Admirals, generals: Repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'

I'm still trying to figure out how this country can claim to be so tolerant when they're the last at everything. Last to allow gay marriage (assuming it ever happens), last to allow gays to serve openly, last to allow stem cell research, etc. Europe and Canada are lightyears ahead of us and yet we still have the unmitigated gall to think we're better.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't be open and honest with the people who are protecting your back, comraderie between soldiers is compromised. Historically, this country faced a very similar issue with integrating blacks into the military in an equal capacity. We'll get there eventually, but in the meantime, the world is shaking its collective head at us for allowing the bible-beaters to control what should always have been a secular issue.

Vernon - The military loves to enlist teenagers as young as 17 (their parents can sign a waiver) but outside of that professional soldiera are mature, adult, soldiers and they don't have a problem with the gender or the orientation of their fellow soldiers ( a friend of mine felt the opposite until he met some of his best buddies - who were cross dressing in their private time (which does not mean they were gay, just cross dressers) - and it made him wake up and see that those he trusted most could still be entirely different people.

Immaturity may be true among the teenagers, but the military builds men - of all kinds.

And Vernon, do you actually have any idea how many of your partners, your fellow soldiers were gay?

The exact same arguments were put forward when blacks were fighting for equality in the Military. Unit cohesion would be lowered; morale would be lowered. None of these things came to pass.

Gays serve openly in several militaries -- including Israel, which is arguably the best fighting force there is. Israel still stands.

vernon35,

You do a great disservice to your fellow servicemen and women by perpetuating the nonsensical idea that they might lose self-control when confronted with an attractive potential mate - at least, that's what I think you meant to imply.

These are, supposedly, highly trained, disciplined adults, and I suspect they might take issue with such a fallacious statement.

Gays serve openly in several militaries -- including Israel, which is arguably the best fighting force there is. Israel still stands.

No kidding... Here's a little extra factoid for you:

Twenty-three of the 26 NATO nations allow gays and lesbians to serve openly and proudly. The United States, Turkey and Portugal are the only NATO nations that forbid gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed services.

From http://www.hrc.org/legacyofservice/dadt.asp

Not exactly forward-thinking when 23 countries are ahead of the game and we're stuck with Turkey... I'm trying to figure out why Portugal hasn't allowed it yet.

It shouldn't really matter where they serve. If you are in the military you either can depend on each other or you can't, there is nothing in between. And honestly, I don't see why homosexuality should have an impact on that, after all men and women work side by side in high stress level areas and there isn't anything sexual happening. To say that homosexuality would suddenly burst through in the middle of combat is just rubbish, else it would harm the working environment between males and females in similar situations as well.

As long s somebody wants to serve his/her country it shouldn't matter which sexual preference they have. If it matters we might as well set up a set of new rules like only Christians can join the army, only Hindus the air force, ... else there might be religious conflicts in combat. What nonsense.

1.  Race and sexual orientation/predilection are not the same.  I know.  I never once had to consider coming out of the closet to be considered as being a Black man!

Nobody is arguing they are the same thing; just that they are both suspect classes. I would remind you that the exact same arguments (unit cohesion, force disruption, etc.) being made today to keep homosexuals from openly serving were made to keep blacks and women from serving.

I have a friend who believes women should not serve because a man that is having sex with her would be more inclined to disobey a stand-down order under fire to attempt to rescue her if she were wounded... which to me completely ignores and dishonors the thousands of instances where a soldiers have braved enemy fire to rescue a buddy he is NOT having sex with -- many instances of this in defiance of direct orders.

Bonds forged under fire are among the strongest there are between humans regardless of if there is sex involved.

While I don't deny that admitting blacks and women caused disruption and inconvenience while it was all sorted out, it was all sorted out. "Inconvenience" is not a valid excuse for exclusion any more than it is for showing up in improper uniform.

So back to the biological imperative, very simply stated and a fact of nature is that no homosexual act can ever result in the subsequent act of procreation.  Therefore all acts of a homosexual nature by definition are unnatural acts

There are over 1100 animal species that we have documented homosexual behavior in. Would you say all of them are unnatural too?

This is not to deny that seeking sexual pleasure isn't high in the order of human needs, but the pleasure inherent in the act is secondary to the imperative for procreation from which pleasure is derived

Whether or not the motivation is primary or secondary, it is nonetheless a motivation. I don't claim to hold any special authority to mandate that "primary" motivations are the only valid motivations. I don't believe anyone else should either.

The fact is homosexuality exists because natural selection says it should... because it's still here. If there were not some survival benefit to it (however nonobvious it may be), it would have been selected out of existence long ago.

1.  I made no argument that unit dis-cohesion or force disruption would erupt if homosexuals were allowed to serve as openly so.  And Black folk aar not a class.  African-American's are an socio-cultural ethnic group. The suspicion that African-Americans have been held to, to use your word, is a "suspicion" not based any observed or perceived behaviour but rather on some socio-political pseudo-science that held that Africans and their decendants were/are inherently inferior to Whites regardless of the sexual predilections of the "suspect".  On the other hand homosexuals are held "suspect" based on their behaviour and until such time as the behaviour is evident they obtain all the trappings attendant to White supremacy.  Again, I never had to come out the closet to seen as and treated as a Black man.  I just have to leave the confines of my home.

2.  "There are over 1100 animal species that we have documented homosexual behavior in. Would you say all of them are unnatural too." 

In a word yes.  Goats will eat all sorts of things does that mean its natural for goats to eat glass.  If it was then the glas wouldn't have a negative effect on the goats that eat glass. 

You are right that secondary motivations are motivations nonetheless, however a person motivated to eat to survive and lacking in money is motivated to steal.  Does it follow that that since stealing to survive is a natural motivation that people who steal should be adjudged against that standard? 

"The fact is homosexuality exists because natural selection says it should... because it's still here. If there were not some survival benefit to it (however nonobvious it may be), it would have been selected out of existence long ago"

Following that logic guess how many predilections could be attested to as having some "nonobvious" survival benefit?

Here's one - violence.  Humans commit violence against each other every day.  Many times for no good reason ("nonobvious").  The fact is human-to-human violence exist because natural selectionsays it should...becasue it's still here.  If there were not some survival benefit to it (however nonobvious) it may be) it would have been selected out of existence long ago.

Narcissism, schizoprenia, and of course the usual suspect pedophiliaall still exist.  Would you have me believe that these have "nonobvious" survival benefits as well?  People holding other humans in invuluntary bondage still exist.  What about that?

.  I made no argument that unit dis-cohesion or force disruption would erupt if homosexuals were allowed to serve as openly so.  And Black folk aar not a class.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "suspect class". Black folk are indeed a Suspect Class, as declared by out Supreme Court. I realize you didn't mention cohesion; I pointed that out because that's one of the most common arguments.

In a word yes.  Goats will eat all sorts of things does that mean its natural for goats to eat glass.  If it was then the glas wouldn't have a negative effect on the goats that eat glass.

It's a false comparison because you're changing the object of comparison. I never mentioned goats. You claimed that homosexual sex is "unnatural", and I provided proof that it happens all over the animal kingdom, hence it is completely natural.

The bottom line is that anything we do without tools is by definition, natural. Think about that. Just because some behavior repulses you does not make those who practice said behavior "unnatural". It's an entirely subjective label.

Does it follow that that since stealing to survive is a natural motivation that people who steal should be adjudged against that standard?

Stealing leaves victims behind. Consenting sex between two adults does not. Again, a false comparison.

Here's one - violence.  Humans commit violence against each other every day.

Violence actually has a very obvious survival value. I live, my enemy does not. Whatever trait I possessed that allowed me to kill him - faster speed, stronger muscles, quicker brain - will survive and breed.

It's very simple; some genetic variations survive, and some don't. In general, those that do survive have more survival value than those that do not.

Following that logic guess how many predilections could be attested to as having some "nonobvious" survival benefit?

All of them. Just because a predilection has negative consequences for my victim(s) does not mean it lacks survival value for me.

Here's a mind blower for you. Did you know that the way we shame the practice of masturbation is a survival mechanism for intelligence?

People holding other humans in invuluntary bondage still exist.

You mean like sex slaves? You don't see how holding a group of women captive for your sole breeding benefit can result in a higher number of your offspring? Or regular slaves by holding a group of men captive to exploit economic benefits can result in a safer environment for you to raise said offspring?

You're saying that there are 1100 different examples of male/male and-or female-female lifetime and exclusive bonding in the aminal kingdom?

Yes... although I made no mention of "lifetime bonding" -- which is largely a fiction as well. Do you know how many mammalian species have lifetime exclusive bonds? The answer might surprise you. (About 3 percent - humans not being in this number)

And those examples indicate that homosexual behaviour is natural?  I have personally seen female dogs and cats eat thier young.

I find it ironic that you make the above statement and then follow it with this one:

And who is to say that your relevant similarities are releveant or in fact true similarities and mine are irrelevant and dissimilar?

In other words, you display an inability to illustrate a relevant similarity (Animals eating their young??), and yet you question my ability to do the same.

You make your judgments, and I make mine. The only thing at risk is your credibility and the likelihood your argument will change minds.

The very transference of genotype requires a reproductive history that is entirely impossible from any homosexual act.

Recessive genes? Hello?

What possible ontological survival benefit is conveyed to the human species from homosexuality?

Stability of the extended family unit. It turns out it really does take a village.

The act(s) in and of themselves are driven by the secondary imperitive of sex - pleasure.

That is an assumption. Even if for the sake of this discussion we allowed that point, secondary motivations can certainly construe survival benefits, even though they might be non-obvious.

Let me ask you this... what is the survival value in the act of a soldier jumping on a grenade? Self-sacrifice is rife throughout our history, and not just on the field of battle.

This is what happens when you dumb down science, people can't see that far.

One use of homosexuality in a population is that it slows the population growth; studies have shown that as population density increases, the percentage of the population demonstrating homosexual activity increases - which is something you would see if evolution-wise those species that survived did so because they had homosexuality as one of their tools.

There are other reasons - homosexuals are not a threat to the dominant alpha male in a herd or tribe and are often seen as the protector of the females while the other males fight (this holds true whether you have a herd of elephants, pride of lions or tribe of peoples through a civilization - this is hwy harem guards were homosexual or were made eunuchs)

The obvious fallacy of buccaneer's argument, though, is that all homosexuals come from heterosexual parents; whether they be humans, rats, mice, monkeys, lions, tigers, bears (OH MY); bats, bears, etc. (the lates statistic said there were over 3,000 documented species; a zoo in Denmark used to have a tour of all the species they had - at that zoo - that were homosexual.

Fruit flies were used famously, in experiments to find a (single) gay gene (again a dumbing down of science as they never understood what, exactly, they were looking for, or that it had to be at least 4 genes as 1 gene would mean half the popuklation would have to be homosexual, 2 means 1/4 gay; 1/4 straight and 1/2 bi-sexual to some extent; 3 gets you 1/8 (12.5%)gay, 1/8 straight and 3/4 bi-sexual and 4 gets you 1/16 gay (6.25%), 1/16 straight and 7/8 bi-sexual to some extent or another. Most studies (humans, sheep, rats, ape and monkey species) have come up with 8 - 12% strictly homosexual; the question being if the percentage goes up in higher densities just what is the baseline.

NOTE: that I can not emphasize enough that the vast majority is not strictly heterosexual but is bi-sexual in stable populations; but that when there is more room available they display heterosexual behavior, when density increases they demonstrate homosexual behavior and in stable populations (where there is enough room but not open spaces, enough food but not overly so), they do both

This is all observation without trying to make assumptions of cause; it is when people ignore what is right in front of their eyes and insist that some "religion", superstition, etc. is correct, we enter the world of science fiction

The occurrence of a phenomena in nature does not inand by itself indicate that behaviour is normative for humans.

So now we've gone from "unnatural" to "not necessarily normative behavior", which I guess can be called progress.

I can't state it any more simply than this:

"I think therefore I am". (Even if I don't know why)

"It exists, therefore it is intended". (Even if I don't know why)

How do I know that? If it was os then homosexuality would be far more ubequitous and have far greater social acceptability than it has.

First, that is an assumption. Since you do not accept that homosexuality is normative, pardon me for not accepting your assumptions about the correct ratio of its occurance between species.

Buccaneer - your comment can be paraphrased as "If reality isn't what I want it to be, reality is wrong".

It doesn't matter if you accept it, it is still there. All homosexuals have heterosexual parents; if it were somehow against survival then it would not exist. Duh!