Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Prestor John]

You mean wanting these privileges back

Yeah, let's ignore the freedoms ensured by the Constitution and keep giving special protections to the tyrannical minorities.

 

[McBell]

Yeah, let's ignore the freedoms ensured by the Constitution and keep giving special protections to the tyrannical minorities.

What "tyrannical minority" are you referring to?

 

[Prestor John]

What "tyrannical minority" are you referring to?

Take your pick.

Now is the age of the tyranny of the minority in the U.S. The hate-mongers among them stir them up to anger and violence.

 

[Shad]

Yeah, let's ignore the freedoms ensured by the Constitution and keep giving special protections to the tyrannical minorities.

I was not talking about that. I was referring to Protestant special privilege within state constitutions, state government and federal government. Such as the type that told the LDS that polygamy was illegal forcing it to abandon that type of marriage. The type that started wars with LDS.The type that result in LDS founding Utah. Of course now that LDS has more or less been accepted you do not see to care about minorities at all.

People buying cakes is not tyrannical. You are spinning something very simple into something bigger for no reason other than you are offended. Which is hilarious coming from LDS as pointed out above. People open business not shops of personal opinion. An alternative is that these store owners stop selling cakes just as Muslim butchers do not sell pork.

If you want to talk about SJW on university campuses and protests that attempt to ruin people for merely being offended then sure I completely agree. BLM which result in riots and theft but nothing more. Again sure I agree. However we are talking about business laws.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

However we are talking about business laws.

I do strongly feel that needs repeated, and will probably need repeated at least a few more times. Some here just do not seem to understand there is personal liberty, which is its own separate thing, and then there is business law, which is its own entire different thing with laws and restrictions that many apparently just are not aware of. Whether people want to admit it or not, there is no blanket coverage of personal rights and liberties when it comes to business. Even if a man has "religious objections" over being supervised/managed by a female, tough titties. He has no rights to be entitled to not work under a woman when it comes to working for a business that conducts interstate commerce.

 

[Skwim]

Take your pick.

Nice side stepping, but how about giving a straight answer to a straight question. You imply there's more than one "tyrannical minority" that is getting special protection, so step up to the plate and name a few. If you can.


.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There has not been enough gay people in our military to mean anything. It is not merely a far too small sample size to be meaningful but it was a completely negligible amount until recently. I was not appealing to anything where the few people who are gay being in the military was even relevant. I was talking about the issues involved. I can lay out all kinds of data concerning all kinds of increased problems with homosexuals in our military, in fact I have posted them in the past but I try to not post stuff I feel is disgusting to describe. I also hesitated to invest much time with the military issue because it was a one time exception made for a single poster and not related to my arguments about homosexual behavior.

Nobody can say how many gay people have served in the armed forces throughout history. You can’t say it has been a “completely negligible amount until recently,” whatever that means. You can only really know that someone is gay if they openly declare it. It’s not something you know from just looking at a person, like skin colour, for example. There is no way to know for sure how many gay people have served throughout history. I have no idea why it matters or why you make an issue of it.

Because there is nothing that makes gay people any more or less capable of serving than anyone else. Hence why I keep pointing out that they are just human beings with the same basic needs and desires as any other human being. They are as capable of bonding with other people, as anyone else is. They are as capable of fighting for the survival of themselves and their fellow human beings, as anyone else is. They are as capable of carrying out complex and arduous tasks, as anyone else is. There’s nothing in their sexual orientation that makes them different from human beings with other sexual orientations. It’s not like sexual orientation has some bizarre effect on one’s ability to do any of the things required of someone serving in the armed forces.

Let me point this out again.

1. My two arguments about cost verses benefit are what we have been debating.
2. One person asked me as a sort of size issue to list some solutions to homosexuality.
3. I responded that I have given little thought to what should be done about homosexuality but because he asked I gave him 3 or 4 things I personally would do as a start.

I have to say, I agree with this person on some level. The way you talk about homosexuality as some major detriment to society implies that it can just be made to go away, or something. Like it could just be outlawed and everything would be hunky dory. But homosexuality has always existed, and doesn’t seem to be going anywhere in the near future. It exists.

4. For some bizarre reason every person talking to me instantly switched from failing to defend homosexuality. They did not even switch to all of my suggestions, everyone targeted my military comment about which I am in a far better position to understand and defend than my homosexual behavior arguments.

Can you please explain the above? Now if you want to discuss the military that is fine but first I want to know why and then we need to clear out all other issues to make enough room for a military discussion to be meaningful.

Maybe they simply took issue with what they read and felt like responding.

I’m pointing out that your argument that gay people serving in the military is some kind of harmful “cost” doesn’t hold up in the cost-benefit analysis you’ve been trying to make. I’ve seen you make these assertions before and I still don’t think they hold up. Add to that the fact that it can apparently be an actual “harmful cost” to discriminate against gay people serving in the military, given the article shared by another poster about how doing just that cost the Armed Forces some valuable Arabic translators smack in the middle of a war in the Middle East. Sounds like a “cost” to me.

This thread is about (gay) marriage. How do you feel about that?

Like I said you have gotten away from defending homosexuality, then moved on to the military, and are now concentrating on a semantic technicality. I have no need or interest to worry about semantics. You can apply whatever label you wish to what I brought up. Semantics change absolutely nothing that I described.

It’s not a semantic technicality. You are trying to assert that gay people serving in the military is some sot of novel and crazy idea when it is actually not. Gay people have always existed so gay people have always served in armies. Sexual orientation has no bearing on one’s ability to carry out their obligations as members of the armed services and I don’t know why anybody would think it would.

And you’re trying to use it as one of the factors in your cost-benefit analysis of the harmfulness of homosexuality to society. You have not demonstrated that it is a “cost” to allow gay people to serve in the armed forces.

It is worse than if I said the brown colored bear I see ahead is acting territorial or threatening, and you respond that only cinnamon bears are territorial. What matters is that bear up ahead is acting territorial and aggressive. The danger or problem is the bear that is eating your face off, not what terms should be used to describe the event.

What?

BTW my point about the military has nothing to do with any specific behavior, that's why I did not mention any specific behavior.

Well, you did mention some fear of being hit on in the shower.

Then what’s your gripe about allowing gay people to serve in the military? What makes them so very different from heterosexual people?

First if you review my posts in the thread you will find dozens and dozens of examples where I said emphatically over and over that my primary arguments about homosexuality are based exclusively on homosexual behaviors not the orientation. I even pointed that out in my opening posts because I know from the past that others will take my posts concerning behaviors and completely rewrite them to apply to an orientation, once that straw man is erected then they destroy it and claim victory.

You can say that all you want, but it’s not what you’re doing.

From where I stand, you are actually saying that orientation has something to do with behavior - it seems to be the basis of your argument(s).

Perhaps you could share a list of the specific behaviors you are referring to.

Second, please quote anything in what you responded to by me that has anything to do with an orientation.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. You have been claiming that people of the homosexual orientation engage in certain behaviors, which you think are ultimately harmful to society.

Third, do not confuse an implication concerning my one time exception concerning what to do about homosexuality with the claims I made concerning my primary argument condemning homosexual behavior. That is exactly why it was an exception. It just proves the famous saying that to give truth to those who love it not is only to increase contentions.

What is “homosexual behavior?”

Fourth it was the CDC that said that 60% of aids cases are attributable to the 4% of us engaged in homosexual sexual behavior. Argue with them, not me. I am running out of room just pointing out the mistakes in your argumentation.

Now go and peruse the statistics for the rest of the world (more specifically, Africa, where the majority of the world’s AIDS cases are concentrated) and get back to me about how detrimental heterosexual sex is to those societies. The majority of people suffering from HIV/AIDs in those societies are not homosexuals. Then you will see the mistake in your argument(s).

It is basically making a vacuous argument by claiming whatever your defending is virtuous. It is something the modern left does better than any group in history but never mind.

Thanks for filling me in.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We do not have badgers in the army, no sloths in the Marines, no barn owls in the Navy, and no penguins in the Air Force. Aside from a few dogs and maybe a couple of dolphins (neither of which apply) we only have humans in the military. These days we probably do have illegal aliens but then again they are all HUMANS. I did not even suggest they were less capable though that may very well be true on average.

You didn’t suggest they were less capable? Surely you did. And you basically just did here as well with your caveat about “that may very well be true on average.” Good grief!

I said their inclusion in the military is a net loss in capability for the military as a whole. Even though it was a one time exception, I did list a few reasons why. However you did not even attempt to hint why any of them were wrong, but you instead claimed I think they are less than human, which is complete BS. That is a violation of two of the 10 or so things I said that if anyone did I would end the discussion with them. I will temporarily not do so with you because I did not call your attention to that email but do not even hint that I think less of homosexuals because I disagree with them again.

You tried to suggest that there are a bunch of whiny soldiers crying about having to shower with gay people. (That’s after claiming that nobody cares about feelings in the military.) I think they’re tough enough to handle it. I’m sure they face much tougher situations on the battlefield. Or maybe they should listen to your advice:

”B. The military does NOT exist to be fair, to cater to special interests, to be used for social experiments, to have different standards for each arbitrary cultural subgroup, nor to give a rip whether it offends your delicate sensibilities or not.

I responded to every one of your reasons and to your specific example about the shower.


You are clearly saying that homosexual human beings are not as capable as heterosexual human beings of serving their country in the armed forces. And you are clearly saying that homosexual people are the only ones carrying out these elusive behaviors you reference but never actually specify.

“It's purpose IS to destroy things as fast and complete as humanly possible. That mission is best carried out by the most capable of us, those which produce the greatest cohesion and trust within units, those who lack certain behaviors that lead to much higher healthcare costs, and those who's inclinations do not cause others is a tightknit unit to feel uncomfortable in the shower for example.”

When boys are young that is a problem that gets countless young folks in trouble. However, I will stop having a problem with showering with homosexuals as soon as women allow heterosexual males in their showers. Actually I won't stop having a problem with it but I might shut up about it. Just like I said nothing about homosexuals being less than human, I said nothing about anyone's ability to control anything, yet you claimed I did both instead of making any actual defense of homosexual behavior.

You seem to be declaring that gay people should not be allowed to join the military because some heterosexual members might be uncomfortable showering with them, which may end up affecting unit cohesion. Is this based on anything you can point to in reality, or just unfounded fears and opinions? Because that’s all that sounds like to me. Is this a real problem, or just a made up one based on feelings? (Which you told me have no place in the military. Just cold, hard facts, ma’am.) I’m not sure why anybody would want to make rules and regulations based only on unfounded personal opinions.

I do not care how anybody feels about it, in fact the emotional commitment people have to defending homosexual behavior is the problem. I am responsible to God for how I reacted to truth, I am not responsible for how you feel about the truth.

It seems like you do care how people feel about it. At least, some people.

We are all responsible to each other.

You brought up a hypothetical scenario in which gays who do not tell anyone they are gay are serving in the military then drew some conclusions about it.

It’s called “reality.” Why should anyone declare what sexual orientation they are, upon signing up to serve in the military?

There are a lot of atheists who don’t speak up about being atheist either. Like homosexuality, it can result in marginalization, discrimination and stigmatization that it difficult to deal with.

I would need you to supply countless facts, that you in fact cannot not possibly know to make this hypothetical meaningful. For example how many gays are flying below the radar. 1, 10, 100,000? You can't possibly know, and to be relevant you must know.

For it to be relevant only one gay person needs to have signed up for the military at some point in time, without stating their sexual orientation. Gay people make up a small portion of the population anyway, so their numbers in the military shouldn’t be expected to be much larger than they are in the general population.

In fact, there could be zero gay people in the military and these people you mentioned that fear showering with gay people could still maintain their unfounded fears of being hit on in the shower.

I know I asked you to debate me, but I hope you will stop being sensationalistic. I need facts, not color commentary.

I am giving you facts.

 

[McBell]

Take your pick.

Now is the age of the tyranny of the minority in the U.S. The hate-mongers among them stir them up to anger and violence.

Still waiting for you to man up and name even one of them.
Your stalling makes your credibility look small.

 

[Prestor John]

Nice side stepping, but how about giving a straight answer to a straight question. You imply there's more than one "tyrannical minority" that is getting special protection, so step up to the plate and name a few. If you can.

Still waiting for you to man up and name even one of them.
Your stalling makes your credibility look small.

First, there is no "time limit" to my answer. There is no "buzzer". There is no theme song playing.

I answer when I answer. Now, as to my answer:

Blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, transsexuals and women of any race.

 

[McBell]

Blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, transsexuals and women of any race.

Please be so kind as to support your claim of "tyrannical".

 

[Skwim]

First, there is no "time limit" to my answer. There is no "buzzer". There is no theme song playing.

I answer when I answer. Now, as to my answer:

Blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, transsexuals and women of any race.

So much for any tenuous respect I had for your thinking.

Have a nice life.


.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, let's ignore the freedoms ensured by the Constitution and keep giving special protections to the tyrannical minorities.

Now, as to my answer:

Blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, transsexuals and women of any race.

Typical. Typical bigoted bs, that is. You're just mad because we won't shut up and take it anymore. Get over it. We want to be treated as equals.

 

[columbus]

Now, as to my answer:

Blacks, Latinos, homosexuals, transsexuals and women of any race.

You left out Native American people.
Apparently you mean everyone except the straight WASP males who have always had the privilege and dominated society and the government.
Well, sorry. Extending the rights to people who are very different from you doesn't mean a tyranny of minorities.
Tom

 

[1robin]

Nobody can say how many gay people have served in the armed forces throughout history. You can’t say it has been a “completely negligible amount until recently,” whatever that means. You can only really know that someone is gay if they openly declare it. It’s not something you know from just looking at a person, like skin colour, for example. There is no way to know for sure how many gay people have served throughout history. I have no idea why it matters or why you make an issue of it.

Why did everyone of you that claimed to defend homosexuality completely give it up and concentrate on the military issue? It's just plain weird. Even if what I said was completely false it does nothing to justify homosexual behavior. Even if what I said was perfectly true would that condemn homosexual behavior in the other 98% of the population. I am far more qualified to debate a military issue than I am assuming you are. So I do not mind debating it but it is irrelevant to your purposes.

You are right that no one knows how many homosexuals were in a specific military. I am the one that has said that very thing over and over. My claim is that in the US military the number of homosexuals in the military was vanishingly miniscule. You must be claiming it was significant. So we must decide which of those claims has the best arguments and evidence. I was actually in the military and know how it works. Before sometime in the 90s being a homosexual in the military was against the UCMJ. Even if someone faked it and got by the recruiters there is almost no chance he could have hidden it at his duty station. You have no idea how unaccepting soldiers were of gays before they were forced to accept them at the point of a political gun. Even a hint a person was gay could mean that they met with an "accident". Anyway I am not defending what the soldiers did. I am just telling you that the number of homosexuals in the military for most of our history was so small as to be irrelevant.

Because there is nothing that makes gay people any more or less capable of serving than anyone else. Hence why I keep pointing out that they are just human beings with the same basic needs and desires as any other human being. They are as capable of bonding with other people, as anyone else is. They are as capable of fighting for the survival of themselves and their fellow human beings, as anyone else is. They are as capable of carrying out complex and arduous tasks, as anyone else is. There’s nothing in their sexual orientation that makes them different from human beings with other sexual orientations. It’s not like sexual orientation has some bizarre effect on one’s ability to do any of the things required of someone serving in the armed forces.

I actually think that gays on average are less capable, and I know women are. However my argument assumed neither. My argument was that whether by evolution or by our God given consciences straight people are naturally uncomfortable with and untrusting of homosexuals. Right or wrong that is a fact.

Let me ask you something. Can you prove that killing every homosexual alive is actually wrong without referring to the supernatural? I must make the necessary disclaimer to have any hope you will not engage in virtue signaling here by my saying I am not suggesting anyone should physically abuse any homosexual. However your side of the isle usually does so regardless. It is just that your world view lacks any foundation for claiming anything is objectively wrong or right about anything.

I just realized that the issue I raised above is necessary to resolve before anything else would become relevant. Basically we are discussing the moral rightness or wrongness of a behavior. For some reason you have complicated everything by concentrating on what can be done about it which was not my original argument but we need to resolve the ontology of morality before we can even begin to discuss anything else. I am not blowing you off, once we can agree what the nature of morality is I will go back and pick up any of these points you made. However first things first.

So before we can even debate anything else we must determine what the nature of morality is.

So I will post my two simplistic arguments concerning morality.

1. Objective morality only exists if God does. Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited. Only if God exists do objective moral values and duties exist.

2. Subjective morality can exist without God (in theory anyway). Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

Since people get very confused and waste a lot of time calling these two very different things by the same name: Morality. Let me save us some time. Lets call Objective morality by the term morality as it should be. Let's call subjective morality by the term ethics or legality as it should be. So when I say morality I mean objective morality and when I mean subjective morality I will use legality or ethics.

So given that the two undeniable arguments above have weathered all scrutiny since the Greeks and Romans made those conclusions thousands of years ago lets move on.

So you have 3 choices.

A. You can deny either one or both of those conclusions above even though arguments do not get any simpler or certain than those. If you deny either, then you must post which and why. However trust me you cannot possibly prevail in showing that either of those two "if then" arguments is false.

B. Or you can suggest that the first one above Malum en se' is irrelevant because God does not exist. You can only do so by denying God's possible existence which you have absolutely no way to know it even if he does not exist. That will not help you however, and I will even assume Mallum en se' does not exist because even that assumption will doom your case, as I will show.

C. Or you can admit you have no way of knowing whether God exists and therefor no way to know what the nature of morality is. However it makes no difference which is true because if God exists and therefor actual morality exist then since God is the only source for objective moral values and duties he is who decides what they are and he said homosexuality was an abomination. But if we examine subjective morality we will see nothing is actually wrong with anything I say or do.

The reason we must resolve the nature of morality is because if God exist then he has specifically stated that homosexuality is immoral, and if he does not exist there no longer exists any objective moral values and duties for anyone's actions to be judged by or to indicate who is right. Without God the most you can possibly muster is someone's preference or opinion and mine is just as valid as yours (in fact more so).

So only after we see if the truth categories of morally evil or good even exist can we set out to see if one of our opinions is wrong or one of ours are right. So good luck, your up against arguments that have no counter arguments that work and no matter which case is actually true your arguments are doomed. Fire when ready, I will await your responses before I go back and answer your other points.

 

[McBell]

Arbitrarily declaring a random set of moralities as "absolute" in no way makes your chosen morals "absolute".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why did everyone of you that claimed to defend homosexuality completely give it up and concentrate on the military issue? It's just plain weird. Even if what I said was completely false it does nothing to justify homosexual behavior. Even if what I said was perfectly true would that condemn homosexual behavior in the other 98% of the population. I am far more qualified to debate a military issue than I am assuming you are. So I do not mind debating it but it is irrelevant to your purposes.

I have no idea why other people do things. You'll have to ask them, though I'm not sure anybody has given up anything. They're simply responding to the most recent thing you have said in the thread.

You are right that no one knows how many homosexuals were in a specific military. I am the one that has said that very thing over and over. My claim is that in the US military the number of homosexuals in the military was vanishingly miniscule. You must be claiming it was significant. So we must decide which of those claims has the best arguments and evidence. I was actually in the military and know how it works. Before sometime in the 90s being a homosexual in the military was against the UCMJ. Even if someone faked it and got by the recruiters there is almost no chance he could have hidden it at his duty station. You have no idea how unaccepting soldiers were of gays before they were forced to accept them at the point of a political gun. Even a hint a person was gay could mean that they met with an "accident". Anyway I am not defending what the soldiers did. I am just telling you that the number of homosexuals in the military for most of our history was so small as to be irrelevant.

I think I do have an idea of how unaccepting people can be of gay people or just anyone that is different, in general.

But you're not getting it. People don't actually know someone is gay until the person declares that they are gay. You've just demonstrated the very reason that many people weren't openly gay in the past (and probably even in the present). Because once they say "I"m gay" they're open to these "accidents" you speak of. So I'm am saying with great confidence that gay people have served in any number of armed forces around the world and throughout history.

I have no idea why you think someone couldn't hide the fact that they're gay, as I said previously. Because a homosexual orientation is not something that is detectable from looking at a person, or even interacting with them, any more than a heterosexual orientation is observable in that way. I think to assume that gay people (who either felt no need to mention their sexual orientation or didn't mention it out of fear of persecution) have not served honorably throughout the course of history is a mistake.

I actually think that gays on average are less capable, and I know women are. However my argument assumed neither. My argument was that whether by evolution or by our God given consciences straight people are naturally uncomfortable with and untrusting of homosexuals. Right or wrong that is a fact.

Based on what? See, this is the reason I keep having to point out that they're just human beings, while you keep trying to declare that they are not. What makes gay people less capable? (For the time being I will ignore your comment about women, despite the fact that my great aunt served honorably.)

People mistrust homosexuals for the same reason they mistrust anyone who is perceived to be different. That doesn't mean their mistrust is justified. Surely you're not declaring that we should rely on unfounded prejudice and ignorance instead of logic and reason.

I'll have to respond to the rest later, as I have to run for now. ...

Honestly though, I'm not sure I feel like getting into this whole morality argument with you again. As you know, I disagree with your view that some creator god must exist in order for human beings to exercise morality.

 

[1robin]

You didn’t suggest they were less capable? Surely you did. And you basically just did here as well with your caveat about “that may very well be true on average.” Good grief!



You tried to suggest that there are a bunch of whiny soldiers crying about having to shower with gay people. (That’s after claiming that nobody cares about feelings in the military.) I think they’re tough enough to handle it. I’m sure they face much tougher situations on the battlefield. Or maybe they should listen to your advice:

”B. The military does NOT exist to be fair, to cater to special interests, to be used for social experiments, to have different standards for each arbitrary cultural subgroup, nor to give a rip whether it offends your delicate sensibilities or not.

I responded to every one of your reasons and to your specific example about the shower.


You are clearly saying that homosexual human beings are not as capable as heterosexual human beings of serving their country in the armed forces. And you are clearly saying that homosexual people are the only ones carrying out these elusive behaviors you reference but never actually specify.

“It's purpose IS to destroy things as fast and complete as humanly possible. That mission is best carried out by the most capable of us, those which produce the greatest cohesion and trust within units, those who lack certain behaviors that lead to much higher healthcare costs, and those who's inclinations do not cause others is a tightknit unit to feel uncomfortable in the shower for example.”



You seem to be declaring that gay people should not be allowed to join the military because some heterosexual members might be uncomfortable showering with them, which may end up affecting unit cohesion. Is this based on anything you can point to in reality, or just unfounded fears and opinions? Because that’s all that sounds like to me. Is this a real problem, or just a made up one based on feelings? (Which you told me have no place in the military. Just cold, hard facts, ma’am.) I’m not sure why anybody would want to make rules and regulations based only on unfounded personal opinions.

It seems like you do care how people feel about it. At least, some people.

We are all responsible to each other.



It’s called “reality.” Why should anyone declare what sexual orientation they are, upon signing up to serve in the military?

There are a lot of atheists who don’t speak up about being atheist either. Like homosexuality, it can result in marginalization, discrimination and stigmatization that it difficult to deal with.



For it to be relevant only one gay person needs to have signed up for the military at some point in time, without stating their sexual orientation. Gay people make up a small portion of the population anyway, so their numbers in the military shouldn’t be expected to be much larger than they are in the general population.

In fact, there could be zero gay people in the military and these people you mentioned that fear showering with gay people could still maintain their unfounded fears of being hit on in the shower.

I am giving you facts.

I typed a nice long response to everything you said but when I went to post it, it said I had to be logged in. So I logged in and it lost everything I had typed. So I went back and typed a briefer response, when I hit preview this time it put up the preview, but would not let me go on and post it. I gave up.

However it may be a good thing because until we see whether on your world view anything can be morally wrong or morally right there is no sense in debating what is wrong or right in dozens of cases. However as I stated in my previous response to you, I will go back and respond to all your points after we conclude the nature of morality. If we can't there is not really any point discussing what is right or wrong in any particular situation.

 

[1robin]

I have no idea why other people do things. You'll have to ask them, though I'm not sure anybody has given up anything. They're simply responding to the most recent thing you have said in the thread.

Fine, but you at least know why you did what I pointed out but you did not state why yet. BTW my military point was not even close to the last thing I posted, it was certainly not the thing I posted the most, it wasn't relevant to the justification of homosexuality at all, and of all the relevant issues it is the one I am far more suited to know than those who responded to it. I even said several times that to respond to my pointing out a problem by demanding I post a solution was a mistake and why.

Whatever is going on it isn't rational.

I think I do have an idea of how unaccepting people can be of gay people or just anyone that is different, in general.

But you're not getting it. People don't actually know someone is gay until the person declares that they are gay. You've just demonstrated the very reason that many people weren't openly gay in the past (and probably even in the present). Because once they say "I"m gay" they're open to these "accidents" you speak of. So I'm am saying with great confidence that gay people have served in any number of armed forces around the world and throughout history.

I have no idea why you think someone couldn't hide the fact that they're gay, as I said previously. Because a homosexual orientation is not something that is detectable from looking at a person, or even interacting with them, any more than a heterosexual orientation is observable in that way. I think to assume that gay people (who either felt no need to mention their sexual orientation or didn't mention it out of fear of persecution) have not served honorably throughout the course of history is a mistake.


Based on what? See, this is the reason I keep having to point out that they're just human beings, while you keep trying to declare that they are not. What makes gay people less capable? (For the time being I will ignore your comment about women, despite the fact that my great aunt served honorably.)

People mistrust homosexuals for the same reason they mistrust anyone who is perceived to be different. That doesn't mean their mistrust is justified. Surely you're not declaring that we should rely on unfounded prejudice and ignorance instead of logic and reason.

I'll have to respond to the rest later, as I have to run for now. ...

Honestly though, I'm not sure I feel like getting into this whole morality argument with you again. As you know, I disagree with your view that some creator god must exist in order for human beings to exercise morality.

This post was not what I had hoped for. I will make a few brief responses and then restate why the morality debate must be had first before any of this other stuff is.

It does not matter if a few closeted homosexuals showered with some straight people caused any problem or not. For the exact same reasons women in the military will not let straight or gay soldiers shower with them, heterosexuals do not want to shower with homosexuals. Since they are very vocal about being gay today and are in fact accepted in large numbers then it is a problem (even if the straight soldiers were wrong) and my argument is valid, but not relevant to homosexuals justifying their behavior.

So if you ever admit the nature of morality, then we can debate whether homosexuality is justifiable, then maybe we can debate homosexuals in the military. First things first.

It does not matter if their distrust is justified. Their distrust in this case is perfectly natural whether you believe in evolution or creation. However it doesn't have to be, if that distrust is wide spread it will harm battle effectiveness. That is the militaries job, once the left finally destroys it, what will replace it will be far far less tolerant.

What I said was that in the military environment it would be next to impossible to hide being a homosexual, that is the opposite of what you say I said. Unless you served in the military you will never understand the level of intimacy soldiers do and should have. Their are few secrets. In the past most of the few homosexuals in the military that were discovered either had accidents until they gave up or were discharged. In fact several categories of people are treated this way, the main one being what we called "bugs" who screw up a lot of what they do, because in a war they will get you killed. One almost got me killed simply loading out an Iraqi ship. My plan is much more gentle, don't let them in.

None of this matters until you come to terms with moral facts. You want to assume what you can't know, that God does not exist, fine. Without God there are no objective moral value or duties. All we have left is your opinion and mine, and since there is no objective moral standard to determine which one of us are right then your claiming anything is morally right or wrong is meaningless. What can be more relevant to a debate about what is right or wrong if on your view actual right and actual evil do not even exist? That is why you must first show actual good and evil exists before you can claim that anything is either one. Good luck.

 

[Shad]

The reason we must resolve the nature of morality is because if God exist then he has specifically stated that homosexuality is immoral, and if he does not exist there no longer exists any objective moral values and duties for anyone's actions to be judged by or to indicate who is right. Without God the most you can possibly muster is someone's preference or opinion and mine is just as valid as yours (in fact more so).

Non-sequitur. You jump from God to your specific version of God

So only after we see if the truth categories of morally evil or good even exist can we set out to see if one of our opinions is wrong or one of ours are right. So good luck, your up against arguments that have no counter arguments that work and no matter which case is actually true your arguments are doomed. Fire when ready, I will await your responses before I go back and answer your other points.

This is hilarious. You make a set of unfalsifiable statements then challenge people to present counter-arguments....