Personally, I think Gen. Pace has a right to express his opinion on homosexuality, however bigoted it may be...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I find it somewhat funny how people think allowing gays in the army will effect the morale of our troops...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And about the shower comments.... If you were so secure about your own heterosexuality, you wouldn't care if another man was attracted to you. So long as he didn't sexually harrass you.

Let me preface this by saying that I am gay and I don't care what anyone here thinks of that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For everyone attacking the Bible: Yes it is old, but it is also the basis for the most widespread religion in the world. As a matter of fact I am a Catholic. I understand that many parts are taken out of context by fundamentalist Christians and I'm glad that people here seem to recognize this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For everyone quoting Leviticus: That is an old testament book. Modern day Christianity is based almost entirely on the new testament. Furthermore, there are many other laws in the book of Leviticus that are completely ludicrous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For everyone confusing homosexuality with choice: read this http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008 In short that is an article which through scientific experimentation found an "abnormality" in the brains of homosexual rams (this experiment has been done on humans with the same results, but those experiments are disputed) in the region of the brain relating to sexual behavior. As far as I'm concerned my attraction to those of the same sex is not a choice I willingly made. I would gladly be normal and not face all the stigma placed on gays in society today, but I have no choice other than to hide it or fake a straight life, neither of which I can do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ultimately what it comes down to is that on the subject of homosexuality, most people have already made up their mind and no amount of evidence on either side will convince them that their views are incorrect. I probably fall into this trap. If there were conclusive proof that homosexuals are 100% of the time gay by choice and that is was nothing to do with genetics I would probably not believe it, just as if we found 100% proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait, most fundamentalists probably would not believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What it comes down to is not acceptance, but rather tolerance. I am perfectly fine with people thinking I'm a horrible sodomite and that I'm an abomination against God. What I'm not alright with is getting the crap kicked out of me in some back alley because some guy hates gays(btw I have been bashed for being gay before). When you get to the heart of the issue of acceptance I think you'll find that most gays, at least most that I've know, don't give a rat's [wagon] if they are called horrible people, we just don't want to have to fear for our lives from the crazy homophobes when we go out as a couple.

Homosexuals aren't a self-sustaining part of society. Because of this I don't think they should be recognized by the government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I wrong? Should members of a non-sustaining group be recognized by the government? I'm not talking individuals, I'm talking couples. Me having sexual relations with a rock is just as sustaining as homosexuality. Should the government recognize me and my rock as a couple?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A rather inappropriate comparison if you ask me, considering a rock is an inate object. A better comparison would be an infertile couple, considering you seem to judge someones contribution to society solely based on their ability to procreate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why shouldn't gay couples be recognised by the government ? They are humans, they bleed like you do, they talk, they walk, they think, they love, they hate, etc... The government is a representation of the people in a country, sworn to protect those people. By law, everybody is equal. I'm not familiar with the American constitution in details, but I'm pretty sure there will be some statement in it, saying that there is a seperation between church and state.

 

 

 

The only grounds not to give homosexuals equal rights would be based upon religious beliefs or derivatives of them. Not being able to procreate being a crime against humanity, is induced by faith that every sexual act should be geared towards procreation. A religious belief, as a ground to withhold other human beings happiness, rights and status in society ? That would be against the seperation of state and church. So yes, you are wrong in thinking the government shouldn't recognise them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you do in your lives is not my business. Sometimes personal business just doesn't have a place in society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad you agree sometimes personal business doesn't have a place in society. Religion is the summit of personal business. It's a choice you, as a human being make, over others. It's a personal choice to follow those beliefs, that give you a sense of superiority over others. It can't get more personal than that. As a result it should not find its way into legislation/government/society, but remain in places of worship: churches and temples.