mlah The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies

July 31, 2006

Gays in the Military

Filed under: Politics — mlah @ 12:06 am

gays in the military.

moonbatty hit a nerve, and i know she’s smarter than to believe the crap she posted.

i’m going to write this for the general populace, not just moonbatty, because she is entitled to fuck up once in a while. hopefully i can color her faith in the bullshit that’s been thrown at her though.

i was an arabic linguist in the navy. no, i am not gay. i joined the navy while bush1 was pres and did in fact get asked the question at enlistment. ‘are you gay?’. big f’n deal. clinton required recruiters to stop asking. there are some legal semantics about privacy going on, but they are all moot. the commander in chief ordered recruiters to stop asking. it’s an order. but it’s a contract. don’t tell either. you start telling, the issue of your homosezuality comes into play. after all, the uniform code of military justice (UCMJ) which is federal law states that sodomy is verboten.

now keep in mind, that means all kinds of sodomy. like guy girl anal sex, or oral sex, which is classified as sodomy. the ucmj covers some pretty basic fundamental laws. it was written to keep american servicemen back in the day from running amuck in lawless lands they may visit. ie, even if there are no laws, you are still under the jurisdiction of the ucmj. and this is made VERY clear to us at enlistment.

it’s a deal. everyone makes it with their eyes wide open at paper signing time. everyone knows.

self serving gay rights activists want to discriminate based on sexual orientation more than straight ‘breeders’ do.

arabic linguists have a bad name in the linguist community. i don’t know how it started, but apparently, the word is out in the gay community that if you want to get some butt, go arab linguist. especially in the navy. then there’s this guy. soldier arabic linguist who got booted from the army for being gay. boo fucking hoo.

one of the subs i went on had two gay guys on the boat. when we checked onboard, the COB sat us down and had a quick unofficial talk with us. one of the gay guys was sitting there with him. the other was pointed out to us. the guy who was sitting there was a good guy. you could talk sports. he did his job. he let you do yours. and what was really cool, there is no privacy on a sub. he understood, and would give people a wide birth in the showers or bathroon.

the second guy was the reason the COB filled us in. the easiest way to describe him would be to simply say he was on fire. and he was beligerrent about it. but the don’t ask don’t tell thing made it impossible for the powers that be to enforce decent discipline.

we had coed bathrooms in gitmo. i’ve had coed bathrooms in other places i won’t mention. you have to observe a little different decorum in the interest of others privacy in these situations.

first time that fag came running into the bathroom to take a piss with one of the team members, the fists flew. it was a normal occurence. problem was, they couldn’t prosecute him without prosecuting guys who were just taking a piss. so nothing ever happened except the beat downs. bad thing was that he was in fights so commonly, he was good at fighting. you couldn’t go to the pisser by yourself on that boat. you had to have a wingman for the beatdown.

but i want to talk about DLI. the defense language institute in monterey california. just dli from here on out.

i saw two people get processed for being gay while there. one got caught jumping out of a soldiers window in his skivvies during buttous interruptous for a health and welfare. for those of you non military types, that is where they periodically do a surprise inspection of everyones rooms. just to make sure everyone is obeying the rules. they commonly find drugs, excess amounts of booze. think a case and a bottle. we were allowed a six pack or less, or a bottle of wine or less. anything else was not allowed. the most commonly found unauthorized item by far was chicks. naked girls in wall lockers. girls jumping out of windows.

one of these was gay guy number 1. buh bye.

second gay guy was a chick. she was flaming. everyone knew. it was NOT any kind of a secret at all. in fact, most everybody knew who was gay and who was not. just exactly the same as the guys all know which girls put out. which girls will not, and which girls you have to date first. i expect the girls know the same thing about us.

it was no big deal.

everyone knew she was gay. nobody gave a shit. she got in trouble in a later health and welfare done by the navy for having a substance which might have been a mind altering substance. tests proved otherwise and nothing came to pass. she showed every sign of being a decent linguist.

but then she graduated, and went on to the military training that taught you how to apply your new language skills.

she came out of the closet and declared to the staff that she was gay. buh bye! now. you might think i’m happy about that for the wrong reason. bitch didn’t want to be in the navy. she didn’t want to do her job. she wanted the expensive ass training and then a free ticket out. and she wasn’t the only gay person who made good use of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” to cheat the military out of training.

now, some of you are going to say, great, just get rid of the policy and stop outprocessing them! i agree. prosecute them as the criminals in violation of the ucmj they are. they know the law.

i know more than one sailor who got busted under the exact same clause, sodomy, for sheating on their wives. they didn’t get outprocessed, they lost rank, respect, and money. they never got promoted past e6 any of them.

equality for the gays. burn them.

strange how they only find fault with the policy when gays get a huge financial benefit by getting that free training for free which they then get to sell for ahuge salary. don’t believe me? i did 9, and got out. how do you think i earn my living now? i can state from an authoritative position of being in the know, that being a military trained arabic linguist is lucrative.

i knew an air force girl who tried to use the gay thing to get out. they pointed at her numerous boyfriends and asked if they were female. so she very simply walked straight into the commanding officers office, walked straight up to his desk and just said, “colonel, i want to suck your dick”. she just kept up unruly behavior until they let her out. but not before a good fucking, and i’m not tsalking about sex.
and the bastards that abused the system and got outprocessed should be paying the military back.

equality for the gays. burn them.

further, the article cites some stats on the cost to train the linguists in question. the numbers boil down to around a half a million each. WRONG. the number is closer to a quarter a amillion. i guess it could have gone up some, but i doubt it has doubled. and moreover, that assumes that every single linguist outprocessed was an arabic linguist. the duration of the training is close to three times as long as the training for some of the other languages. and accordingly more expensive.

and the bastard that got ‘outed’ and kicked out of the army? the gay rightsists point at his critical skill. nevermind that he was working in the f’n choir! airborne?
they’re milking the system and then blaming me for being homophobic. a breeder. straight.

you want the religious aspect? depending on your interpretation of exactly what gay is, the sex act is punishable by death. so is dishonoring your parents or using the lords name in vain. i’m guilty. i’m a sinner. this simple belief allowed me to sit across from the table in a crowded sub from that one gay guy and talk about football. or the next port. or please pass the salt.

that other ass? bitch needed a black eye.

i’m going to update this as i feel like it, so read below here for further rants.

93 Comments »

  1. Sex is always a distractor in the work environment, regardless if it’s the civilian environment, or the military environment, straight sex or gay sex. I had a major who would call me late at night and ask me to watch porno’s with him. He would ask other women out. His wife was in Italy, we were in Germany. I guess because of some of my experiences, I don’t see one any worse than the other. I actually get a laugh out of it-men flip out over the idea of a gay man hitting on them, but it doesn’t change their behavior towards women in the workplace.

    Comment by Madame Butterfly — July 31, 2006 @ 9:42 am

  2. Homosexual expression is a cancer on our society. Your “Gays in the Military” rant provide an insight into what the military has to contend with in its efforts to maintain dicipline. Good article! See http://propellerhat.us for some other views on the effects of homosexuality in civilian life.

    Comment by Jeff Lundholm — July 31, 2006 @ 10:12 am

  3. Gay people don’t make any effect whatsoever on straight people’s lives. It doesn’t hurt anyone. You’re an idiot Jeff.

    Comment by medium john — July 31, 2006 @ 11:10 am

  4. Hey, remember that GMT with Force Master Chief at the old base theater? All the SEALs and special warfare guys snoozing in the back. FMC declares that there will be no drawdown because of the crumbling Soviet Union, no one will lose their job and be forced out of the Navy (it’s called redesignation, son). Then that Ruling seaman from Upper school stands up and asks, “Master Chief, if no one’s going to be kicked out, why am I being kicked out just because I’m a homosexual?” Geez, the CMC stuck his head out through the curtain to see who was talking, FMC just sort of stutters a bit, all the SEALs woke up and started craning their necks to see this guy, and not-yet Mrs Yup leans over and tells me this kid was in her class.

    Apparently, as I later heard, he was the one jumping out of the gay Army dude’s room.

    Comment by yup — July 31, 2006 @ 11:18 am

  5. Oh, and I recall – pre Don’t Ask ruling – by my instructors in Texas, off-record like, that we don’t pursue the issue of sexuality. People are too valuable in their jobs to wontonly go after them. A pair of senior Firsts and a Chief sat there and told me and my classmates that we avoid such lines of inquiry at all times, and included a story about one gay guy they worked with who was out drinking with them and suddenly said he wanted to tell them something very important. They all conspired to change the conversation and prevent this guy from outing himself, because his skills were so valuable.

    So there Jeff, is another thing you never hear about from the anti-military crowd or the gay avenger crowd. The military tries not to know about a member’s orientation. Even to the point of ignoring a lie at entry onto service that potentially leaves the member open to blackmail. It’s only when the member pushes his/her orientation onto everyone else that the military has to sit up and take notice. And this has been the way of it since before Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was implemented.

    Comment by yup — July 31, 2006 @ 11:24 am

  6. I’m pretty liberal but growing up a military brat, I can understand the other side of it as well. When my dad served they knew about every person’s sexual orientation, there was a dont ask, dont tell policy in place a long time ago, it was just unwritten.
    hmmm, dave, what happened to that meme..cant find it….

    Comment by KaraMia — July 31, 2006 @ 12:55 pm

  7. BURN THEM? What? Thats just what jesus would do.

    I dont see how getting fucked up on illegal substances does less harm that being gay. You’ve just identified all the ways that people in the military break rules. So, clearly its not just the gay folk who are wild and out of control at times. Your argument makes NO sense at all. You’re just perpetuating homophobia.

    Comment by LB — July 31, 2006 @ 1:11 pm

  8. LB (whoever), you must seriously have a chip on your shoulder if you think Mlah meant “burn them” in the literal sense. He’s not calling for stakes and faggots of wood to build a roaring, “cleansing” fire to send them on their way to hell. He’s calling for them to be punished for breaking military law, rather than simply letting them out with an administrative discharge after they in many instances waste taxpayer dollars (specifically, to get an education at DLI) knowing they would play the homosexual card to be released from their contractual obligation to serve.

    Comment by yup — July 31, 2006 @ 2:48 pm

  9. Medium John… is that the best you can do? Does the lack of a defense leave you with nothing but name calling? I’ll consider the source.

    Comment by Jeff Lundholm — July 31, 2006 @ 3:02 pm

  10. While LB says that “your argument makes no sense at all”, he (she) says “I dont see how getting fucked up on illegal substances does less harm that being gay. You’ve just identified all the ways that people in the military break rules. So, clearly its not just the gay folk who are wild and out of control at times.”

    I have to ask…so does it make sense to lower the bar on objectionable conduct because “its not just the gay folk who are wild and out of control”? By this line of reasoning we should no longer discuss, enact laws against, try in courts of law, and convict those whose actions are clearly not to the betterment of society just because… bank robbers aren’t the only ones who steal at times. THIS is the argument that makes no sense…

    Comment by Jeff Lundholm — July 31, 2006 @ 8:46 pm

  11. MB – I totally agree with your last comment. Most guys think that it’s so disgusting that a gay guy would hit on them. But, really, those are the type of guys that gay guys wouldn’t even give a second glance at! The belligerent bumfuck homophobe who thinks he’s a ladies’ man; but his face is busted and, he has a beer gut.

    Jeff – How is being gay a cancer? Does one gay person reproduce with himself and cause others to become gay, killing humanity? What’s your backing on this? Just because SOME people fuck up the system doesn’t mean everyone does! Open your eyes and realize that not everyone thinks like you. I’m not saying that you’re not allowed to disagree with homosexuality, but you don’t have to be so “matter-of-fact” in the LEAST factual manner. I’m a conservative and all, but I’m not as far-right (and it’s pretty damn far) as that blog. I don’t have a strong religious background, so perhaps that is why I don’t condemn gays for being who they are. I’m actually interested in Buddhism and Shinto. OMG I’M GOING TO HELL, SHITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Mlah – Even though the gays (and some straight people) who come out of the closet to get free training, I still think it was unfair about that Arabic Liguist and how the director didn’t follow the “don’t Ask Don’t Tell” rule. Poor guy was a target. I think there are a lot more gays in the military that aren’t in it just for the free education, and this guy proves it.
    Also, can you give me an exact quote from the Bible stating that being gay is punishable by death? I’ve always heard it, but I’ve never had anyone give me a straight answer on where it is in the Lord’s Book. I think religion is just how people interpret scriptures anyhow.

    “first time that fag came running…” That’s really nice…

    Yup – “So, clearly its not just the gay folk who are wild and out of control at times.” This part of LB’s (pitiful) argument makes sense. Mlah talks about all of his friends boozing it up, calling him drunk at late o’ clock, picking up girls with hunchbacks, more girls…girls girls girls…(and probably doing things that are outlawed by the military). I think gays SHOULD be allowed in the military. They just have to follow the rules just like everyone else. This means that straight guys should be kicked out for sodomy and oral sex, too (if they’re caught), but this doesn’t happen. At least I’ve never heard anything about that happening.

    Comment by Jeanna — July 31, 2006 @ 9:08 pm

  12. Jeff, when was the last time a gay person ruined your day just by being gay? Did you get hit on? Did he make fun of your lack of style? I’ve got several gay friends. I don’t understand how they ruin society. I can hang out with them just like any other guys or girls. They’re people too. What they do in private with other people of the same sex doesn’t concern me, you, or anyone else.

    So once again I reiterate: you (and everyone else who think homosexuality is a “cancer of society”) are an idiot.

    Comment by medium john — July 31, 2006 @ 11:15 pm

  13. His name’s Bleu Copas? That’s such a gay name!

    “On Dec. 2, investigators formally interviewed Copas and asked if he understood the military’s policy on homosexuals, if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater.”
    Does this strike anyone else as weird? Maybe it just came out (no pun intended) awkwardly.
    It’s like beating around the bush with “Are you now, or have you ever been, a fan of Judy Garland?”

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — August 1, 2006 @ 5:11 am

  14. Getting hit on by a gay guy is just as flattering to me as being hit on by a woman. I’ll take compliments where I can get them.

    I have no millitary experience but it still seems obvious to me that common sense rules should still apply. I don’t think sexual orientation should be a question ever asked of a crewman (crewperson). The rules that apply to the straight populace should apply to the gays as well. Sexually harrassing a woman is not legal. A man sexually harrassing a man should be treated the same way. If you break the rules the punishments meted out should be homogenous accross the straight/gay spectrum. You violate military law, you get the appropriate punishment. Be it repaying your training or being discharged.

    Sorrys gays but Mlah is right… the gay thing wasn’t sprung on you after you joined up. If you are gay and you still want to fight for your country then keep it to yourself because it’s currently not legal. If you want that changed then stay out of the military but fight to get the rules changed. You had/have a choice and you were FULLY aware of that particular rule.

    Comment by Sean — August 1, 2006 @ 7:57 am

  15. Jeanna said:

    “…the director didn’t follow the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” rule.”

    Sure he did. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is just a sound bite that the news media made up. The actual law allows investigators to ask anything they want in the course of an investigation, and “telling” isn’t limited to verbal declarations. If you practice homosexual acts, you’re “telling.”

    Trick shot said:

    “…[asked] if he had any close acquaintances who were gay, and if he was involved in community theater.”
    Does this strike anyone else as weird?”

    The emails that were sent to Sgt. Copas’ command included the names of the people he was having gay sex with, and said that he met them through the community theater he was involdved with. So the investigators asked Sgt. Copas if he had any close frinds who were gay to see if he would name the people in the email, and they asked if he was involved in community theater to see if he would verify the connection to them. What’s so weird about that?

    Comment by greree — August 1, 2006 @ 10:41 am

  16. I’ll respond to medium john first: Where did you get the idea, as you said “a gay person ruined your day just by being gay?” I never said anything like that. However, your penchant to resort to name calling and personal attacks indicates that my stance against homosexuality may indeed have ruined your day. I’m sorry. As for my lack of style, I dress funny everyday, my wife tells me that. I certainly wouldn’t be offended to hear that from a man with a phallic oral fixation.

    To respond to Jeanna: I appreciate the civility of your response. I certainly realize Jeanna, that not everyone thinks like me… or we wouldn’t be having this discourse. But it could also be argued that a majority do think like me as evidenced by the last election and the continuous set-backs of gay rights legislation, all over the country.

    Your remark “guys that gay guys wouldn’t even give a second glance at! The belligerent bumfuck homophobe who thinks he’s a ladies’ man; but his face is busted and, he has a beer gut” suggests that homosexuals are somehow better looking than other men is a myth. Homosexuals run the whole gamut from Adonis-like to broken-face, beer-gut ugly… just like the general population. All you have to do is watch the gay-rights events on the news or in your own communities to see that. So, let’s get past that too, OK?

    Jeanna, you ask where in the Bible does it state that homosexuals are to be punished by death? The answers are there… but require elucidation.

    Lev 20:13 It’s disgusting for men to have sex with one another, and those who do will be put to death, just as they deserve. (CEV)

    If you go to the Book of Leviticus in the Bible, you will find that homosexual behavior is only one of many transgressions listed, along with rather stern punishments. This part of the Bible is ancient Jewish law and is an entirely different theological discussion. Simply put, Jesus has since taken the sins of mankind upon himself, so that we may be forgiven rather than put to death. Let’s move on to the following for what the Bible has to say about homosexuality and other sins that is more relevant to us today.

    The Bible states, in essence, that all sins are equal where final judgement is concerned:

    Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    The “death” referred to here is a spiritual death which the Bible describes as a separation from God for all eternity, or Hell. Here on earth we all will experience physical death regardless of our beliefs.

    Having said that… it is important to say that God loves us all equally, it is not our particular brand of sin that determines the love of God for us or whether we are condemned as sinners. It is the sin itself, in all of its forms.

    The reason we are having this national discussion about the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle is not because homosexuals are being singled out for intentional abuse… but for one simple reason that is as clear as the nose on our faces but not often discussed… homosexuals, in direct contradiction to Biblical teaching, are attempting to convince the world that their “particular brand” of sin is actually a normal, somehow morally up-standing God given doctrine. It is not.

    Many gay rights activists say the Bible does not condemn their actions. It most certainly does, along with a host of other things that we are all guilty of to some degree or another. Some of what the Bible has to say on this… and many other sins…
    Rom 1:24 So God let these people go their own way. They did what they wanted to do, and their filthy thoughts made them do shameful things with their bodies.
    Rom 1:25 They gave up the truth about God for a lie, and they worshiped God’s creation instead of God, who will be praised forever. Amen.
    Rom 1:26 God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural.
    Rom 1:27 Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.
    Rom 1:28 Since these people refused even to think about God, he let their useless minds rule over them. That’s why they do all sorts of indecent things.
    Rom 1:29 They are evil, wicked, and greedy, as well as mean in every possible way. They want what others have, and they murder, argue, cheat, and are hard to get along with. They gossip,
    Rom 1:30 say cruel things about others, and hate God. They are proud, conceited, and boastful, always thinking up new ways to do evil. These people don’t respect their parents.
    Rom 1:31 They are stupid, unreliable, and don’t have any love or pity for others.
    Rom 1:32 They know God has said that anyone who acts this way deserves to die. But they keep on doing evil things, and they even encourage others to do them. (CEV)

    1Co 6:9 Don’t you know that evil people won’t have a share in the blessings of God’s kingdom? Don’t fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual. (CEV)

    Again, the big difference between today’s discussion of homosexuality and other activities deemed to be sinful by the Bible, is the attempt by today’s homosexual community to legitimize their “particular brand of sin”.

    When I use the phrase “a cancer on society”, it is used in a metaphorical sense. Obviously the physical sense you postulated, “Does one gay person reproduce with himself and cause others to become gay, killing humanity?” is invalid. But used in the sense that an idea with negative societal consequences, espoused by a particular group of people for the purpose of spreading their “idea” to other parts , or persons, of that society does indeed meet the definition, metaphorically, of a “cancer”. To agree or disagree now becomes a matter of opinion rather than a judgement of what is the most factual or the “LEAST factual manner”, as you put it.

    You made a remark “I think religion is just how people interpret scriptures anyhow.” There is a lack of understanding evident in this statement. Religion is man-made… the Bible espouses no religion, of any kind. What the Bible does do is to tell us, in a nutshell, that Jesus came to this earth to take responsibility for the sins of us all. It offers us hope through him that is able to make atonement for our sins, before God, and in God’s promise that we will never suffer a spiritual death.

    Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    Now of course, there is a great deal of history, prophesy and teaching in the Bible but it all comes full circle to the above John 3:16. The Bible is an easy book to abuse and misunderstand, but the more a person reads and studies, the more apparent its teachings are. It is often difficult to convince those who choose not to study it in depth, of its truth, as it is difficult to convince some people that the image in their fried tortilla is not really the virgin Mary. What can I say. I encourage you to read the Bible with an open mind and you will discover that no matter what your circumstance, or your particular brand of sin, God loves you. What you will not find is Biblical ratification of your sinful activities because you so desperately want it to be so. You will, however, find forgiveness.

    As for myself, I am not perfect. Even to say that implies that maybe I am somewhere close to perfect. I think not. I am a sinner that needs what Jesus has to offer me as much as anyone. In the context of this discussion, Jesus tells me that I am to love all of the world’s sinners as myself, as I am one of them! But he also tells me I am to reject the sin, I do not have to associate, or agree with those who refuse to acknowledge that homosexuality is wrong… I do not have to love the sin in others anymore than I should love it in myself. Sin is to be despised by me, especially my own sin. The Bible further teaches us that heaven will be full of all manner of former sinners, homosexuals included, no sin is too great to prevent the promise of eternal life… (read Luke 23:36-43) except that a person should be unwilling to accept that Jesus is his or her savior, that the sacrifice of his person will wipe us clean, so that we can appear before God as perfect as the day we were born.

    I do, Jeanna, agree that homosexuals should be allowed in the military as they are no better or worse than any other American… as long as they accept the tenets of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and live by them for the duration of their service. As mlah said, they “are still under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. And this is made VERY clear to us at enlistment. It’s a deal. Everyone makes it with their eyes wide open at paper signing time. Everyone knows.

    In closing, we have become a country where morality no longer has a firm foundation from which to judge what is right and wrong. We legislate morality. If it’s legal, it’s moral. If it’s not moral, we make it legal. Problem solved… or is it?

    (duplicate response.)

    Comment by Jeff Lundholm — August 1, 2006 @ 10:47 am

  17. Okay then. That’s a very good argument, and I can see now where you’re coming from with your anti-gay rhetoric. However, I would like to point out a few things:

    1) You never did answer my question: “has a gay person ever ruined your day simply by being gay?” Does the fact that gay people perform sex acts in private all over the country directly affect YOU? The answer is no. People simply performing acts independently of you, without your knowledge or direct involvement, does not affect you in the least.

    2) You say that “homosexuals, in direct contradiction to Biblical teaching, are attempting to convince the world that their “particular brand” of sin is actually a normal, somehow morally up-standing God given doctrine. It is not.” But you also state “it is not our particular brand of sin that determines the love of God for us or whether we are condemned as sinners. It is the sin itself, in all of its forms.” So, (correct me if I’m interpreting this incorrectly) it doesn’t matter what our sins are, the important thing is that we all sin? By this logic, that makes your sins just as bad as homosexuality, and as such, YOU would be a cancer of society. So would I.

    3) By using all those Bible passages, you have proven that the only reason you think homosexuality is wrong is because your religion tells you it’s wrong. If dry old men thousands of years ago had not written those passages, you would not have ANY problem WHATSOEVER with homosexuals. Another point would be that not everyone shares your religious beliefs. There are a great many other religions out there, and although I haven’t studied them myself, I don’t see their followers flipping a shit about what a group of people do in their private time. I myself am catholic, but I disagree with the church’s doctrine on this particular subject because I cannot see how it is harmful.

    4) You say that homosexuality is morally wrong, but being morally wrong suggests that it negatively affects others every time the act is committed, similar to how stealing and killing is wrong. Stealing hurts the person who loses the item that someone takes without permission or trade; killing hurts the person who can no longer enjoy life. As long as both partners are ok with it, gay sex doesn’t hurt anyone, so saying that homosexuality is morally wrong is incorrect.

    5) I thought the “phallic oral fixation” name for gay people was funny. Nice work on that one.

    Comment by medium john — August 1, 2006 @ 11:31 am

  18. greree: “What’s so weird about that?”
    Nothing, really, I was just making a joke. As if it were a standard question to discover someone’s sexuality. Get it? Har har.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — August 1, 2006 @ 12:36 pm

  19. Well, medium john, lets take this one point at a time.

    As for your questions, no one ever ruined my day by simply being gay. Anymore than any other deviant sexual behavior. People performing homosexual acts in private all over the country do not affect me. However, what does affect me, and the fabric of our society, is the attempt to bring it out of the private realm, into the public eye to try to legitimize what the majority of Americans, by way of Biblical teaching, believe to be immoral and a detriment to our society.

    As for point two, you put words in my mouth (or take them away). You are correct until you get to the end where you state; “By this logic, that makes your sins just as bad as homosexuality, and as such, YOU would be a cancer of society.” What I actually said in relation to the cancer metaphor was; “used in the sense that an idea with negative societal consequences, espoused by a particular group of people for the purpose of spreading their “idea” to other parts , or persons, of that society does indeed meet the definition, metaphorically, of a “cancer”. This does not relegate any person to be defined as a cancer, but rather the dissemination of “an idea with negative societal consequences” or the “sin itself, in all of its forms.” Sin is the cancer, not the sinner. I took great pains to make it clear that homosexuals are no less than any other human, but for the sake of this particular discussion, the point is being made that there is a moral conundrum in trying to legitimize the behavior. My logic is not as you stated it.

    In your third point, you refer to the writers of the Bible as dry old men. Should I assume that in this remark you also deny that the Bible was inspired by God? You also state; “I myself am catholic, but I disagree with the church’s doctrine on this particular subject.” Forget about the church’s doctrine… what about Biblical doctrine? Which does not give you the choice to pick and choose that which you agree with. If the Bible is not inspired by God, and its teaching are to be used only as they suit you… what is the point of Catholicism? Why not just be the church of medium john? If the Bible is to be assumed to be the inspired Word of God, who chose “dry old men” to pen the words to paper, then all of the Bible must be true… unless it is also assumed that God is not always truthful… The Bible is my final arbiter on what is right and wrong. Interestingly enough, the legal codes of the western world, that we live by today, were originally based on the Bibles moral precepts.

    In your fourth point you quote me and go on to say; “You say that homosexuality is morally wrong, but being morally wrong suggests that it negatively affects others every time the act is committed, similar to how stealing and killing is wrong. Stealing hurts the person who loses the item that someone takes without permission or trade; killing hurts the person who can no longer enjoy life. As long as both partners are ok with it, gay sex doesn’t hurt anyone, so saying that homosexuality is morally wrong is incorrect.”

    Your premise is incorrect. To be morally wrong does not have to only affect others, it is also behavior that defies Biblical teaching thereby affecting only yourself in that it takes you away from the presence of God, acts which do not glorify God. This is apparently another area in which you disagree with the Catholic churches doctrines. The Bible specifically states that you either believe it all… or believe none of it.

    An example of other sexual acts that could also be argued to be victimless would be deviant behaviors such as necrophilia and bestiality, and in some eyes, pedophilia. Would you argue that these are moral behaviors? The idea that we can put aside any part of the Bible’s moral code for the sake of our own convenience, or because we believe it to be victimless and therefore irrelevant simply contributes to an overall moral decline. A lowered bar so to speak. Without the Bible’s guidance, what are the limits? Morality by legislation, which in essence means anything goes? Just what final and consistent arbiter of morality is there?

    Point number five? Glad you saw the humor in that…

    Thank you for setting the name-calling aside, it makes finding respect for your opinions much easier to do.

    Comment by Jeff Lundholm — August 1, 2006 @ 12:39 pm

  20. Jeff,
    What, exactly, makes gay sex “immoral”, in your own words?

    Medium John,
    Your forthright comments in this thread have earned you my enduring respect.
    And you were right: I was just envious of your dancing ability.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — August 1, 2006 @ 1:17 pm

  21. You never did answer my question: “has a gay person ever ruined your day simply by being gay?”

    No. And a child-molester never ruined my day by being a child molester.

    By using all those Bible passages, you have proven that the only reason you think homosexuality is wrong is because your religion tells you it’s wrong.

    Give me a break, jon. Approach this intelligently. The reason we even have a sex drive is to insure the survival of the species. The species is continued if offspring are created. Offspring can only be created by a male and a female. Boy-boy and girl-girl have NO CHANCE of ever creating life.

    Seriously…why do you think sex feels so good? Same reason pain feels so bad. It all has to do with survival.

    As long as both partners are ok with it, gay sex doesn’t hurt anyone, so saying that homosexuality is morally wrong is incorrect.

    *rolls eyes* And you need to learn the definition of moral.

    1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL (moral judgments) b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior (a moral poem) c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment (a moral obligation) e : capable of right and wrong action (a moral agent)

    synonyms MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong (the basic moral values of a community).

    When you have to redefine a word, it’s never good for your argument.

    Comment by Russ — August 1, 2006 @ 1:23 pm

  22. There’s nothing wrong with my definition of “moral” as you have shown… the question is in the “principles of right and wrong in behavior” and how we define that. Are we back to “morality by legislation?” Or do we use the Bible as the final arbiter?

    Comment by Jeff Lundholm — August 1, 2006 @ 1:30 pm

  23. Jeanna, of course it’s not just gays running amok in the military. There are many others who violate regulations and receive punishment every day. You just never hear about them beause they don’t run to the nearest reporter to whine about how mistreated they are. Except for certain USAF Lieutenants who willingly violate regulations, standing orders, and direct lawful orders. Those poor little victims also get much press play.

    Never heard of a “breeder” punished for sodomy? Refer to my earlier statement: they don’t whine to reporters and try to force a conclusion to their liking regardless of the law. I do happen to recall a young USAF member, who lived in base housing, who was subject of an illegal substances investigation. Military police did a search of his quarters and did not find any drugs; they did, however, find him engaged in oral copulation with his wife. He was punished according to regulations.

    This is opposed to the gay folks. Because of social pressure from a lot of people, ranging from gay avengers to socialist lawmakers, the military is afraid to punish gay servicemembers to the same extent that “breeder” members might be. Members caught exercising their gay lifestyle are simply administratively separated (that means they’re handed their walking papers). This is where Mlah’s beef lies: these gay folk join the military knowing the military bans their sexual behavior, receive expensive training (in this case, as linguists), and then push the “I’m gay you gotta let me out” button, after which they run screaming to the press to complain about their maltreatment at the hands of GWB’s military machine. Then become high-paying contractors with some government agency or international corporation.

    Women are also a politically protected minority in the military. Back in the day, if a woman got pregnant (and especially if she wasn’t married), they were adsep’d. I saw a lot of girls go through language training and then get pregnant so they could get out. Once they had their separation papers in hand, some of them went to rid themselves of that useful mass cells growing in their uterus — but I digress. Something you’ll never hear the military acknowledge publicly is the high rate of extramarital pregnancies — in situations where the fraternization leading to those pregnancies is specificly prohibited. Coed ships routinely come home from long deployments with 50% pregnancy rates among female crew. Usually it gets swept under the carpet, but sometimes the female sailor’s husband gets sore, for some reason, when his wife whom he hasn’t seen for six months comes home three months pregnant. When he complains, then the military has to sit up and take notice. The offenders get punished. But the military cannot say that women don’t belong in these units for fear of kicking up a political firestorm. But again, I digress.

    Comment by yup — August 1, 2006 @ 1:42 pm

  24. Medium John has to agree with Gus in order to earn Gus’ “enduring respect.”

    Comment by yup — August 1, 2006 @ 1:45 pm

  25. Yup, why do you call straight people “breeders,” even in quotes? That’s so barbaric. Might as well call gays “seed-wasters” and lesbians “egg-mongers”. Mmmm, tasty thought.

    these gay folk join the military knowing the military bans their sexual behavior, receive expensive training (in this case, as linguists), and then push the “I’m gay you gotta let me out” button, after which they run screaming to the press to complain about their maltreatment at the hands of GWB’s military machine.

    Yeah, I never condoned that action at all. Believe me…But, I agree with what you said.

    Well, not just for the pregnancy bit, but I don’t believe in coed ships or subs becuase women have more waste to rid of (namely once a month). I don’t know how much a vessel can dispose of, but a ship full of women can sink being filled with so much absorbent material.

    P.S. Russ, you really equivocate gay people to child molesters? You’re a sad sad man.

    The reason we even have a sex drive is to insure the survival of the species. The species is continued if offspring are created.

    Actually, that’s VIABLE offspring. Check your biology, mister. Though this is true, would you please tell me why there are gay people, but the human population is over 6 Billion and STILL growing? Not everyone is going to be gay just for the hell of it.
    People who have higher standards of living have less offspring than those who live in poverty. Are you also going to blame money on the downfall of the human population?

    Comment by Jeanna — August 1, 2006 @ 5:06 pm

  26. Yup: “Medium John has to agree with Gus in order to earn Gus’ ‘enduring respect.””
    As I’m sure I would have to happen to agree with one of your core principles to earn your respect. MJ has never been so darned eloquent here, you must admit. It gives me goosebumps that the younger generation is so cool about homosexuality 🙂

    Comment by trick_shot_f-n_cheney — August 2, 2006 @ 12:22 am

  27. Russ: “Give me a break, jon. Approach this intelligently.”
    Uh, that’s what he was doing.
    “The reason we even have a sex drive is to insure the survival of the species.”
    This level of abstraction does nothing to bolster your case. Most people in the history of humanity (and even some today) haven’t known about the connection between sex and pregnancy. And even if we do, the urge to merge is often much more compelling. Beyond all of that, there is no necessary relationship between morality and adult consensual sex, except in your mind. Dictionary definitions of “morality” don’t explain what makes homosexual sex “immoral”. (Jeff, you still haven’t answered the same question: what’s so “immoral” about it?)

    “Seriously…why do you think sex feels so good? Same reason pain feels so bad. It all has to do with survival.”
    As I understand it, homosexual sex feels just as good.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-n_cheney — August 2, 2006 @ 12:35 am

  28. gus, my spam karma picked up jeff’s comments as spam and removed them for w bit. i’ve now restored them, go back and re-read some of his comments, ther emay be some in there you haven’t seen yet.

    Comment by mlah — August 2, 2006 @ 12:49 am

  29. Ok Jeff, we’ll go point-by-point again:

    (this is actually kinda fun, isn’t it?)

    You have shown that your probems do not lie with individual gay people. I’m cool with that. Instead, “what does affect me, and the fabric of our society, is the attempt to bring it out of the private realm, into the public eye to try to legitimize what the majority of Americans, by way of Biblical teaching, believe to be immoral and a detriment to our society.” Ok, I can see that from your angle, but just try to think from theirs. Gay people are not actively trying to lower society’s moral standards (at least I think they’re not), they’re just trying to make it known that they are people just like us and remove the social stigma attached to their lifestyles. Making it public and making it known to people is the only way to get people “used to it,” so to speak, and thus end their often unfavorable treatment.

    With regard to the second point; I’ll admit that I misinterpreted you. Thanks for clearing that one up.

    For the third, I am not trying to belittle or diminish the word of God, but men did have a hand in the Bible and it is therefore fallible. Many writings and scriptures were written and inspired by God, but only those we read today made the cut. My history is a little hazy, but one thing I do remember from religion class in high school is the fact that the Bible was compiled by a council of men from a huge library of writings. Who is to say what beliefs those men held? Did those beliefs influence their decision as to what “made the cut” for the Bible? If so, what was left on the cutting room floor? God was the inspiration, but men were the editors.

    Fourth, morality itself depends entirely on what standards you use. I was talking about morality from a social standpoint, while you use the Bible as your meter stick. We will therefore probably never see eye-to-eye on some ideas.

    I really have no idea why I’m still debating this, neither one of us is ever going to convince the other. 😀 But I can see where you’re coming from, and that’s always helpful. I only hope that maybe you’ll be able to see this from my standpoint, or even that of the gay community.

    PS:

    Russ, I’m not even going to dignify that post with a response. It would be far too easy to disprove every single point you made, and I’m tired of typing.

    Comment by medium john — August 2, 2006 @ 1:26 am

  30. ummm…Jeanna, that’s vernacular taken from the gay community. They refer to heterosexuals (often desparagingly) as “breeders.” It’s even popped up in Wil & Grace, if I recall. You think it’s barbaric? Complain to the gay people.

    Comment by yup — August 2, 2006 @ 1:38 am

  31. Well, I did not know that, but then why did you feel compelled to use it? I don’t watch Will and Grace…SORRY OMG WILL&GRACE! Don’t act like everyone is supposed to know that word!

    My gay friends dont use it, so I’m not going to complain to them. The first person to use it (i.e. you) is straight and married (from what I gather).

    I’d also like to go on the record and ask Jeff about his “slippery slope” argument from gays to paedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality. Which one of those three involve consentual relations? None?

    Comment by Jeanna — August 2, 2006 @ 4:28 am

  32. Actually Jeanna, unless you didn’t read his original post, Mlah is the first person you might have come across to use the term. He also had it in quotes. And I didn’t imply that everyone HAS to watch a particular sitcom, I merely used that as illustrative that the term has been used in popular culture outside the limits of the gay subculture.

    I must wonder if you have a beef against the homosexual subculture at large for introducing and popularizing the term “breeder” as a (mainly pejorative) descriptor for heterosexuals, or just my use of it in the above posting. But we’re getting way off topic here.

    Comment by yup — August 2, 2006 @ 5:37 am

  33. In case any of you missed it, the Spam Karma software used here, labeled me a spammer (I’ve been called many things but never a spammer!) and blocked the display of many of my comments. mlah has since taken care of this and I thank him for that. But I am now about 5 paces behind y’all and my comments are no longer in actual chronological order. So, if you’ll be so kind as to give me a bit to catch up… by the way, I just want to say that the level of civility in this thread is commendable. That this is, for many, an emotionally charged subject, says a great deal about the character of the folks involved in this discussion.

    Comment by Jeff Lundholm — August 2, 2006 @ 6:22 am

  34. I previously posted by my real name, Jeff Lundholm, but the Spam Karma software used on this web site apparently labeled me a spammer and blocked the display and entry of my comments. (I’ve been called many things but never a spammer!) mlah has taken care of this and I am appreciative. However my display name is now Propellerhat (taken from my web site, http://propellerhat.us). Before I go back to figuring out where we are in this discussion, I’d like to say that the level of civility in this thread is commendable. As this is, for many, an emotionally charged subject, this says a lot about the character of those involved. kudos….

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 2, 2006 @ 6:39 am

  35. Mainly, it was your use of it. It was used just enough and in the right context to stand out and have me question why you were using it. It’s still quite rude-sounding, even in jest: like straight people are here only to reproduce.

    As a side bar: I thought about gay rights when I was walking my dog this morning and had to wonder…why are there gay rights and women’s rights? Shouldn’t that ALL fall under human rights? Gays shouldn’t have the right to do anything that straights can’t, and vice versa.

    But, my arguments are now turning away from the topic at hand: Gays in the military. I still say let them in, but follow the damn rules. Would it be easy for the military to make all of those who are relieved of their duties early pay for their “free” training? I guess there’d have to be so many loopholes, it’s too complicated.

    Comment by Jeanna — August 2, 2006 @ 6:42 am

  36. P.S. Russ, you really equivocate gay people to child molesters? You’re a sad sad man.

    Jeanna. Show me where I equivocated gay people to child molesters. As much as you would like to believe that’s what I meant, try to grasp the point that was being made.

    …would you please tell me why there are gay people, but the human population is over 6 Billion and STILL growing?

    Same reason there are other diseases and abnormalities that exist in humans, and the population continues to grow.

    Are you also going to blame money on the downfall of the human population?

    Nope. Just poor choices.

    Comment by Russ — August 2, 2006 @ 10:07 am

  37. This level of abstraction does nothing to bolster your case. Most people in the history of humanity (and even some today) haven’t known about the connection between sex and pregnancy.

    You just hit the nail on the head and made my point. Thanks. People didn’t know sex resulted in offspring. Hence, our bodies, instincts, etc. all knew before our brains that sex leads to the survival of the species.

    Dictionary definitions of “morality” don’t explain what makes homosexual sex “immoral”. (Jeff, you still haven’t answered the same question: what’s so “immoral” about it?)

    Sure they do. Conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong.

    “Seriously…why do you think sex feels so good? Same reason pain feels so bad. It all has to do with survival.”
    As I understand it, homosexual sex feels just as good.

    And is completely unhealthy, resulting in the stretching of an exit that’s meant to be kept tight. I mean you do realize your shithole is an exit, correct?

    Comment by Russ — August 2, 2006 @ 10:17 am

  38. “You never did answer my question: “has a gay person ever ruined your day simply by being gay?”

    No. And a child-molester never ruined my day by being a child molester.”

    That pretty much equivocates gay people with child molesters. If you’re gonna make a statement, stand by it.

    Comment by medium john — August 2, 2006 @ 10:38 am

  39. That pretty much equivocates gay people with child molesters. If you’re gonna make a statement, stand by it.

    But you see, no it doesn’t. In your head you’d like to think that’s what i meant, so you and the others in this thread can be dismissive rather than confront the meat of my comments. I could have easily said, “Mass murders have never ruined my day.” That doesn’t mean mass murders’ actions aren’t WRONG. A child molester has never personally ruined my day or even touched my life in any way. That doesn’t mean molesting children is not WRONG. A homosexual has never ruined my day…that doesn’t mean it’s not WRONG.

    If I said mass murderers instead, would you say that i just equivocated mass murderers to homosexuals? Of course not, because it would be a blanketly ridiculous conclusion to draw.

    Just because someone in society has had no direct impact on me personally, does not mean that their actions couldn’t be considered wrong.

    Get it?

    Comment by Russ — August 2, 2006 @ 10:52 am

  40. And excuse some of the spelling errors….I gotta jet to an appointment now.

    Comment by Russ — August 2, 2006 @ 10:53 am

  41. this is a test comment from mlah

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 2, 2006 @ 11:04 am

  42. from mlah, testing blacklist settings.

    Comment by Jeff Lundholm — August 2, 2006 @ 11:31 am

  43. Jeff, this is mlah. i’ve removed you from blacklists. both your site and ip. it may re-add you though as i have not changed spam karma settings. spam karma awards points the more foten and genercially you post til you build up a very high positive score. after a while, it will just approve you as a score is built up.

    i’m kind of wondering if spam karma saw those biblical quotes and demoted you for them. i’ll have to look further into sk, and my settings.

    oh, the settings are on ‘moderate’ and just plain default. i’ve never had to change them before.

    try to post again please. do a test or 5. but NOT identical tests. you get nuked for that.

    Comment by Jeff Lundholm — August 2, 2006 @ 11:36 am

  44. all. i maintain that gays should be treated exactly the same as everyone else. much like jeanna concluded not too long ago.

    i get burned if i get charged with sodomy. why should someone else get a bye because they are gay?

    and yes, i agree that gays are in fact trying to change the publics perception of their lifestyle to the affirmative. it is currently viewed as a negative thing because of morality. and therefore, gays are trying to change moral norms, or sideline christian morality in an effort to legitimize their behavior

    Comment by mlah — August 2, 2006 @ 11:41 am

  45. Russ, what we’re trying to find out is what IS wrong with it? The Bible says so? Well the Koran says to beat women. Should we do that too? Not everyone shares your beliefs.

    Comment by medium john — August 2, 2006 @ 12:49 pm

  46. John. I’m confused when you keep throwing “the Bible says so” at me when you have not seen me once bring religion into this conversation. If you cannot determine from what I’ve already said why I think homosexuality is a problem (and that’s the way i am describing it…I’m not calling it evil or disgusting), then we’ll have to agree that we are on two completely different pages of the playbook. Actually, we may be in two completely different playbooks.

    Comment by Russ — August 2, 2006 @ 1:37 pm

  47. Mlah, you get a pass for calling heterosexuals “breeders.” Maybe it’s because it’s your blog. Dunno. But Jeanna doesn’t like when I use it in an ironic way which highlights the pejorative use that the homosexual subculture makes of the term. However, were I gay, I suppose I would get away with the actual pejorative.

    Jeanna, you came up with the terms “seed-waster” and “egg-monger” as pejoratives, yet I have not gotten bent out of shape over your hate-filled choice of words.

    I still remember the corpsman on one sub telling me to watch my step near a certain rack after port calls, because the occupant went out and engaged in homosexual butt sex, which relaxed the sphincter muscles and allowed the feces to come sliding out (sometimes onto the deck) while he was sleeping. Yuck.

    Comment by yup — August 2, 2006 @ 1:50 pm

  48. I’m going ask one more time Russ, and if you keep avoiding the question, I’m not going to continue this conversation. What is WRONG with homosexuality? You keep declaring it as wrong, just like murdering someone is wrong or molesting a child is wrong. But I don’t see how consensual sex (whether or not it’s with someone of the same sex) can be considered wrong. Jeff says it’s wrong because the Bible says it’s wrong. What’s your reasoning? When I said “the Bible says so” did you notice the question mark after it? That means I was asking you something. I was asking if that was the reason you thought it was wrong. If you think it’s wrong for some reason other than the Bible says so, please tell us. We’re all very confused.

    Comment by medium john — August 2, 2006 @ 2:30 pm

  49. if you keep avoiding the question, I’m not going to continue this conversation.

    One more time with feeling. It’s completely unnatural. It can never strengthen us as a species. Were it the norm (and i know that it could never be), the species would cease to exist. Anything that pretty much would (and once again…I am not saying it even COULD) result in a species to stop, aka homosexuality, is not right. Two men can never produce a child. Two women together will never produce a child. EVER. The healthiest specimens of the same sex will never reproduce. So breaking this down to good ol’ natural selection, homosexuality is problem. Homosexuality is not what nature intended to occur. It is a defect.

    But from the aging fucking hippies down to the latest generation of older teens, it’s approved of because of the “if it feels good, do it” attitude.

    Now…is it a genetic problem? a learned problem? I don’t believe it’s genetic. I think homosexuality is a learned trait. A subconscious choice. How’s it fixed? I have no freaking clue…it’s not my area of specialty.

    Done.

    Comment by Russ — August 2, 2006 @ 4:15 pm

  50. aka: Jeff Lundholm

    Why not medium john, let’s do point for point again…

    When you say of homosexuals that “they’re just trying to make it known that they are people just like us and remove the social stigma attached to their lifestyles. Making it public and making it known to people is the only way to get people “used to it,” so to speak, and thus end their often unfavorable treatment”, we find our selves in total agreement. Where I take issue with that statement, is that there is a Biblical stigma rightfully applied to homosexual behavior and any attempt to legitimize it. If we assume God to be our creator, with the power to pull off the infinite creation of all that we see, and don’t see, then it is easy to assume when the Bible says that this is the inspired word of God and that everything in it is there as God thinks it should be, it is no stretch at all to assume that God has/had the power to be sure that the men who actually penned the Bible only penned what God wanted to be in it. The Bible condems homosexuality, as well equally any other sin. If we as a nation somehow are to get “used to it”, that would still not make it right. Furthermore the attempt to legitimize it only dumps one wrong on top of another. Additionally, my personal belief (Biblically based) is that homosexuals should not be treated badly because of their particular brand of sin, they are to be loved as any other sinner, of which we are all members of that very non-exclusive club. But that also is not to say that their immoral behavior should be legitimized to save them from the stigma of their own wrong behavior.

    The second point stands, I thank you for that…

    As for the third, I answered that in part above. Again, if God indeed has the power to create all that we are and know, it is no stretch to know that he also had the power to control entirely what appears in his word, the Bible. If the Bible is not to be the final arbiter as to what is right and wrong, then what we have left, is morality by legislation. If it’s not legal it’s not moral, if it’s not moral make it legal. So homosexuality is victimless? According to the Bible, homosexuality, as any other sin, removes the individual from God. The victims therefore are God and the individual. Just because there are no victims outside of the practising homosexual, does not make it a moral doctrine.

    The fourth point, yes it does matter what we use as a moral yard-stick in determining the merits of anything I have to say on this matter. I admit that… with conviction. Without the Bible, what is there? Is it the natural human goodness by which we can’t seem to quit killing each other, stealing from each other, abusing our children, screwing each others wives, lying to each other… on and on I could go. Humanity has shown throughout history that it is capable of only knowing one direction on our collective moral compass… south. Let’s start with Rome…

    I think that you are correct when you say that we may never see eye to eye on this issue… but I commend you for you intelligent, thoughtful discourse. It was kinda fun…

    In response to Russ, what makes homosexuality immoral? In my own words? You’ve read my own words here ad-nauseam. But… as the Bible is my final moral arbiter, I am compelled to use it as the timeless reference that it is. I’m sorry that doesn’t work for you.

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 2, 2006 @ 5:36 pm

  51. aka: Jeff Lundholm

    medium john… it’s interesting that you bring up the Koran. If you spend any time reading it you very quickly discover that Islam is NOT a peaceful religion in any sense of the word. But aside from that, it does say to beat your women… there is also a promise to those who die in jihad, to be rewarded in paradise with 72 virgins to do with as they please; “with voluptuous women of equal age”, “fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes”, forever to remain virgins because they were made by Allah, and “young male servants handsome as pearls“. Depending on the translation you read, this is often taken as a reference to homosexual concubines presumably not a sin in paradise because it is given by Allah, although the Koran does condemn earthly homosexuality.

    See the article “Satanic Confusion Begets Islam” on http://propellerhat.us.
    There is also a downloadable Koran there so that you can read what is referenced for yourself.

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 2, 2006 @ 8:03 pm

  52. testing spam karma…

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 2, 2006 @ 8:36 pm

  53. Ok cool Jeff, I finally understand everything you said. Even your point that God could control what went into the Bible makes sense to me. The only problem that I have with your reasoning is the use of the Bible as the final arbiter. I’m sorry, but the laws of a nation must be separate from religion. If we use the Bible as the final arbiter in all our laws about morality, what does that make us? A theocracy. That’s not fair to the thousands (millions?) of people in this country that do not accept Christianity as their religion. It can never happen, so we must therefore adopt morality by law, unfortunately. And if we’re using social welfare as the yard stick for morality, I still can’t see where homosexuality harms anyone as long as both partners consent.

    I do appreciate your civility though. Sorry for calling you an idiot earlier.

    Comment by medium john — August 2, 2006 @ 9:06 pm

  54. Russ: “And is completely unhealthy, resulting in the stretching of an exit that’s meant to be kept tight.”
    So don’t do it yourself. But if someone wants to do something “unnatural” with their own body that doesn’t affect you, like piercing their ears, what’s your problem? So long as you aren’t slipping on their stray excrement, as in Yup’s example, it’s none of your business. Anyway, stretching your sphincter isn’t necessarily unhealthy. And doesn’t address lesbian sex, either, I might add. Are you against male-on-female ass-sex, too? Somehow I doubt that (if so, I’ve got a few videos that might change your mind). And someone can stretch their sphincter with their finger or a Coke bottle all they want, but when it’s done with another penis it suddenly becomes wrong? Get outta town.
    “Hence, our bodies, instincts, etc. all knew before our brains that sex leads to the survival of the species.”
    Bodies and instincts don’t know their own purpose, or anything else. They just are. But I will focus on your larger point of breeder sex (I’ve never seen anyone actually offended by the term) having heroically kept the species going. This is a red herring. No one has proposed that gay sex is at all responsibile for the continuation of the species. Whether something directly contributes to continuing the species or not can’t be the necessary condition that makes things “wrong” in this world, or else we would call most of our tools and activities very wrong indeed, down to the very forum we are reading and writing on right now. Humans can give and take pleasure via sexual contact whether it results in pregnancy or not. Your cock’s nerve endings don’t care whether it’s a vagina, a rectum, a mouth, your own hand or a damn hole in the floor that’s giving it the friction.
    Jeff: “as the Bible is my final moral arbiter, I am compelled to use it as the timeless reference that it is.”
    Have you ever seen the popular email talking about other things the Bible recommends?

    I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

    Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — August 2, 2006 @ 10:32 pm

  55. Shabam. F-in Cheney hits the nail on the head. Nicely put.

    Comment by medium john — August 2, 2006 @ 10:53 pm

  56. sheez. i can’t believe you have resorted to agreeing with gus, john.

    please note most of his biblical citations are from leviticus. very old testament, not the teaching of Christ.

    and personally, i have no problem with religious diversity (save islam) but don’t believe the ideals and morals that built the us should be changed to suit less successful societies.

    Comment by mlah — August 2, 2006 @ 10:59 pm

  57. That’s probably one of the very few times I’ll ever agree with him, don’t worry. I’m still on your side.

    Comment by medium john — August 2, 2006 @ 11:39 pm

  58. MJ, I do have to ask the question, one which drove Moonbatty into an insane rage a while back. If you’re all for homosexuality, then how about incest? Multiple-spouse marriages, or polyamory? Bestiality? S&M? Shall we openly embrace, so to speak, all those different forms of sexual expression within or society? Shall we codify their practice into the law of our land, as we are bent on doing for the homosexuals?

    Comment by yup — August 3, 2006 @ 1:09 am

  59. aka: Jeff Lundholm

    medium john: Well, when the pot finally boiled away there wasn’t much left, was there? When you say “the only problem that I have with your reasoning is the use of the Bible as the final arbiter. I’m sorry, but the laws of a nation must be separate from religion. If we use the Bible as the final arbiter in all our laws about morality, what does that make us? A theocracy”, I have to agree with you.

    In addition, you commented: “we must therefore adopt morality by law, unfortunately.” On that point I agree fully as well.

    On the last point we will have to agree to disagree though, you said, “if we’re using social welfare as the yard stick for morality, I still can’t see where homosexuality harms anyone as long as both partners consent.” I still believe that homosexuality harms the individuals involved as a form of spiritual suicide (if I may use another metaphor that is likely to draw howls of protest), and that, in the long run harms society as a whole.

    Your apology for calling me an idiot is appreciated, but unnecessary. As I said before, this is an emotionally charged subject and I have also not always been as civil as I should. You carried yourself past the idiot remark very quickly and surely, don’t give it another thought.

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 3, 2006 @ 7:06 am

  60. aka: Jeff Lundholm

    trick_shot, On your commentary about the “other things the Bible recommends”, I can only say that this forum and my endurance are not great enough to discuss fully all the possible ways that the Bible can be misrepresented and taken from context, as you have so eloquently shown. By the elimination of only a tiny fraction of what you have said, it can be made to appear as if you are of an entirely different belief than you appear to be.

    The parts of the Bible you quote are a recitation of ancient Jewish history and as such are from a time on which we are able only to shed a very dim light. In the New Testament, Jesus gives us his teachings of love for and tolerance of other people and forgiveness, for us to live by. (Tolerance of does not mean acquiescence to (sin)) Read it. You will understand what I am saying.

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 3, 2006 @ 7:31 am

  61. medium john: You said, “Shabam. F-in Cheney hits the nail on the head. Nicely put.”

    With a smile mind you, I can only ask, which nail?

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 3, 2006 @ 7:34 am

  62. Mlah, you get a pass for calling heterosexuals “breeders.” Maybe it’s because it’s your blog. Dunno.

    Ok listen, I didn’t know that you didn’t make up the word at first. Mlah used the word once and it didn’t strike me as anything (otherwise, I would have mentioned it). But, the context that you put it in made it seem like you were using it in a weird way because I have come to believe that you’re straight, and you’re married.

    But Jeanna doesn’t like when I use it in an ironic way which highlights the pejorative use that the homosexual subculture makes of the term. However, were I gay, I suppose I would get away with the actual pejorative.

    Yeah, very mature. Tell the people how I feel about irony becuase you know everything. Didn’t you understand the first time that I’ve never heard that word be used before in this sort of topic? I asked a couple of my gay friends and they’ve never heard of it either.

    Jeanna, you came up with the terms “seed-waster” and “egg-monger” as pejoratives, yet I have not gotten bent out of shape over your hate-filled choice of words.

    I NEVER said that “breeder” is a word of hate, so you put words in my mouth and say that my made-up words are words of hate just to retaliate? How are those hate words (and how can you think those words are even good enough to be close to insulting)? Do I hate gay people or lesbians? Well, YOU wouldn’t know for sure, but at least from reading this, one can tell that I clearly don’t! Plus, that word was meant to belittle “your” word, not the gay comunity.

    Comment by Jeanna — August 3, 2006 @ 11:01 am

  63. OK Jeanna. I understand. You object to me, as a straight married man, using “breeder” — a pejorative appelation used within the homosexual community to describe the likes of me — to describe people like myself. Yet you apparently have no problem with the pejorative use of the word.

    Did I ever claim to accuse you of hate? No, not really. I did say that your choice of words were hate-filled. Perhaps I should have called them “barbaric” since that is apparently acceptable to you. So, your barbaric choice of words then. Or your use of barbaric terms. Does that suit your sensibilities better?

    Comment by yup — August 3, 2006 @ 2:00 pm

  64. But if someone wants to do something “unnatural” with their own body that doesn’t affect you, like piercing their ears, what’s your problem?

    Well…coming from someone with two piercings and three tattoos, here’s my problem:

    If everyone in the world ran out and decided to pierce their ears tomorrow, it would neither help nor hurt the species. And while this is completely impossible, if everyone woke up tomorrow gay, it would hurt the survival of the species.

    Is homosexuality normal? Natural? In the same way cancer is normal and natural. But cancer is a defect that is trying to be dealt with. Homosexuality, we’re being told, is normal, and NOT a problem. Sorry…to me, that’s bullshit.

    Anyway, stretching your sphincter isn’t necessarily unhealthy.

    Uh…look it up..of course it is.

    And doesn’t address lesbian sex, either, I might add.

    At least lesbians are entertaining. 😉

    Are you against male-on-female ass-sex, too?

    Against it? I never said I was “against” anything. But to answer your question, I do find boy-girl anal disgusting. Like I said…it’s a shit-hole.

    Comment by Russ — August 3, 2006 @ 2:02 pm

  65. play nice.

    Comment by mlah — August 3, 2006 @ 2:44 pm

  66. Alas, you’re putting words in my mouth again. I didnt say that you coundn’t use that word. You’re entitled to use whatever words you want. I was just saying that it was barbaric and it only stood out to me becuase the contexts in which you used it in. I didn’t understand where you were coming from, and you corrected me…in a disdainful manner. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

    You also love the word, “pejorative” like it’s your lifeline. I don’t think any of those words demeaning at all. They’re just plain stupid. I made them up on the spot to compare it to the word, “breeder.” I made them stupid on purpose. Or did you not catch that irony?

    To refresh your memory, this is your reply to my calling that word barbaric:

    ummm…Jeanna, that’s vernacular taken from the gay community. They refer to heterosexuals (often desparagingly) as “breeders.” It’s even popped up in Wil & Grace, if I recall. You think it’s barbaric? Complain to the gay people.

    Now tell me that wasn’t a bit condescending.

    Comment by Jeanna — August 3, 2006 @ 2:47 pm

  67. What does pejorative mean?

    Comment by medium john — August 3, 2006 @ 5:14 pm

  68. Pejorative: A disparaging or belittling word or expression

    I had to look it up…

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 3, 2006 @ 5:21 pm

  69. it’s in the movie “barcelona”. it’s where i learned it.

    Comment by mlah — August 3, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

  70. Mlah: “it’s in the movie “barcelona”.”
    did you see that based on my recommendation? what did you think of it?
    Russ: “if everyone woke up tomorrow gay, it would hurt the survival of the species.”
    If every man woke up tomorrow and had a vasectomy (an equally stupid proposition), the same thing would happen. Do you have an equal problem with vasectomies? Live and let live.
    “Uh…look it [health effects of stretching your sphincter] up..of course it is.”
    Yuck, I’m not gonna look that up! Anyway, my point was: what business is it of yours? They still walk the streets and do their jobs. Buzz off.
    “Is homosexuality normal? Natural? In the same way cancer is normal and natural. But cancer is a defect that is trying to be dealt with. Homosexuality, we’re being told, is normal, and NOT a problem. Sorry…to me, that’s bullshit.”
    Now we’re back to the cancer analogy?! Apparently homosexuality does come quite naturally to some people, it is their normal state, and it doesn’t sicken or kill them, you, or anyone else. The only problem is with your mentality, not their state or actions.
    Jeff: “I still believe that homosexuality harms the individuals involved as a form of spiritual suicide (if I may use another metaphor that is likely to draw howls of protest), and that, in the long run harms society as a whole.”
    Is that the best you can come up with? What a load of utterly unprovable, superstitious horse puckey that just dresses up your irrational hatred in spiritual vestaments. Do you feel the same way for all non-Christians? What a burden! Take your condescending cosmic sorrow somewhere else, a-hole.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — August 3, 2006 @ 10:00 pm

  71. gus. i decide who is, and is not welcome here. jeff is free to stay. just as you are.

    mind you gus, you cite jeff’s spiritual belief in christianity as utterly unprovable. can you prove evolution? do you believe it to be true? what? you maybe have faith that it is true? hypocrite.

    the vast majority of the world is spiritual. and the vast majority of those spiritual people all arrived at the same conclusion. homosexuality = bad.

    i’m happy to tolerate them, as long as they don’t effect me, but when they use their condition, ethos, lifestyle to take advantage of my tax base, i label them the asstards they are. just like i do every other asstard.

    Comment by mlah — August 3, 2006 @ 10:13 pm

  72. trick-shot: I still don’t hate you…

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 3, 2006 @ 10:16 pm

  73. This a very good post, Mlah. I would actually be on topic, but I didn’t read the comments, after I saw Leviticus cited I stopped… nothing good ever comes of that conversation on the interwebz… (one person quotes it, another attacks it, someone gets defensive, another gets dismissive of christianity, someone gets pissed, and it all just dissolves into a smear fest. No danke)

    Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for that, Dave. The only analysis I’ve seen of “Don’t ask/Don’t tell” was from moonbatty’s perspective which always smacked me as being lacking.

    Comment by alli — August 3, 2006 @ 11:37 pm

  74. alli: I sure understand what you say about Leviticus… never-the-less I would encourage you to read the entire thread. With a couple of unfortunate exceptions, it was actually a quite good, as you said. I don’t think it really got good until past the point you read…

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 3, 2006 @ 11:49 pm

  75. Jeanna, all you’ve done here in your words is tell me you have a problem with a heterosexual using a word to describe himself (calling such use barabric), but apparently have no problems with homosexuals using it as a term of derision. I even asked you this point blank, and you said it was just my use of the word that offended your sensibilities. And then you mock my use of “pejorative”? *shakes head and walks away*

    Comment by yup — August 4, 2006 @ 3:08 am

  76. Ok, a few words about the email Gus posted about things the Bible recommends.

    I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    Exodus 21:7 doesn’t sanction slavery. Exodus 21:2 clearly states “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.” They hired their daughters out as maids. They didn’t sell them as slaves.

    Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    Again, this isn’t slavery. People sold themselves and their family members to pay off debts and to support their families. It wasn’t like the slavery that existed in the US. They were actually hiring themselves out.

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    No, you’re not. This is an example of a concept called “Practices and Principles.” Back then, life was tough. Moses was trying to keep his people alive in a very harsh environment, so he enacted strict punishments for transgressions. I doubt it ever had to be enforced. It’s hard enough to GET people to work. It wouldn’t take much to convince them not to.

    Things are different today. The Practice of killing people who work on the Sabbath is no longer valid, but the Principle remains the same. We’re supposed to honor God on the Sabbath.

    A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

    Back then they didn’t have refrigeration or antibiotics. A lot of things that you ate could kill you. So, Moses laid down some rules to help keep people from eating spoiled food, or poisonous food, or food with parasites in it. That’s the reason behind the dietary restrictions. Now we have refrigeration, etc. Pratices and Principles again. As far as what’s the greater abomination, I don’t know. You’d have to ask God.

    Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    This section only applies to preists. Back then there were no eyeglasses, or prosthetics, or wheelchairs. God wanted His priests to be able to perform their duties.

    Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    Lev. 19:26-31 listed Pagan customs popular with the tribes surrounding them. God was telling them to keep themselves separated from the Pagans.

    I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    I don’t see why not. Footballs are made from leather, not pigskin.

    My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I’ll lump these final sentences together, and cover the whole thing at once. You’re trying to portray these Bible verses as silly, arbitrary rules with no meaning in today’s society. But you’re wrong. The practices were very important to people who lived back then, and the principles behind them are still important today. We don’t stone people who blaspheme God, but blaspheming God is still wrong. Adulterers aren’t killed anymore, but adultery is still wrong.

    Also, you seem to like Bible verses. Here’s a few more. “Thou shalt not kill.” You think that one might still be relevant? How about “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover [their] nakedness”, a prohibition against incest. Do you agree with that one? Or “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith”, beastiality. “Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.” “You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him.”

    I’m sure you observe these Biblical principles. So if you can observe some, and ignore others, why can’t I?

    Comment by greree — August 4, 2006 @ 3:34 am

  77. Mlah: “can you prove evolution?”
    Do you really want to open up that can of worms in this thread? Why would you want to shout to the world how little you understand science? I’ll be brief: Faith has nothing to do with verifiable truth. Science expresses the knowable in a very narrow way. Jeff is counting the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. Try getting real.
    “the vast majority of those spiritual people all arrived at the same conclusion. homosexuality = bad.”
    And the vast majority of them lived in psychotic tribal societies. It’s 2006, make your own decisions based on the reality you see around you.
    Greree: “So if you can observe some, and ignore others, why can’t I?”
    Jeff seemed to be of the opinion that it was an all-or-nothing situation (it being the Word of God and all).
    “Back then they didn’t have refrigeration or antibiotics.”
    Back then they didn’t have equal rights for all citizens, either. Back then things sucked. Back then people were really uninformed. Back then civilization was in its infancy. We’ve moved on, what’s your excuse?
    “Pratices and Principles again.”
    I understand the concept. Can it be applied to homosexuality? Maybe fathers wanted their sons to bear children– to keep their line going or as more workers in the fields– instead of fooling around with their buddies in the wood shed. Nowadays that isn’t so necessary, as family members are appreciated for their own charming selves and Mexican labor is cheap. Maybe you can put some more thought into this line of reasoning.
    “Exodus 21:7 doesn’t sanction slavery… They hired their daughters out as maids. They didn’t sell them as slaves.
    Oh yeah, sorry. It’s Lev 25:44-6. As long as they’re heathens or strangers.
    25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
    25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
    25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — August 4, 2006 @ 5:16 am

  78. Jeff: “I still don’t hate you…”
    What a saint you are. Now go to hell, ya passive-agressive creep.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — August 4, 2006 @ 6:12 am

  79. Trick shot: you quote Mlah: “can you prove evolution?” And then ask: Do you really want to open up that can of worms in this thread? Why would you want to shout to the world how little you understand science? I’ll be brief: Faith has nothing to do with verifiable truth.

    You are absolutely right to say that faith has nothing to do with verifiable truth. But verifiable truth has nothing to do with evolution… as in the theory of. As biochemists gain an ever increasing understanding of just how living things work, the irreducible complexity of even a seemingly simple thing like a single cell in our bodies, flies in the face of the theory of evolution. The irreducible complexity of all living things on a molecular scale presents a major conundrum to the step by step, or evolutionary nature of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Even Darwin was worried about this. Today, many in our society are terrified to let go of this seriously flawed theory, as it seems to leave only a possibility that requires not facts… but faith to understand.

    A good reference to understand the concept of irreducible complexity in living organisms is Michael J. Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box. Biochemistry is a subject that is simply a mystery to the masses, thereby explaining the continued belief in the workability of Darwin’s theory. Behe’s book, does a good job of explaining to the layman how our current knowledge in the field of biochemistry (knowledge that Darwin did not have) destroys Darwin’s theory. The book makes no attempt to prove any competing doctrine, such as creationism. Disclaimer: I do not get a dollar every time someone buys this book.

    This thread kinda has a life of its own…

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 4, 2006 @ 7:00 am

  80. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    I don’t see why not. Footballs are made from leather, not pigskin.

    Burn, baby!!!!

    Seriously, gg, that was a well thought out and explained comment. Great.

    Comment by Russ — August 4, 2006 @ 1:39 pm

  81. Gus said:

    “Jeff seemed to be of the opinion that it was an all-or-nothing situation (it being the Word of God and all).”

    That was a rhetorical question. God expects us to live by all His principles.

    “Back then they didn’t have equal rights for all citizens, either. Back then things sucked. Back then people were really uninformed. Back then civilization was in its infancy. We’ve moved on, what’s your excuse?”

    Back then it was wrong to murder someone. Back then it was wrong to steal from someone. Back then it was wrong to lie. Back then it was wrong to commit incest. We haven’t “moved on” as far as you think.

    “I understand the concept. Can it be applied to homosexuality?”

    Sure. Back then homosexuals were put to death. Now the Practice is no longer to kill homosexuals, but the Principle is still the same. Homosexuality is an abomination.

    “Maybe fathers wanted their sons to bear children– to keep their line going or as more workers in the fields– instead of fooling around with their buddies in the wood shed. Nowadays that isn’t so necessary, as family members are appreciated for their own charming selves and Mexican labor is cheap. Maybe you can put some more thought into this line of reasoning.”

    God commands us to get married and have children. Those that are capable of getting married and having children, but turn their back on God’s wish in order to live a life of carnal pleasures, are immoral.

    “Oh yeah, sorry. It’s Lev 25:44-6. As long as they’re heathens or strangers.
    25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.”

    You do understand what the term “bond” in “bondmen” and “bondmaids” means, don’t you? You also understand that back then, people couldn’t just walk down to the local WalMart and get a part time job. In exchange for a fee, people sold themselves as servants and laborers. They got food, clothing and shelter in exchange for work.

    Comment by greree — August 4, 2006 @ 3:07 pm

  82. Jeff, you are a walking cliche’: “Irreducible complexity” isn’t science; understanding evolution doesn’t require faith (nor does preclude belief in God– He could have set it all in motion); and the word “theory” has a different meaning in science than “guess”. I have no choice but to conclude that Medium John’s original take on you (now disavowed by him) was correct.
    Greree: “We haven’t “moved on” as far as you think.”
    Evidently. Fine, be that way. Just know that you will be on the wrong side of human rights history within a generation or two. You may not be “left behind” when the Rapture comes, but you (and your real or potential kids, if they take your bloviating seriously) will certainly be left behind by standard US law. Enjoy your hate while you can!

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheny — August 4, 2006 @ 11:11 pm

  83. trick shot: The concepts underlying the phrase irreducible complexity are most certainly science, as per an ever growing list of biochemists, on both sides of the aisle. Start here: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm or here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html or here http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Irreducible_Complexity. It goes on for and against… Your lack of understanding doesn’t change this. If you also assume that God set the stage for the evolutionary process, thereby circumventing the problem of irreducubly complexity, then that in itself, is an act of faith.

    You’re about the only one left in this thread hurling insults and accusing others of hate, but you are the only one here who appears to hate anyone. Just because they disagree with you? People who respond as you usually have something to fear. Is it in you to carry on a conversation without this childishness, or are your personal positions so tenuous as to leave you with no other options. Is it possible that by insulting others you somehow believe your opinions to gain credibility, or that your insults somehow prove others mistaken in their beliefs?

    You obviously are an intelligent man… with a mean streak. You have something to contribute to this thread, but you make yourself so hard to listen to. But, that won’t be a problem from here on. I’ll dispute you no longer. You win. The spots on your tortilla really are the face of Elvis…

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 5, 2006 @ 6:58 am

  84. I played along for a while, Jeff. I wouldn’t say I hate you, but you certainlly are a stupid fucking idiot. Please take that only in the most constructive way possible.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
    If you don’t present a falsifiable hypothesis, it isn’t real science, by definition.
    (And spare me your facile psychoanalysis.)

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — August 5, 2006 @ 3:22 pm

  85. Gus,

    The problem with Wikipedia is that articles can be written by anyone. In this case, the guy who wrote the article you linked to is either using the phrase “falsifiable hypothesis” incorrectly, or he’s wrong. In Michael Behe’s book, he quotes Dembski’s improbability calculation of 10-234 for the origin of the bacterial flagellum as proof of irreducible complexity, and that IS a falsifiable hypothesis.

    But, to be honest, I don’t agree with Jeff. I don’t think irreducible complexity is proof of God’s existence. Irreducible complexity is based on the idea that some biological processes are so complex, that all the parts of the process would have had to evolve simultaneously in order to function at all. I think this is possible.

    The universe is infinite, and in an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities. Since everything is possible, if something CAN happen, then it DID happen.

    So, since it’s possible that ALL the irreducibly complex biological processes evolved simultaneously, then somewhere in the universe they DID evolve simultaneously. And that someplace is here.

    Of course, this also proves that God exists.

    Comment by greree — August 5, 2006 @ 8:20 pm

  86. greree: In rereading my last comment, it does sound like I used irreducible complexity as a proof of Gods existence. I actually did not mean to do this, but rather that the concept of irreducible complexity tends to damage Darwin’s theory: as Darwin himself stated: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    But, in deference to your comments, it does, rather conveniently for me, tend to suggest the hand of a creator. I cannot disagree with your comment that “The universe is infinite, and in an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities. Since everything is possible, if something CAN happen, then it DID happen.” On the same note it has been said that if you place a chimpanzee and a typewriter in a room, given an infinite amount of time, the chimp will eventually pound out the entire works of Shakespeare.

    However, it is commonly believed by most cosmologists that the universe has not been around for an infinite amount of time. Stephen Hawking, in The Universe in a Nutshell, suggests 15 billion years.

    I don’t recall Behe’s quote of Demski, but in chapter 4, Rube Goldberg in the Blood, of Darwin’s Black Box, Behe performs the following calculation: “Consider that animals with blood-clotting cascades have roughly 10,000 genes, each of which is divided into an average of three pieces. This gives a total of about 30,000 gene pieces. TPA (Tissue Plasminogen Activator) has four different types of domains. By “variously shuffling”, the odds of getting those four domains together is 30,000 to the fourth power, which is approximately one-tenth to the eighteenth power. Now, if the Irish Sweepstakes had odds of winning of one-tenth to the eighteenth power, and if one million people played the lottery each year, it would take an average of a thousand billion years before anyone (not just a particular person) won the lottery. A thousand billion years is roughly a hundred times the current estimate of the age of the universe.”

    Your thoughts?

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 5, 2006 @ 10:37 pm

  87. Greree: “The problem with Wikipedia is that articles can be written by anyone.”
    Then do your duty to the progress of mankind by correcting it. {guffaw!} We’ve already had this argument here about WikiPedia. If there is controversy in a certain article, it is labeled as such.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — August 6, 2006 @ 12:46 pm

  88. no. not necesarily. idiot ledtists perceive their view as the only, and correct view far too often. and so, wikipedia is leftist. and frequently wrong.

    not a valid source for research. at least not in my grad school.

    Comment by mlah — August 6, 2006 @ 2:35 pm

  89. PropellerHat said:

    Your thoughts?

    If an infinite number of animals on an infinite number of planets variously shuffles those four different types of domains, I’m sure they could manage to get those for domains together on at least one planet. This is the planet.

    Behe’s theory is based on the assumption that this is the only planet with life on it. This isn’t a valid assumption.

    If this was the only planet with life on it, then yes, it would take a thousand billion years for someone to win the Irish Sweepstakes. But, if a thousand billion planets each had a million people playing the lottery, someone would win it immediately.

    Comment by greree — August 6, 2006 @ 6:33 pm

  90. The multiple planet angle never occurred to me. Doh! That makes sense. But never-the-less… the large number of irreducibly complex biological systems in the same biological organism (a human for example), that are required to work together, and would have had to evolve more or less in parallel to the others in order for us to function the way we do… would all have to happen on the same planet. This adds a significant multiplier to the previous (simple) calculation. So we are not really talking about only one complex system possibly evolving on one of many planets, but many complex systems evolving together, on one planet, in one organism.

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 6, 2006 @ 7:10 pm

  91. “no. not necesarily. idiot ledtists perceive their view as the only, and correct view far too often.”
    And idiot rightists are also quite attached to their views.
    “and so, wikipedia is leftist. and frequently wrong.”
    “And so”? You use that phrase as if you had proved something with logic, which you have not. Please show us this wrongness and leftist slant in WikiPedia, Mlah, or shut your piehole about it.

    Comment by trick_shot_f-in_cheney — August 7, 2006 @ 12:45 am

  92. It doesn’t really matter whether you tend to the right or the left… Wikipedias decided lean to the left is not difficult to discern. For instance, from the Computer Science Department at the University of Maryland: http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/.
    Read Wikipedia articles on the topics of evolution, global warming, and religion for example, the notion that Wikipedia has a tendency to at least not be neutral is difficult to avoid.

    Comment by PropellerHat — August 7, 2006 @ 7:15 am

  93. Sorry I haven’t commented on this thread lately. I’m working at the National Guard Armory this week. I’ll catch back up this weekend.

    Comment by greree — August 10, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress