After Hours

General discussion


Gays Serving in the U.S. Military - Who should decide?

By maxwell edison ·
Tags: Off Topic
Disclaimer: My personal position is two-fold:

One: A person's sexual preference and/or practice is his/her own business. I don't know whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice or birth, nor do I care. It's not my business what you do; it's not your business what I do.

Two: Serving in the military IS NOT a Constitutional right. The military can indeed discriminate for a variety of reasons (sorry, you have flat-foot), all of which are implemented for the purpose of maintaining the most effective military force possible. If you disagree, please show me the exact article of the Constitution that shows me to be wrong. The mission of the military is to be the most effective fighting force - no more, no less.

Having said that, whether or not gays are allowed to serve in the military is a question that I would pass on to the military experts; I'd yield to their opinion.

What's yours?

Edited to change the title and add the following content:;leftCol

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

no serious anthropologist would consent to this.....

by carlo.di.giorgio In reply to The Natural Order of thin ...

old argument used by gay lobbyists. What you allude to could only be observed among domesticated animals which have lost most of their natural instincts by leaving so closely to single humans and being dressed to behave as if they were sort of humans. I suggest you consult the famous work of Alfred Adler if there is an English translation, in case you are not familiar with difficult German
DAS PROBLEM DER HOMOSEXUALIT?T - Fischer Verlag. Adler, Founder of the Individual Psychology, dismisses categorically any genetic links to this phenomenon defined as neurotic sexual perversion originated by distorted upbringing, social trends, especially promoted by modern media and above all inculcated into themselves by repetitive auto training ??somatization??. All known homosexuals can fit in perfectly well in Adler's discourse. Basically, they have their own history behind and that is understandable, since by sound and balanced upbringing and education men should only be spontaneously attracted to women and women to men. All arguments of those who tolerate this neurotic phenomenon as acceptable life style can be easily dismantled on all fronts. The vast majority of world population and serious religions consider homosexuality a dishonorable vice like many others affecting humans. It is only in liberal West where it is nowadays not only tolerated but even promoted and this explains why the West is elsewhere considered decadent. All previous societies affected by such perversion have fallen apart and decayed?

Collapse -

Still serious

by JamesRL In reply to no serious anthropologist ...

First of all, I'm far from a gay lobbyist. I'm a businessperson, I'm a father, I've been a conservative political activist.

As to your assertion that only domesticated animals exhibit same sex behaviour, you obviously didn't read my writing about chimpanzes. Those were wild chimpanzes.

As for Adler's theories, I've met many homosexuals who had fine upbringings and are decent human beings. If there is anyone who is perverse, its those who chose to obsess about the sex lives of others and charectise a human being solely on their sexual orientation.

Collapse -

An important distinction must be made

by john.a.wills In reply to Still serious

between on the one hand sexual inversion of the erotic instincts, a condition sometimes called "homosexuality", and pseudosexual activity (a.k.a. gross indecency a.k.a. sexual perversion a.k.a. mutual masturbation) such as cunnilingus, tribadism, buggary or fellatio; when such activity occurs between members of the same sex it is sometimes called "homosexuality". If we condemn gross indecency by people who experience sexual inversion, <i/>a fortiori</i> we should condemn it by two-sex couples, who have the option of sexual intercourse.

Having a sexually inverted eroticism does not compel one to engage in gross indecency, i.e. it does not compel one to become gay. There are indeed societies of sexual inverts determined not to become gay, e.g. Courage (

I am afraid that the Pentagon mixes the two meanings of "homosexuality", although the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as currently applied seems to apply more to gross indecency than to sexual inversion. It is unfair that soldiers practising this kind of behavior are not expelled if they practise it with members of the opposite sex, for their guilt is greater.

Collapse -

JASON !!!!

by drowningnotwaving In reply to An important distinction ...

You converse with Santee about his style, yet let freaks like this spread their unveiled message of hatred?

Collapse -


by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to An important distinction ...

over substance. Utterly lacking in metaphor and imagination, as well. It passes.

Collapse -

It's the beginning of a beautiful friendship

by AnsuGisalas In reply to An important distinction ...

between the Inquisition Fanboy and the Sharia Fanboy.

Let's hope they get a room before they come out of their respective closets, otherwise we'll all need some corrective laser eye-surgery!
And electro-therapy to "fix" our mnemonics

Collapse -

mine was a suggestion to read Alfred Adler and .....

by carlo.di.giorgio In reply to Still serious

not jump into conclusions. Adler still is The Authority in Individual Psychology by observing as a medical doctor 1000's of patients for long years. I have been a passionate reader of Anthropology and Psychology in all major European languages, I master as first, since my adolescence and intensively during my Oxford years. In the 80's I also observed as consequence of limitless perversions since the liberal 60's how many homosexuals had become victims of the pest many believe they themselves were responsible for infecting humanity in first place. In the early 80's they were falling in the 1000's like flies and despite 'plastic' precautions they still represent nowadays the most vulnerable section of humanity. The tragedy, however, is since then the catastrophic widespread of the terrible disease among many innocent victims (women and children) mainly in Africa, whereby the real and permanent cure cannot be the palliative usage of condoms but abstinence and strict observance of high moral standards, which are always in accordance with the laws of nature.
To conclude this discourse I would say that the US and all other nations are well advised to ban homosexuals as unfit to serve under their banners.

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to mine was a suggestion to ...

You're the Pope!
Whatshisface... "Maledictus DCLXVI"... no... "Pope formerly known as Angstschweiss" ... no, not that one either. Ah well, at least I know who you are, in principle at least

Collapse -

The most vulnerable section of humanity?

by Oz_Media In reply to mine was a suggestion to ...

LOL, you really are a numpty when it comes to reality, logical thought and reason, aren't you?

To think that Oxford has churned out the likes of you is horrific and a real kick in the pants to someone who is proud to have family that has received the world class education that prestigious institution is renowned for.

You refer to HIV as a pestilence that has spread due to perversion and how these "perverts" represent the most vulnerable section of humanity.

What about smokers and alcoholics?

Is cancer not still one of the US' major killers? 430,000 people in the US die each year form smoking related illness. Since the discovery of the HIV epidemic, an estimated 600,000 have died. Considering that number is amassed over 30 years, it is safe to say that the perversion of cigarette smoking kills MANY times more people than HIV does.

There are an estimated 17,000 new cases of people 'LIVING' with HIV in the US each year, there are an estimated 700,000 new cases of terminal lung cancer due to smoking in the US each year.

Now there's a perversion that also tracks back to Columbian aboriginals that kills many times more people than this "perversion" that you keep referring to.

That is also ignoring the fact that HIV is not just a gay disease, and has little or no impact on the topic of gay military members, unless orgies have now become a part of basic training.

Collapse -


by NickNielsen In reply to no serious anthropologist ...

died in 1937, only 9 years after the discovery of genetic transformation, and 7 years before the determination that DNA was responsible for that transformation. For most of Adler's life, genetics was understood primarily through Gregor Mendel's observations.

How can somebody from an era with little more than rudimentary genetic knowledge be considered an authority on what is or is not genetically-determined?

Related Discussions

Related Forums