Obama's "Dont Ask Dont Tell"

[marshaul]

Demonstrably false as I noted. Did you not read my post before responding? Or have you deliberately ignored my personal experiences for some reason?

I have personally met women who have chosen to be in homosexual relationships specifically to avoid being involved with a physically stronger man. Will you claim they are not really homosexual but are merely engaging in homosexual conduct?

If they are sexually desirous of and fulfilled by such a relationship, then it is possible such women have an orientation would could be described as bisexual.

Or, if such women had never in a sexually fulfilling relationship with a man, it is possible that not wanting to be involved with "physically stronger males" is a common desire found in many homosexual women.

Also, many homosexual (or bisexual) people are engaged in heterosexual relationships. Orientation describes preference however, and mere act of having a heterosexual encounter or relationship does not prove a preference for the opposite gender.

 

[marshaul]

I have personally known a man who claims no prior orientation at all prior to choosing to court women and marry a woman. Not really heterosexual? Or just an inconvenient exception to the oft stated soundbite?

It is not uncommon for heterosexual males to have had some kind of homosexual encounters at some point in their lives. In some sub-cultures and/or families, this can lead to "confusion". A heterosexual man -- i.e. one who has a preference for women -- may still find himself capable of participating in (and even enjoying, I imagine) encounters outside the scope of "heterosexual". This conduct is indeed a choice, but the extent to which it reflects unchosen orientation -- preference -- is unclear.

To put it another way, I accept that orientation is a much more complicated issue than simply "gay or straight." Even throwing transgender in there probably doesn't cut it. There are orientations that have no preference, finding attraction to either gender (bisexual) or neither (asexual).

By sheer virtue of the complicated, nebulous nature of orientation -- innate sexual preference -- you will find all kinds of different and interesting sexual behavior. None of this indicates that preference is a matter of choice.

Similarly, I personally eat and enjoy foods across the entire flavor spectrum. This doesn't change that fact that I have preferences for certain flavors (even while I enjoy others), and these basic preferences are dictated to a large extent by factors outside my control.

 

[Tawnos]

There is no law denying homosexuals any rights.

They are being denied part of their life: any expression of their love towards someone of the same sex. They are being denied part of their their liberty: no hand holding, mentioning their SO, etc. The equal protection of the law is explicitly denied by a number of states who violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection (as well as the FF&CC) by saying "we refuse to acknowledge other states that have homosexual marriage".

If you or others want to redefine marriage, it is your burden to prove that your newly defined relationship is substantially similar and offers substantially similar benefits to society. A few years back that was done regarding interracial marriage. Turns out that US anti-miscegenation laws were the historic anomaly. Inter-racial and inter-tribal and inter-clan marriages are the historic norm; long used to unite families or kingdoms.

Appeal to tradition. Five yard penalty. Repeat second down.

You have strong feelings about what should be. I respect that. But you fundamentally misunderstand law. Either we abide original intent or the 2nd amendment is "interpreted" away because times change. By the same token, nothing written in our federal or any State constitution prior to about 1990 can possibly be construed as being intended to guarantee that homosexual conduct be treated on equal footing with marriage between a man and a woman or even heterosexual conduct generally.

You simply wish that the 14th amendment doesn't extend to other cases of civil rights. I know another group that says the second amendment doesn't extend to modern firearms because its original intent was applied to muskets. A silly argument every time it's used, even when you try to spout it as originalism.

You want such a protection to exist. But it does not exist in the original intent. So either we junk the whole concept of original intent and the protections of the 2nd amendment, OR you propose a new amendment to add the rights and protections you want. The civil war amendments did that for blacks. We did it for 18 year olds and women to vote.

If you accept the power of the courts or even congress to go inventing new constitutional rights just because you really really think they should be there, then you accept their power to negate constitutional rights that someone else really really thinks should not be there.

Charles

You are a poor reader. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." You claim that the rights retained by the people exist only if they are written into the constitution, a weak claim showing total indifference to the Constitution. Say what you want about rights, but it's clear where you stand: against them unless they serve you.

 

[rotorhead]

I stayed out of this thread for a few weeks and thought if I came back there might be something new and worth reading....cya in another few weeks.

 

[Claytron]

Have you made ANY attempt to google the author, school or study I cited regarding the suicide rates among homosexuals? ANY at all? Bothered googling the subject matter in the least? No, I'm not going to spoon feed someone who has never read a peer reviewed article in his life. Go find it. Or one of the dozen others readily available. OR, try to find any study that contradicts my claims of higher suicide rates among homosexuals.

You haven't even read the studies on gun control issues. You use the same wrong terminology as the press used when reporting on it and regurgitate that it was bunk (which it was) but never bothered to read the study about shooting "family members".

I made an honest attempt to explain to you yet again why some of us don't want to shower with homosexuals. You continue to ignore it.



Nope, I NEVER said that. And I defy you to find any place I did.

That you think I did demonstrates a complete inability to comprehend what you read.

I quoted a study that found children raised by their married parents were about 50% less likely to suffer various forms of abuse or neglect that other children. I offered that as evidence of the benefits of marriage, NOT as an attack on homosexuals because the study did not even deal with homosexuals. It was comparing married couples with single parents and unmarried parents. Homosexual parents might well provide similar benefits to their children as do married heterosexual parents. They MIGHT. But I can't find any real studies that offer up such data. Can you?

And since you are clearly as bad at math as you are at reading comprehension let me explain that being 50% less likely on the one hand is not the same as being 50% more likely on the other. As a simple example, 50% of 200 is 100. But 50% more than 100 is only 150. Kind of freaky how those numbers work out there isn't it? When your 401k loses 10% on week and then gains 10% the next week, you are still below where you started.

What is the highest level of math you've ever studied? And passed the course with better than a C-?



It really is unfair of me since you are clearly completely incapable of either confirming OR refuting anything I've asserted as facts. Given everything short of a URL, you can't find the study I've cited from HARVARD of all places. So you haven't read it. But you know it is junk. Never mind that the conclusion of the study is very pro-homosexual. Some of the findings contradict your current world view and so you know it is junk.



No need to apologize. You can only use words you know and lack of reading will often reduce the odds of gaining a functioning vocabulary.

Charles

My only desire to not read stems from your useless and repetitive posts. Once again you would not provide and real reliable source for your "cites", once again insisting that everyone go out and look up your facts for you. No thanks.

You are very adamant that your study from harvard is the end all be all of factual evidence concerning homosexuality, yet when i compared the study to other studies, you of course declined to even refer to that part of my post and moved on to easier comments to pick apart, understandable.

You say "There are facts that state such and such" instead of actually STATING those facts... how to you not understand how stupid that is?

-I have PROOF! I have FACTS! THIS is the truth...... but yeah id rather not link it to you even after posting 15 times, 5 paragraphs per post.-

Right.

And ill point out that i was incorrectly quoting your 50% statistic, ill also point out that you did not infact refute my claim that it was complete ******** either way, instead opting to jump up and down with excitement at the fact you caught me misquoting you. I can tell this whole arguing thing is a big hobby to you, a game..... but its not a game to me and maybe thats hwy im not as inclined to post paragraph after paragraph of the same useless crap over and over again.

How much you wanna bet me you cant make a post without claiming many things and proving none of them?

 

[since9]

I stayed out of this thread for a few weeks and thought if I came back there might be something new and worth reading....cya in another few weeks.

I hear you. I thought this thread was supposed to be about Obama's policy concerning gays and lesbians in the military, but apparently, it's now about homosexuality right vs wrong vs whatever.

So...