Gay Soldier that was Booed

[WhoDunIt]

I'm sure you've guys have heard about that gay soldier that has been booed while asking a question at the recent Republican debate. Any of you get a look at him? I saw a clip of it on CNN tonight and turns out he's.......pretty appropriate for this site

This is the only link I could find of that question, luckily it's less than a minute over all so you don't have to hear the answers.

[hallolujah]

I'm sure their answers would have been so positive towards LGBT soldiers. *eyeroll*

But yes, very nice.

[anpuZA]

Fourth Reich News - why would he even bother to ask?

[musqlure]

Heh. When I saw this clip, the first thing I thought was, "Damn! That boy's got some arms on him."

[CelticMuscle]

I recorded (as I do all US debates) this debate and was fast forwarding through the questions and noted this question so rewound to the beginning and as soon as they said a miltary person I thought "Ah, they will all stand up and applaud" but for a serving member of the miltary (someone who is willing to lay down their life for the defence of the United States) to be booed simply because he does not fit into the defined genders that most people believe they belong to is just not on. I know we have a member of this forum who is in the same situation and I wish to assure him right now that whilst I may not agree with the reasons for him being where he is (as I can't remember a) where he is or b) whether I am allowed to say where he is) I the fact that he is there should be applauded to the hilt. It's one of the reasons I am wondering about virtually endorsing a third party candidate in the 2012 presidential elections (but am worried there isn't one who is strong enough against the two main parties)

[silvershadow]

It really does sicken me honestly. To see that he was boo'd. People complain about oh we don't have enough people in the military branches. Blah blah blah. It's like ok how about you respect Everyone willing to join and fight for the country. That is the important part. (and yes subject wise I do not deny that is a hot body he has )

[grubby41]

You know, with all due respect to our neighbours to the south, I really do not get America - especially American politics. I am a Bible-believing Christian, and politically conservative. I am loyal to my Queen, proud of my country, and uphold the principles of decency, law, and order. By popular convention, that should put me in the "republican" camp (if ever that sort of political terminology could be used in a British Commonwealth country). However, I am also homosexual, and so are many of my friends who hold the same opinions and beliefs as I hold. Who cares about sexual orientation? What has that got to do with faith, loyalty, bravery, decency, or service to one's country? What is the big hang-up with sexual preference? Who cares? People's private lives and feelings are their own business. What people may do or feel privately has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their public face. It is just all so much hypocrisy, and I really do not understand where it comes from or what it is based on. Anyone who knows Greek will know what the Bible actually says about sexual morality. And in a secular republic that should not be a public issue anyway. The booing was simply so very rude and completely disrespectful, and served no good purpose. Honestly, it is all just so weird.

[CelticMuscle]

Originally Posted by grubby41

You know, with all due respect to our neighbours to the south, I really do not get America - especially American politics. I am a Bible-believing Christian, and politically conservative. I am loyal to my Queen, proud of my country, and uphold the principles of decency, law, and order. By popular convention, that should put me in the "republican" camp (if ever that sort of political terminology could be used in a British Commonwealth country). However, I am also homosexual, and so are many of my friends who hold the same opinions and beliefs as I hold. Who cares about sexual orientation? What has that got to do with faith, loyalty, bravery, decency, or service to one's country? What is the big hang-up with sexual preference? Who cares? People's private lives and feelings are their own business. What people may do or feel privately has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their public face. It is just all so much hypocrisy, and I really do not understand where it comes from or what it is based on. Anyone who knows Greek will know what the Bible actually says about sexual morality. And in a secular republic that should not be a public issue anyway. The booing was simply so very rude and completely disrespectful, and served no good purpose. Honestly, it is all just so weird.

If it is any consolation, there are times I don't get US politics either (and I live 5,000 miles away!).

[mgm]

grubby41- It is sad, but we aren't REALLY a secular nation. Though we claim a separation between church and state, that simply means we won't support any one religion. Political issues and parties are based on morals for a lot of people. For most people in America, they get their morals from their religion. It all depends on how you read the Bible. In America, you would be what we call a "Log Cabin Republican". A gay republican. They are quite an anomaly here. What party are you in Canada?

[SK41219]

Originally Posted by grubby41

You know, with all due respect to our neighbours to the south, I really do not get America - especially American politics. I am a Bible-believing Christian, and politically conservative. I am loyal to my Queen, proud of my country, and uphold the principles of decency, law, and order. By popular convention, that should put me in the "republican" camp (if ever that sort of political terminology could be used in a British Commonwealth country). However, I am also homosexual, and so are many of my friends who hold the same opinions and beliefs as I hold. Who cares about sexual orientation? What has that got to do with faith, loyalty, bravery, decency, or service to one's country? What is the big hang-up with sexual preference? Who cares? People's private lives and feelings are their own business. What people may do or feel privately has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their public face. It is just all so much hypocrisy, and I really do not understand where it comes from or what it is based on. Anyone who knows Greek will know what the Bible actually says about sexual morality. And in a secular republic that should not be a public issue anyway. The booing was simply so very rude and completely disrespectful, and served no good purpose. Honestly, it is all just so weird.

America is a different country with a different social attitude. I don't agree with bigotry, but these people have a right to interpret the bible the way they want to, even if they use it as an excuse to hate. That being said, I don't think the government reserves the right to ban a person of a certain sexual orientation from military service. I think it's a violation of our first amendment. So, ironically, the American conservatives are taking a non-conservative approach to the issue in this instance (and I'm using conservative in the American sense, not the traditional, Burkian sense).

[redwolf64]

Not to get all "deep" here, but I think this is related to our fetish for muscle on the boards.

In the US, there's always been an ultra-conservative Christian view that pops up its head at different times. It's built around a vision of a vengeful, father-figure god and centered on a kind of hierarchy - the wife serves the husband, they both serve God and everything is good with the world.

Homosexuality doesn't compute for these people - they're so caught in the mind-set of someone serving and bending over for someone else that men who want to sleep with other men (or women who sleep with women) just causes their brain circuits to go haywire.

It's why you find young kids bullying other kids they think are gay - they're "less of a man" if they're gay and have to assert that their masculinity.

The fact that gays can serve openly in the military is shocking to these people. It's as if, suddenly, we're "weak". They just don't understand that gays are weak, strong, and everything in between - they're just like everyone else.

I think this got conservatives really riled up because the guy looks like he could kick their butt - he doesn't look like some skinny, effeminate chorus boy. He's not the "girly man" they have in their head when they think about gays.

It causing their brains to explode.

So, if they saw and talked to some of the big muscled gay men here or that I know, they just couldn't handle it. The idea of a gay man that can be strong destroys their whole worldview of the roles of men and women and, ultimately, the nature of their god.

[SK41219]

Originally Posted by redwolf64

So, if they saw and talked to some of the big muscled gay men here or that I know, they just couldn't handle it. The idea of a gay man that can be strong destroys their whole worldview of the roles of men and women and, ultimately, the nature of their god.

Ironic, considering that some cultures older than the Abrahamic religions had gay soldiers, and were accepting of them. The Spartans, for instance.

[memorex414]

I'm so very displeased that after all this time and all the bloodshed and cruelty inflicted by religion people still flock to the brain-washing like moths to a flame. Religion is the greatest evil of all and the most deadly.

I still have faith that man will overcome his shortcomings and transcend religion.

BTW love this thought provoking discussion

[Cyberwolf]

I have NEVER been so disapointed or INSULTED by the Republicans since this debate. He is a hero and they booed him. I knew a guy that said, "I would never want a gay guy to be in the same foxhole with me knowing he was looking at my ass." My reply was, "Sorry I am all for it. If he likes my ass he might save it someday and I would be MORE than happy to thank him for that."

But joking aside, this was still a slap in the face to those brave men and women that risk there lives for us.

THANK YOU Stephen Hill! Thank you for being our hero!

[Berzerkerjoe]

Who ever booed at that Soldier are bunch of Cretins.

[vcmdcr]

I'm surprised anyone booed at all, not because of the disrespect, but because look at that guy: he could kick all of their asses at once!

[WhoDunIt]

Originally Posted by vcmdcr

I'm surprised anyone booed at all, not because of the disrespect, but because look at that guy: he could kick all of their asses at once!

Those people are a special level of cretin, if you don't fit in there narrow view of life, you are skum that shouldn't exist or have the rights that they themselves enjoy. I remember seeing a quote that was atributed to Gandi on Christianity,

"I do like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians, they are very un-Christ like."

Peope like this seem to fit perfectly into what Gandi said in most if not all lf their actions



As a straight man, if I were in a situation that required a man who has the talents that this man would have as a soldier to help, I would have no problem asking him or another soldier like him for assistance.





I do appologize for any spelling errors, I'm posting from my cell phone.

[mgm]

I give you.....
Hope

[ottomun6]

MGM, thank you for that clip, I actually felt his anxiety.
Took me back to telling my family and friends. I got all nervous and sweaty just like that.. Thinking that it would be horrible, but it was a huge relief.
It's nice to know there are still some good folks out there.

[reidboy09]

Originally Posted by grubby41

You know, with all due respect to our neighbours to the south, I really do not get America - especially American politics. I am a Bible-believing Christian, and politically conservative.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

I would say that's pretty straight forward.

[V.R.Goh]

Originally Posted by reidboy09

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

I would say that's pretty straight forward.

The problem is that the Bible says a lot of things, yet conservative Christians here will use that verse and Leviticus 18:22 to justify their homophobia. Take, for example, this quote:

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.

Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).

So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes. ~Deb Price, And Say Hi To Joyce

See what I mean?

[popebuck1]

I prefer Mark Twain: "Christianity is a wonderful idea for a religion which has, sadly, never been tried out in practice."

[NOLAmitch]

Originally Posted by popebuck1

I prefer Mark Twain: "Christianity is a wonderful idea for a religion which has, sadly, never been tried out in practice."

Or another Mark Twain favorite of mine: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

[MuscleHintz]

Originally Posted by SK41219

Ironic, considering that some cultures older than the Abrahamic religions had gay soldiers, and were accepting of them. The Spartans, for instance.

Homosexuality isn't something mankind inherently is afraid of. Religion is much of the reason why the modern world is so homophobic. The Abrahamic religions, especially the most popular of them, Christianity, oppose homosexuals for some reason that I cannot guess... did the founders have a grudge against homosexuals from bad childhood experiences? Was there an undocumented homosexual that one of the founders was jealous of? Or did the Church go back and rewrite the Bible to explain their hatred of gays? I'm not a Christian myself, so I can't answer that question. Regardless, Christianity spread like wildfire across the globe, resulting in a side-effect of mass worldwide homophobia.

It's a pity that a religion that preaches peace and love is so famous as a weapon against minorities that its followers disagree with. America is far too religious to truly accept homosexuality at our current time, but hopefully in the next 20 years a younger, wiser generation will grow up being taught tolerance instead of hatred.

[reidboy09]

Originally Posted by V.R.Goh

The problem is that the Bible says a lot of things, yet conservative Christians here will use that verse and Leviticus 18:22 to justify their homophobia. Take, for example, this quote:

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.

Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).
So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes. ~Deb Price, And Say Hi To Joyce

See what I mean?

You make a valid point and I agree with you for the most part. The scripture you gave about the meat was intended for sacrifices, which are no longer required, due to Christ's death on the cross. As for your other scriptures, I completely agree. We're all sinners we all make mistakes. The point is acknowledging that and doing something about it. It really bugs me when "Christians" condemn homosexuals and they're in the wrong as well. It's hypocritical and it's not a christian attitude no matter what they say. I'm a Christian as well and I won't say I "accept" homosexuality. They say to love others as you would yourself. I love the person, not the spirit. And homosexuality is a spirit. Simple as that. You weren't "born gay". It's a mindset. We were made to love the opposite sex that's the way it was intended. There have been people "delivered of homosexuality". That is what christians should be praying for, not condemning them to Hell no questions asked.
Sorry for getting all religious on the forum but someone played the Christian and bible card so I had to give my 2 cents. If this offends you...well honestly I'm not sorry. If the moderator doesn't like it, he can delete it. I really won't be offended. It's a forum. I do apologize for any typos. I typed this on my phone.

[mgm]

This is my two cents. You WERE born that way. It's NOT a sin. God made ALL of his children and LOVES ALL of his children. Trust me. Jamey, or for a better known example, Matt Shepard, did not CHOOSE to be gay. Which would you have chosen; suicide or your sexuality? If you can't answer that question, stop talking.

[F_R_Eaky]

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)"

The other problem, my fellow Christians and I wind up having is how to interpret the Bible verses from their original language. Take this verse for instance. Almost everyone uses the King James Version, the same one that stuck the word "homosexual" into almost all the verses it shows up in the old testiment. Problem is, there is no word for homosexual in the Jewish language. It was NOT a concept they generally thought/talked about back then so to put that specific kind of word in a translation from Hebrew or Copitc is wrong.
For the above verse specifically there is a debate over the interpretation of one greek word and what it means. In this case the word being interpreted as laying down with man, isn't the act of laying down with another man in an act of love, it's laying down with a specific man, a young man (not boy as most describe, for the Greeks/Romans are talking about a young man who has acheived an age of manhood, but not quite the full looks (no beard) think of him as a college boy/freshman who is also a late bloomer.) who is acting/portraying the role of the Green Man or Pan or which ever earth deity one likes.
The idea was these men went to lie with "the god" for the sake of procuring fertility rights or blessings for either their fields or their loins (to hopefully have children). There was a mirrored version of this rite for women to perform too. So the actual question should arise, is the verse actually condeming a mutal, respectful, meaningful one on one adult male to male (love/sexual) relationship, or was it actually condeming an act of child molestation, or as is probably the case, an act of physical idolitry; worshipping another god by pretending to have sex with him via priestly servants.

As for the other main verse that proclaims the act of homosexuality (again a word that doesn't appear in the orginal text) what is funny is that verse does NOT stand alone. It is a part of verses that proclaim hundreds of laws, things like if your children back talk to you, they must be stoned, or if your wife is caught eyeing another man, she must be stoned. What's funny is out of all those verses, almost everyone in the Christian faith today, breaks ALL of them, save one... the one about "homosexuality." So why can they get away with breaking all those laws of God, yet those of us who are homosexual will be condemned for eternity for breaking that one? (shrug shrug shrug)

[Frankly]

Wow, F_R_Eaky, im impressed with your knowledge of the mistranslations of the old testament. Most people take the english and assume (wrongly) that it is a literal interpretation of the ancient hebrew, but lots of interpretation has been injected through translation. Impressive bud.

The main issue with the religious argument is that in the old testament, everything was an abomination that people were supposed to be killed for. Eating pork, or shellfish. Working on the sabbath, wearing clothes of two different cloths. Not to mention that almost every christian denomination, (any one that uses statues or pictures of jesus) is expressly violating the second commandment. For some reason, they just can't handle the gays and decide to filter their hatred through religion.

It'll come down to education, time, and yes a few redneck hillbilly asskickings by buff gay soldiers like the one in the video for us to finally be accepted in mainstream culture.

[gogr2]

Coming from both being Roman Catholic AND being in the military... here is my two cents:

Official Catholic stance is what we like to call "Love the sinner not the Sin." That is to say, being gay in and of itself is not the sin. However, any sexual intercourse (including masturbation) outside of Marriage is sinful. Therefore all sexually active persons not married are sinners. Being the pragmatic Catholic... the issue of masturbation as sin is nonsense so long as it doesn't preclude you from meaningful relationships with your significant other (e.g. addicted to jerking off). As for gay sex, if you are actively catholic, you are shit out of luck. Those are the rules. However, if you are not catholic and your faith allows for gay marriage... Go for it! Be happily married and have all the gay sex you want with your spouse. However, I doubt there are any faiths out there that condone sex outside of marriage. Do we do it (gay, hetero, etc... sex) outside of marriage, yes. We are all sinners. Just the facts of life... the church isn't for the pious, it's there to aid the sinner. (As for me personally, I'm not gay, I just have a muscle fetish... however, I'm still sinning because of that hot night with the red head with nice tits a couple weeks ago.)

As for gay in the military, we just went through a ton of training to prep for the repeal of DODT. The reality of it is that everyone in the military knew who was gay within their ranks. I would say that for 90% of us, we don't give a shit what you do at home so long as on the battle field you can Shoot, Move, and Communicate. The real reason the military is up in arms over the repeal of DODT is the fact that we are old fashioned and sees ourself as one of the last bastions of morality (but that is another discussion for another time). We separate males from females in barracks and in all situations to avoid "inappropriate behavior" (sex outside of marriage=sin). What is at issue now is how do we separate gay soldiers to avoid inappropriate behavior? By regulation, we could not bunk two gay personnel together to avoid temptation just like by the same regulation we can't bunk a male and female together. But do we then bunk one gay and one non-gay together? Or does that remain a temptation for the gay soldier? Do you risk doing that and bunking them with the homo-phobe? The solution is everyone has their own room... I doubt the American Tax Payer is ready to foot that bill... they are already crying to cut our meager sub-poverty wages even more.

Then there is the issue of spousal benefits. Back in the 80s, the Army changed the language in regulations to be non-sex specific for those service-members that are female with the male spouse that aren't in the military. All things refer to gender neutral "spouse." As of this moment, if a gay soldier is legally married to a civilian, by regulation that gay spouse is now entitled to benefits. By having pushed the issue of DODT and its repeal, the President has inadvertently put himself in a position where the Federal Government by military proxy will end up recognizing same-sex marriages. Was this part of Obama's plan? Probably not... I don't think he thought it through well enough to see that. Honestly, I don't think any civilian thought that one through. Note of Interest... as of a few days ago, Military Chaplains are now allowed to preside over same-sex marriages.

So bottom line with gays in the military... We have a job to do. So long as being gay doesn't get in the way of you doing your job, drive on and continue mission. What you do at home is your business. (We'll figure out what to do soon enough if "home" is the barracks and you truly never leave work.)

[calhoun]

Regarding that video, the gay soldier's question was addressed to candidate Rick Santorum, who is one of the most conservative/homophobic members of Congress. He would return us to "don't ask, don't tell," or even a total ban, if he could...but 1) he is not electable, and 2) even if he became President, I doubt he would be able to reverse the current laws allowing gays to serve openly in the US military (yeah!).

As for you "reidboy09," your views are so wrong and so abhorrent that I won't waste time commenting on them. Suffice is to say that I do not accept organized religion's definition of my homosexuality as a "sin." It is just the way I am. I do not need to be "forgiven" or "prayed for" so please don't bother with such condescending actions.

[bobtimbob]

Originally Posted by gogr2

Then there is the issue of spousal benefits. Back in the 80s, the Army changed the language in regulations to be non-sex specific for those service-members that are female with the male spouse that aren't in the military. All things refer to gender neutral "spouse." As of this moment, if a gay soldier is legally married to a civilian, by regulation that gay spouse is now entitled to benefits. By having pushed the issue of DODT and its repeal, the President has inadvertently put himself in a position where the Federal Government by military proxy will end up recognizing same-sex marriages. Was this part of Obama's plan? Probably not... I don't think he thought it through well enough to see that. Honestly, I don't think any civilian thought that one through. Note of Interest... as of a few days ago, Military Chaplains are now allowed to preside over same-sex marriages.

Given that the President has previously ordered that other Federal agencies extend many same-sex benefits to Federal workers and has ordered the justice department not to defend DOMA in the courts, I think he has "thought it through" and is okay with the consequences. Besides, it was Congress that repealed DODT, this was not done by executive order.

[beeflover2001]

The problem is that the Bible says a lot of things, yet conservative Christians here will use that verse and Leviticus 18:22 to justify their homophobia. Take, for example, this quote:

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.

Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).

So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes. ~Deb Price, And Say Hi To Joyce

See what I mean?

This is great. I'm stealing it for later use.

[newmus]

Originally Posted by calhoun

...As for you "reidboy09," your views are so wrong and so abhorrent that I won't waste time commenting on them....

well i the hell sure will!!

Originally Posted by reidboy09

You make a valid point and I agree with you for the most part. The scripture you gave about the meat was intended for sacrifices, which are no longer required, due to Christ's death on the cross. As for your other scriptures, I completely agree. We're all sinners we all make mistakes. The point is acknowledging that and doing something about it. It really bugs me when "Christians" condemn homosexuals and they're in the wrong as well. It's hypocritical and it's not a christian attitude no matter what they say. I'm a Christian as well and I won't say I "accept" homosexuality. They say to love others as you would yourself. I love the person, not the spirit. [COLOR=Red]And homosexuality is a spirit. Simple as that. You weren't "born gay". It's a mindset.[/COLOR] We were made to love the opposite sex that's the way it was intended. [COLOR=Red]There have been people "delivered of homosexuality"[/COLOR]. That is what christians should be praying for, not condemning them to Hell no questions asked.
Sorry for getting all religious on the forum but someone played the Christian and bible card so I had to give my 2 cents. [COLOR=Red]If this offends you...well honestly I'm not sorry.[/COLOR] If the moderator doesn't like it, he can delete it. I really won't be offended. It's a forum. I do apologize for any typos. I typed this on my phone.

i am offended. not because you are anti-gay, or believe that it's a sin etc. i can accept and respect that, but it's that you presume to tell me what was going on in my brain my entire childhood. what degree do you have? what psychiatric certification do you have? where does the bible say that i chose to be attracted to other men as if i did have a choice? where does it call homosexuality a "spirit"? i've read the book cover to cover and even had the presence of mind to look up what few references to homosexuality there are, yet did not once see anything that would imply that it was a spirit (none of those anti-gay scriptures called it a sin too). how many people have you studied and talked to with your many degrees and certificates? tell me genius when did i chose to like men over women since i so chose this and you obviously can read my mind? oh and how often does the Almighty come down and speak in your ear to tell you things like gay people chose to be gay and if only they would pray they could pray the gay away or did you see that in the bible somewhere maybe i missed it? because it sure the hell didn't work for me. and just how many of these "ex-gays" have you talked to? because i find it odd that god would deliver someone of the "gay spirit" and then they would turn around and go back to being- excuse me, change their mind, because i have heard of far too many people who "change their mind". but wait, how can you chose to be gay if its only caused by an evil spirit. which is it, was it done to me or did i do it my self? and if it was done to me why must i be punished for it? so how many of these ex-gays do you know? because the one i talked to really wasn't as "ex-gay" as she claimed to be once you ask a few questions.
and lastly, why are you here on a gay dominated web site? because with this load of nonsense you wont get many converts here.

[chuckiebear]

V.R.Goh - Congratulations. That was the most convincing summation I've ever seen of the foolishness exemplified by Bible thumpers who use Leviticus to justify their hatred of gays. Thank you for saying it.....AND SNAP!

[reidboy09]

http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...sexuality.html

[TheMM]

I usually do not get into religious discussions like these, nor am I very religious at all; however, I would like to mention one small, and often-times forgotten scripture.

The Gospel of Luke, chapter six, verses fourty-one and fourty-two (KJV):

(41) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (42) Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

Basically, it's saying that you should fix the problems and issues you yourself have (most likely this means spiritual ones, but I think it can be extended to most things to life in general), no matter how big or small about yourself FIRST, then and only then can you turn to another person can begin to help them with theirs.

Now I realize I seemed to have gone off-course with this, but I just think that instead of constantly pointing out minor things like gays in the military, gay marriage, etc, people need to focus on other things like say...politicians who've been 'bought out' by big business and the very big business themselves; which if memory serves, they're both serving GREED which is...oh yes, one of the seven 'deadly' sins.

Maybe I'm the crazy one. *shrugs* I just think maybe people are allowing themselves, on purpose, to be focused on smaller, far less important issues compared to the things that are truly plaguing the world.

[tattcub]

It make me tired when people use the bible as an excuse for their own hate and ignorance.

The bible was written in a time when moral guidance was the responsibility of the leaders of the community who were often the priests.

Rules like not eating shellfish or pork were more about health than they were about control.

Many of the commandments were about being a responsible human being and living decently but men make it about control and subjugation.

I was partnered to an Anglican priest for a number of years who was also into bodybuilding and I can say with all my heart that he is one of the most decent human beings I have ever met. Committed, kind genuine and oh yeah gay gay gay.

Religion is supposed to be about faith and spiritual guidance. Not about hatred and bile.
As a modern Catholic i was taught to read between the lines of the bible and that some of it was out of date with todays modern society.

I believe that I am a product of nature I am gay because that is who and what I am. It is not my fault. I am happy to be the way I am even after years of worrying there was something wrong with me because some religious pedants told me I was evil for being that way.

I don't believe in god as such but do believe faith is important.
One point then I'm done. If there is a God I'd believe that he wouldn't make mistakes in creating us, therefore, gay men and woman are also part of the plan and design. He gave us free will. To use that gift to deny his creation could also be seen as a sin... I sincerely doubt God would make that mistake

thanks

TC

[raven79]

Okay, everyone calm down! Religion since the dawn of time has divided humankind, and it isn't about to change either. The guy who started the whole religious rant didn't need to hijack this thread and needed to take his ideas to the religion section of this forum. This thread was supposed to be about the awesome guy who not only revealed his sexuality to everyone in the world in that debate, but also wanted to know their thoughts about gays in the military.

The only people that react violently to someone like that is the far right and feel that they have to belittle people's freedoms because they don't believe in them themselves. I am aware that these people exist on this forum because they come out of the woodwork to protest and act like complete fools. If you don't like it, keep it to yourself and don't hijack threads.

[V.R.Goh]

I have to agree with raven. It's so easy to focus on the differences, contradictions, and dangers each religion has, but I prefer to focus on the similarities. The main one I know of is called the ethic of reciprocity, better known as the Golden Rule. It's the main (if not only) similarity between every religion.

Bringing it back to the reason this thread was created in the first place, that soldier is, not only displaying the results of good army training, but also very brave to mention his homosexuality to his biggest opponents: ultra-conservatives who seem more motivated by Dominionism than democracy.

BTW, if you want to know what Dominionism is, check Wikipedia.

[newmus]

Originally Posted by reidboy09

[COLOR=Red]http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...sexuality.html[/COLOR]

are you going to answer any of my questions at all or just continue to post ridiculous links to papers that can't definitively prove that i chose to be gay?