself and have certainly lived that life, making many decisions contrary to what the general public, was acceptable. THIS INCLUDES the right to choose a mate, lifestyle or anything else. My first wife was an Oklahoma Cherokee, which I only recently learned (from forum discussion) would NOT have been acceptable (legal recognition) in several States in the 1950's. I just happen to feel excusing people for what has been, might be or is unacceptable, for other than their responsibility is doing a disservice to that person. Said another way, the animal instinct to reproduce is no doubt built into the evolution process, but what drives that process is by choice.

 

Adjective: homophobic ,how-mu'fow-bik

 

Prejudiced against homosexual people[/Quote]

 

 

I got it from you, you stated the comparison in the other thread... [/Quote]

No I didn't or you read something into another comment, but it's not important.

Again i ask you, what makes you think the military would be turned into a gay bar if homosexuals were officially allowed in the military, you made the assertion, now back it up or shut up...[/Quote]

 

Moon, many G/L folks are indeed activist, promoters of an agenda. I haven't the slightest idea what would come next, maybe there should be more G/L Generals, but the playground will be used. Your not being very diplomatic if your interested in a reply.

 

Well you are welcome to your opinion but your opinion is not supported by evidence, can you really say you were not told what you wanted to hear by the people involved?[/Quote]

 

Well most of my experiences go back decades and I've really not given much thought to this issue, until joining some of these forums. I accepted what folks told me as truths, which you obviously would not. Probably 100% of my contacts would say, THEY CHOSE...

 

Why do you think that Charlie will be making out with his bunk mate? As I have stated before sex on base should be against the rules, heterosexual or homosexual or is coming home finding Charlie fucking a female service member not as bad? Yes i noticed that you have no problem with homosexuals as long as they keep and know their small place in society, mighty white of you Jackson, mighty white of you...[/Quote]

 

Oh my!!!

 

Again i ask what does that have to do with gays in the military?[/Quote]

 

That's what I hope is somehow prevented....it's the wrong place for any organized movement.

[Moontanman]

Moon; Our main disagreement seems to be (maybe except, me being homophobic) is that sexual preference (noting the meaning of preference) is an inherited trait and the person involved literally has no choice in determining his/her fate, where sexual gratification is involved. I'll assume we're also talking regressive genes, since obviously, gay/lesbians have not become extinct, which by itself destroys the genetic component, IMO.

 

1- When or where does preference (a strong liking) by genetics and/or learning take different paths. I like chocolate Ice Cream yet my sister (50% my similar genetic make up) prefers Strawberry would not indicate a genetic component to taste and obviously a learned preference.

 

2- On the other hand identical twins, with 100% in similar genetic make up have been studied extensively and particularly those that were raised apart and differently have many traits that seem to be consistent with the other, BUT homosexuality is not consistent.

 

3- The following two of maybe 3,546 such articles I could link with IMO show only inconclusively at best any connection to genetics (opposed to learned) proof of a genetic component. For example, for half those identical twins to be inclined toward homosexuality while raised together (learned behavior), yet only 11% of those raised separately (possibly genetic) have such tendencies, where is the consistency.

 

 

First of all the idea that it has to be genes just shows your own misunderstanding of the issue, this is not an on off switch, it is not black and white, right or wrong, sexuality is a range of things, most people fall somewhere in the gray zone, very few people are exclusively homosexual or heterosexual. Most human beings can and will respond sexually to the same sex or opposite sex, some of the effects are hormonal changes that happen in the womb and have nothing to do with genes, some of the effects are genetic but have a hormonal component as well. it didn't take me long to find link to this...

 

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/comingoutadvice/a/Causes.htm

 

 

The American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as such: Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction that a person feels toward another person. Sexual orientation falls along a continuum. In other words, someone does not have to be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but can feel varying degrees of attraction for both genders. Sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime—different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

They go on to say that sexual behavior is not the same as sexual orientation. Certainly gay individuals can engage in heterosexual sex, in fact many do before they come out. One needs to look no further than the prison population to see evidence of homosexual behavior in otherwise heterosexual individuals. (And I’m not including incidents of prison rape in this analysis.)

 

Also, the work of Alfred Kinsey in the 1950s determined that most individuals are not exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but most fall somewhere in the between the two.

 

 

http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/thegaygene.htm

 

Your interpretation of the twins research is flawed, here is the real indications...

 

What Twin Studies Tell us about Homosexuality

Scientists have studied twins to try and learn if being gay is biologically determined. Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest that there is a genetic influence on sexual orientation. If being gay were strictly genetic, then in identical twins, there would be a 100% concordance rate for sexual orientation. But one study in 1995 found a 52% correlation for male identical twins and 22% for male fraternal twins. A study on females came up with similar results. If one identical twin was a lesbian, in 48% of cases, the other twin was also a lesbian. For fraternal twins, the concordance was 16%. (source Simon LeVay

These studies show that people with the same genetic make up (identical twins) are more likely to share sexual orientation than those with different genetic make up (fraternal twins.) Genetics alone cannot cause sexual orientation, but they do play a part.

 

 

 

So you think that a religious paper is going to have info that might unseat their own world view? the very substance of the article is misleading, the idea of a gay gene that causes homosexuality is just an extension of the on off idea I told you about earlier. There is no specific gay gene, there are many human characteristics that have no single gene, there doesn't not have to be "a gay gene" for it to be something that is not a choice nor does it have to be over whelming, and I ask you why,m if it was a choice then why would anyone choose to be gay, to be treated like shit your whole life by people who have no clue, to be denied Gods love, to be hated by society in general? You and your defending link make no sense..

 

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

 

Both articles were designed to show genetics as the cause, so don't come back with corroborating contentions in them, I'm well aware of the arguments.

 

No both articles did not support genetics as the cause, i suggest you read them again...

 

Since I enjoy the challenge, lets get one thing straight, if you wish to continue any discussion with me on this issue. I doubt there is any member of this forum, that is more open to choice or individualism (which includes being religious), with in the law, than myself and have certainly lived that life, making many decisions contrary to what the general public, was acceptable. THIS INCLUDES the right to choose a mate, lifestyle or anything else. My first wife was an Oklahoma Cherokee, which I only recently learned (from forum discussion) would NOT have been acceptable (legal recognition) in several States in the 1950's. I just happen to feel excusing people for what has been, might be or is unacceptable, for other than their responsibility is doing a disservice to that person. Said another way, the animal instinct to reproduce is no doubt built into the evolution process, but what drives that process is by choice.

 

Your personal life has no bearing in this discussion , you could be a flaming homosexual and still be wrong in this case... One anecdotal data point does not a bell curve make...

 

 

 

 

No I didn't or you read something into another comment, but it's not important.

 

Yes you did, you equated homosexuality and smoking in this post...

Moon; I'll explain it this way since no two people are sexually attracted in exactly the same manner. I am a smoker, believe strongly it's a personal choice to smoke or not or for that matter indulge in any activity that is otherwise legal. Rather than trying to impose those beliefs on non-smokers, general do the opposite, I'll follow the many different rules on where I can smoke, pay the extreme taxes on what cost about .30/pack to produce and any additional cost for insurance etc., because it's believed smoking will harm others or cost others in time.

 

 

 

Moon, many G/L folks are indeed activist, promoters of an agenda. I haven't the slightest idea what would come next, maybe there should be more G/L Generals, but the playground will be used. Your not being very diplomatic if your interested in a reply.

 

As are many heterosexuals, especially those involved in religion and in making sure gays do not have the same rights as others... being promoters of an agenda does not mean they cannot put that agenda aside when necessary ... what would be your point?

 

 

 

Well most of my experiences go back decades and I've really not given much thought to this issue, until joining some of these forums. I accepted what folks told me as truths, which you obviously would not. Probably 100% of my contacts would say, THEY CHOSE...

 

Totally anecdotal, not only does the vast majority of research disagree with you i have never had a homosexual person tell me they chose to be homosexual...

 

Oh my!!!

 

I doubt you even know what that means...

 

 

 

That's what I hope is somehow prevented....it's the wrong place for any organized movement.

 

Why would allowing gays to serve in the military with out hiding it but making them stick to the same rules as everyone else make them any more of an organized movement than the people trying to keep them from serving?

[Sayonara]

Here's a fun game: "Spot the Gay Soldier".

 

Ready?

 

Go!

 

[jackson33]

Very interest and valid point Sayonara. What is the sexual orientation of any of those that have ever died in defense of their Country. Each person, from where ever, what ever their religion/race/sex or background is assumed to have followed the rules/policy (many involuntarily being in war over the years) and given their all. Whether they were straight, gay, felons, Native Americans, Mexicans or anything else is of no importance, especially today where the total voluntarily enlist and serve.

 

I'll extend my opinion to serving in the Government, especially those that must go through a grueling election system, rarely satisfying half their constituents, needing to go through the process every 2-4-6 years and devote 2-4-6 or 50+ years of their life and until recently receiving little compensation. This respect is equally spread to whatever party affiliation they have or don't have, or any legal facet of life, limited only to those that deliberately break their oath of office or the law, as judged by THEIR peers and with out regards to my opinions of their personal beliefs or policy. If it's meaningful (shouldn't be) this respect is equal for Barney Franks, Ronald Reagan, George Washington or John Doe, in any one of those caskets.

 

Moon, just noticed your last post and am not ignoring you (tight on time), since you have backed off somewhat. I went to last post catching 'S' pictorial, replied, then saw your post after posting.

[Moontanman]

Back off? I never back away from the truth...

[Moontanman]

Moon, just noticed your last post and am not ignoring you (tight on time), since you have backed off somewhat. I went to last post catching 'S' pictorial, replied, then saw your post after posting.

 

 

So you prove your point by ignoring anyone who mounts an argument you cannot deal with?

[padren]

So you prove your point by ignoring anyone who mounts an argument you cannot deal with?

 

Taking time to digest and come up with a thoughtful response, even if things get busy and no response ends up following, is far more honorable and productive than a quick, reactive response.

 

If someone takes time to formulate a response, consider it a compliment