February 24, 2006

We'll Have a Gay Old Time

It looks like events are conspiring to bring us a "theme post."

First, the bad:

The Army has charged seven members of the celebrated 82nd Airborne Division with engaging in sex for money on a Web site, authorities said Friday.

Three of the soldiers face courts-martial on charges of sodomy, pandering and wrongfully engaging in sexual acts for money while being filmed, according to a statement released Friday by the military.

Four other soldiers, who were not named, received nonjudicial punishments.

The Army has recommended that all be discharged.

"Of course, where they were discharging was part of the problem to begin with."


Thanks folks, I'll be here all week...

I have always supported the idea that any able-bodied American willing to serve their country should have the opportunity. It is unfair to exclude gays from the armed forces or make them hide who they are, while simultaneously telling them they should be proud of the character the military is supposed to have helped them develop. It was and is an intellectually dishonest position.

American soldiers who have the mettle to handle withering enemy fire can handle the sexuality of their fellow soldiers. I suspect it's the generals and the politicians who aren't mature enough to handle cope.

It is important to note that the seven soldiers in this story disgraced in their uniforms not by being gay, but by participating in pornography and prostitution. They also embarrass the homosexual community as well, reinforcing a horrible stereotype held in some minds. They deserved to be branded with a dishonorable discharge, though odds are that anyone willing to whore themselves for petty cash on camera doesn't have much honor to loose.

* * *

In other news, Ohio Democratic State Sen. Robert Hagan is looking for a co-sponsor to his bill that would ban Republicans from adopting:

Hagan said his "tongue was planted firmly in cheek" when he drafted the proposed legislation. However, Hagan said that the point he is trying to make is nonetheless very serious.

Hagan said his legislation was written in response to a bill introduced in the Ohio House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood, R-Ashville, that is aimed at prohibiting gay adoption.

"We need to see what we are doing," said Hagan, who called Hood's proposed bill blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive. Hagan called Hood and the eight other conservative House Republicans who backed the anti-gay adoption bill "homophobic."

Hood's bill, which does not have support of House leadership, seeks to ban children from being placed for adoption or foster care in homes where the prospective parent or a roommate is homosexual, bisexual or transgender.

To further lampoon Hood's bill, Hagan wrote in his mock proposal that "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

Holding up the flashing neon "I don't get it" sign is Matt Margolis at GOPBloggers:

For Hagan to even suggest there is any parallel between political orientation and sexual orientation is beyond absurd. Principled Republicans are trying to hinder the efforts those who seek to redefine marriage and family, and all Democrats can do and whine and accuse them of being homophobic. Hagan has taken things a step further by trivializing the debate with a ridiculous mockery of a bill.

What Margolis doesn't to be able to grasp is that any attempted parallel between sexual orientation and good parenting is far more absurd than any comparison between sexual and political orientations. Hagan's bill rightly mocks the stupidity of a handful of small-minded homophobes that would rather children end up in a series of foster homes or in an orphanage than be adopted into an atypical but loving and supportive home environment.

Quite frankly, I'd like to see several of Ohio's Republican senators cross the aisle and sign on as co-sponsors for Hagan's bill, as there are clearly at least eight Republican senators in Ohio that are more worried about the image of parenting than the substance of it. We should stand for family values, whatever the family looks like.

Perhaps Hagan's bill, applied selectively, isn't such a bad idea after all.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at February 24, 2006 07:28 PM | TrackBack

I support gays in the military, specificaly gay men. MAYBE legislative acts on the part of the congress, or political pressure by a presidents base might be able to ram open gays down the throat of the military, as it did with women, but I think it is best done from within, as was done with blacks. Blacks now, though once hated, are not different in any way from the rest of the military, they are equals, and they are equal for one reason, and one reason only. The Blacks, stood, fought, and proved themselves in segregated units, and their valor could not have been argued. There are still minute tensions, but those tensions are meaningless, cuz everyone has learned from history, and personal experience that they can stand with any or above white man against any enemy. Homosexuals have already served, and still serve, and I think it is important for them to come out to their fellow servicemembers, and recruit the "breeder" servicemembers to come out with them. If you have entire platoons, companies and batallions standing up and saying "I don't care if he takes, or gives it in the ass, I want him in my fighting hole(FIGHTING hole :)." you will see a drastic change in popular culture.

The fact that in the Service, especially the ground services (Marine Corps and Army) you spend so much time with your fellow servicemember, if this happens, ESPECIALLY in the Marine Corps, the attitude of the nation will change. In my short time in the service I had ONE argument against gays serving, and it had nothing to do with the gays, it had to do with the little dicked hicks who are willing to bash gays, even though every gay man I knew who wore a uniform (I knew a couple) was much better at their job than them. I'm worried FOR those who come out, not because they come out.

It will be an unpleasant start, but I think it is time that distinguished servicemembers of alternate sexual proclivities come out, and I think it is LONG pass time for those distinguished servicemembers who aren't gay, to support them. Truth is, who you Fuck doesn't make you a Marine (I turn everything into Marine, cuz I was) It's how you ACT as a Marine. REAL Men, know that, REAL Soldiers know that, and Real Marines know that.

Posted by: wickedpinto at February 24, 2006 11:42 PM

But army members who do straight porn, that's perfectly legal and ok, right????

Please explain that one for me.

How about all of the army men who hire prostitutes? Should we crack down on them.

Last time I checked - sodomy is no longer a crime. Neither is pornography.

Seems like the army has zero problem with pornography. They just have a problem with gay pornography.

I call bullshit.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at February 24, 2006 11:54 PM

Obviously, DTL, you're reading what you want to, not what I said. Anyone who does porn and/or is guilty of prostitution while in the uniform services deserves to get tossed out, regardless of orientation or partner. Is that clear enough?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 25, 2006 12:04 AM

Actually, a few years ago there were several discharges for the "SandWrestling" party.

The idea behind these discharges is that to DISPLAY hedonism be it Gay, or hetero in nature is unimportant. The FACT, is that if you have ever taken the Oath, you know that you stand for something VERY big, in fact, When you take the oath? You SWEAR! to stand above The President of The United States of America. The US Military MUST swear, a willingness to stand against all enemies of the Constitution foreign and domestic. To live up to that call, you need a certain set of personal dicipline, dignity moral certitude. It is NECESSARY to LOOK for the great man, within every private, because it takes Good men to do the horrible things necessary in war.

If you can't keep your crank in your pants? fine, as long as noone knows. That is why Adultery is still a prison offense. CURSING AT WOMEN can land you in the brigg. PUNCHING! a fellow servicemember who is guilty of adultery with YOUR wife, still lands you in the brigg.

It is impossible to achieve perfectly, however, it is absolutely necessary that the willingness of the US military make an honest, and cognizant effort to be above all others moraly. Otherwise, they are just highered killers.

Posted by: wickedpinto at February 25, 2006 12:07 AM

In Addition, one more thing that I have learned from every successful individual, at least the Good/great Marines that I knew while I was in, was a sort of Startlement. Even if you leave after 4 years, or get into trouble, everyone is proud of being a Marine, Hell, even the washouts still talk about being Marine, even though they never were, but the ability to re-enlist, to earn a boatspace, to succeed enough just to move on to 4-6 more years, is a point of pride that EVERY Marine holds close to the heart. Those who make it pass 16 years (pretty much guaranteeing a "Career Marine" retirement) are so euphoric, that they grow greater than many priests who are accepted by god into their cloister/covey, whatever they are called. Marines, who make 20 years as enlisted, are more zealottous than Simon.

Posted by: wickedpinto at February 25, 2006 12:13 AM

These are not rules that I have created; but they are values I hold dear, because they are founded upon truth, not my feelings. First and foremost, I am a Christian who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe in the trinity; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I believe Jesus was born of a virgin and died an atoning sacrificial death. I do not condemn sin; God does through His righteousness (not through hatred, because God does not possess that attribute). I cannot undo His condemnation. I can choose to accept what society accepts; but that does not change God’s judgment or pronouncement.

I want to address this black person / homosexual analogy. Can a black person choose his/her race? Is homosexuality a race? If the answers are “no”, then any logical relationship between them is broken and so is the analogy; so drop the argument. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle that for many centuries was viewed by society as deviate behavior that was outlawed much like theft. I know, there have been great societies that have condoned and practiced homosexuality; like Rome and Athens, and before them; Sodom and Gomorrah. (There is a lesson there about great societies and the decay of morals.)

As I said, I do not condemn homosexuality, but I do not condone it, either. Am I a homophobe? I do not consider myself one. Would I avoid contact with known homosexuals? No. Would I treat them differently? Subconsciously, I might, but not intentionally. (How would you treat a person you knew to be a thief?) They are human beings who have made an immoral choice; it is not my place to judge.

As for homosexuals in the military; I do not agree with allowing known homosexuals to serve in uniform. That statement is based solely upon my adherent to the fact that homosexuality is a chosen immoral and deviant behavior. (If necessary reread my first paragraph.) Thievery in the military is punished. Disobeying an order in the military is punished. Murder in the military is punished. Conduct non-becoming in the military is punished. Why, because discipline in the military is an absolute necessity for success. Our military chooses to live in a caste society that is much more restrictive than society in general.

Society is changing and is much more accepting of homosexual behavior now than in bygone eras. Is that change for the better? Not in my estimation. Frivolous lawsuits are way up; crime in general is way up; entitlement programs are way up; personal responsibility is way down, blame others is way up; and I believe morals have declined, too. All of that is generally accepted in today’s society. Does it make it right?

I want to reiterate; I DO NOT condemn homosexuality; but I REFUSE to be made to condone it.

Posted by: Old Soldier at February 25, 2006 10:50 AM

Old Soldier,

You "chose" to be a Christian. I didn't choose to be gay. You "chose" to believe in a stupid cult, that believes some stupid fart was actually "resurrected". Hey - that's ok. If you want to "choose" to believe in a bigoted religion, one whose sole focus is based on bigotry and hatred of gay people, and anyone who doesn't choose to believe your "hocus pocus" that is your choice. But don't ask me to respect your ignoramous choice.

I believe in science and reason. You choose to believe some "story" just because your parents told you its true. Anyone who actually studies history knows that Christianity is based on lies, and was only spread through violence and threats, i.e. evil.

Sorry - but I refuse to "condone" Christianity. It's pure evil.

Posted by: Downtown Lad at February 25, 2006 01:42 PM

Confederate Yankee,

Where does it say that people in the military cannot be in porn? I'm really interested in seeing that rule. Pornography is NOT the same as prostitution. Otherwise - the government could easily arrest anyone who is doing porn for a living.
I'm not saying I approve of what these guys do for a living. But then again - unlike stupid Old Soldier, I'm not trying to enforce my viewpoint on others.
People have liberty. As long as they are not breaking the law, you can't prosecute people for something you morally disagree with. Sodomy might be a "crime" as the military defines it, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that be unconstitutional in Lawrence V. Texas.
And according to the Supreme Court, pornography is protected by the First Amendment. They can bring up whatever charges they want against these guys. I expect the courts to find them innocent.
What's next? Court martialling soldiers because they're Jewish?

Posted by: Downtown Lad at February 25, 2006 01:47 PM

Downtown Lad, boy, you sure make a strong argument for accepting the behavior of a homosexual, don’t you. At least you delayed to your third sentence before the attack started. Your perception of Christianity is warped at best, but I’ll not engage you there except to say Christianity is NOT based upon bigotry or hatred of homosexuals. If you are upset by the precepts of Christianity, that is your problem, not mine. Perhaps your conscience is speaking to you. I will admit that some professing Christians confuse the sinner with the sin – that’s not biblical. ”Sorry – but I refuse to “condone” Christianity. It’s pure evil.” Do you have any idea how juvenile that statement is?

”…unlike stupid Old Soldier, I’m not trying to enforce my viewpoint on others.” You’re the one that gave me an authoritative position in that statement; however, I’m not trying to force my opinion on anyone. I have no desire to change your or any other homosexual’s behavior. Where in my comment did I state that homosexuals must stop their behavior? Where did I advocate persecuting or prosecuting homosexuals? I merely stated my opinion, which I believe is similar to what you did (only I did not use ad hominem attacks).

”I did not choose to be gay.” Unless you have been homosexual under threat to your life, you “chose” the behavior. Denying a decision was made only serves to avoid responsibility and thereby avoid consequences and sooth a conscience. Yes, I chose Christianity. Yes, I chose to serve in the U.S. Army for 31 years. Yes, I chose heterosexuality (although that one was easy for me). Every waking moment of your life you make choices; some good, some bad – but they are your choices. To deny that is dishonest and is your problem, not mine.

One more time; I do not condemn homosexuality or homosexuals – but I refuse to condone the behavior. And I resent the attempt to force me to accept the behavior.

” Where does it say that people in the military cannot be in porn? I’m really interested in seeing that rule.” CY doesn’t have the background to answer that question but I do. Google the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and look up “Conduct.”

Posted by: Old Soldier at February 25, 2006 10:24 PM

”…stupid Old Soldier…”

DL, that phrase had its desired effect; it upset me. I wore this country’s uniform for 31 years including: Vietnam, a covert Central America mission and the first Gulf War; three potentially lethal assignments. In those three instances, I packed my gear and left my wife and family to answer the call of duty. My service was in the defense of the rights of all citizens of this great nation; not just those that agreed with my ideology or theology.

You made not one statement that supports your opinion that your homosexuality was not by choice. Instead you said Christianity was: ”a stupid cult, a bigoted religion… based on bigotry and hatred of gay people, a “story”, based on lies, evil,” and it was ”spread through violence and threats…” You even called Christ a ”…stupid fart…”

I responded to CY’s post with my opinion backed by reasons for said opinion and you responded to me with crass vitriol; absent of any supportive reasons or logic. I still support your right to make whatever choices you desire. However, your actions bear consequences and if you are not prepared to take responsibility and accept them; then perhaps you should rethink your choices.

Posted by: Old Soldier at February 26, 2006 09:53 AM

Don't be upset OS, You have the respect of many of us around here. His comments were out of line, they weren't discussion type, they were inflamitory and didn't do his side any good, just the opposite as a matter of fact.

Posted by: Retired Navy at February 27, 2006 06:24 AM

I certanly must agree with Retired Navy and Old Soldier; Downtown Lad's comments were far out of line and discredited him.
Politeness and temper are a must in any discussion, whoever strongly you feel about the topic.

* * *

I find it quite fascinating that people keep on and on about Christianity being a homophobic religion, just as I do about people who even mention the posibility of choosing to be homosexual or not and choosing to BEHAVE homosexual...

I'm heterosexual myself, but I can assure you it was not an intelectual decision made by me at a certain turning point in my life, I simply like women from the begining. I very much doubt anyone here chose to like or dislike anything (be it music, food, paintings,...).

I must thank my Christian breeding for the moral bases it's provided me. Saying Christianity is based on hatred for homosexuals is ridiculous, it's just about interpretation of the Scriptures made by certain people. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is wrong (no, it doesn't; Genesis-19 talks about LUST, which is a Capital Sin, while homosexuality isn't cited by God anywhere as a Sin. Interpretation also applies to Levitic, which is a code of conduct only to be followed by the Tribe of Levi (historically the second tribe of priests in Israel and the dominating tribe when this text was written) -from where the text gets its name- if it weren't, we should apply all its rules to ourselves and give up, for example, eating rabbit. And I can't remember Jesus saying a word about homosexuality... you'd think God's son would have been a bit more explicit talking about such a horrible Sin if it were so).

Science (for the ones who, like me, ALSO believe in it) has already brought light upon how "liking" and "disliking" work on our brains, and it's just a chemical reaction to outside stimula (which, let me remind you, you cannot control, much as I'd sometimes like to).

Now, this should make some here understand that there's no moral wrong in being homosexual, so why should it be morally wrong to behave homosexual? At what point do you assume it is morally or physically wrong and on what basis?

* * *

Going back to the main topic.
Anyone who's seen the army from inside must admit that there's a lot of hypocrisy in court-martialing the kids for "engaging in sex for money"... unless, of course, the wrong act is recieving money for sex, as we all know that giving money for sex isn't condemnable (or hasn't been so until now).
If it's a new posture of the executive to keep the Army clean of prostitution, whatever the nature of the sex trated, I must applaud it heartfully; if it proves to be an attack on homosexuality... how sad and un-constitutional.
I wonder what would happen if all the gay military quit at the same time.

Posted by: Daniel Kushrenada at March 1, 2006 07:54 PM


Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10

The bible is quite clear about ANY sexual immorality. Humans with the aid and assistance of Satan are beginning to accept as normal many sexual immoral activities. That doesn't make them right. I'm sure God hasn't changed His mind about what He called wrong.

It is up to Christians to love sinners and lovingly witness to them about the love and forgiveness of God, regardless of the sin.

I believe any sexual activity is by choice. Yes it is pleasure driven, by there is a decision made; an exercise of choice. To proclaim otherwise exonerates the actor of the act. To say the homosexuality is not of choice exonerates the homosexual of any responsibility for the choice. With no responsibility, there is no consequences that have to be accepted. Without responsibility we are reduced to an animal of instincts and pleasure; which we are not. When we were created we were given the ability to make choices and decisions.

The services are a caste system that requires better morals than the general populace, partly because the general populace demmands that of service people. Additionally, it amplifies the exercise of discipline which is extremely important to a military organization. The services are governed by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice as well as local and federal statutes. It is in essence a doble jeopardy system. The highest standard of conduct is expected among the military. A breakdown of that conduct is a breakdown of discipline.

Sooner or later homosexuality will probably be forced upon the military services because it is receiving less consternation from the public and is becoming more widley accepted as "normal". When the day arrives that homosexuals may openly serve in the military it will not be the leaders that will be resistant; it will be the young infantry soldiers in the squad rooms that will have to accept the new norm.

One more time; I do not condemn homosexuals; however, I do not condone the behavior, either. I do resent attempts to force me to accept the behavior as normal.

Posted by: Old Soldier at March 1, 2006 09:00 PM

Yeah, Leviticus is a very complete set of rules of which we ALL mainly ignore except when it does not concern us.
Leviticus also sais, right BEFORE getting into inmoralities, that you cannot eat anything with blood (and I very much doubt you haven't eaten any steak with not a drop of blood unless you eat kosher), rabbit, and some other commonly eaten animals. How terribly inmoral and impure I must be after having eaten a delicious bood-pudding.
Why do some people apply only the rules that fit them and ignore the rest?
In fact, why does anyone apply rules not made for us. Do you belong to the Tribe of Levi? I don't, I'm quite sure about my ascendency, so I would certanly not apply rules made for priests to myself, just like I don't keep chastity.

Talking about inmorality; I can depict Jesus standing in front of a mob that was trying to throw stones at an adulterer and saving her.
Do you think what he was trying to tell us is: "Mind your own business and don't dare you jugde what God considers inmoral or doesn't. HE will be the one to judge when HIS time comes"?

Corinthians and Thimothy are letters written by the Apostles, not God's word (thank God... if we had to follow St.Paul's line of thought we would still be in the Dark Middle Ages, just like our radical muslim friends). Don't try to tell me their words are more important that Jesus' actions.

So, it's all Satan's work... hmmm... what a terrible little creature. That, of course, explains it all.
I wonder why God set him free, let him walk all over Earth corrupting us.
Furthermore, I wonder if you might not be Satan's agent trying to corrupt us and make us think that some of our fellow humans are second rank humans that don't deserve the same rights we already have.

Yes, I do agree that actions depend on choices, but if the basis of the choice is not bad and the action hurts no one, there's nothing you can condemn about it.
So, homosexuality is NOT a choice, but having sex with men IS; up to that, we have an agreement... I still can't see why or how that make homosexuals second rank people.

Agreed, also, that public service demands highest standards of honour, courage, rectitude,... but what are BETTER morals? WHO'S better morals?
Moral is something created by each culture, in a period of time. In Europe, not long ago, death penalty was OK, now it's highly inmoral and they look upon us just like we would look upon the cavemen.
If you are refering to God's moral, He will judge us all in due time.
And not only do you, as you say, not condemn homosexuality, but you must, following Jesus, condemn, forgive and love those who BEHAVE homosexual.

Have to be going... I'll follow this line of thought later when I can get back online and will try, not to convince you, for that is just as impossible as your convincing me, but to refute your arguments.

Posted by: Daniel Kushrenada at March 2, 2006 02:13 AM

DK, if you do not believe the bible is the inerrant word of God, then we do not have common ground within which to have a discussion. Yes the pen was put to parchment by man, but was done so under God's conviction and purpose. Therefore the Word is His.

As for the food anology read Acts 10:9-16.

I have not and do not consider homosexuals to be subhuman or second class citizens. They are children of God who are to be loved the same as anyone else. God, not me, said that the homosexual act is sinful. Do you profess to argue with God? You may reason away, but His word does not change.

Yes, Satan is real. Jesus told us we are at war with principalities (Satan). Denying the existance of and the work of Satan is a head in the sand dodge of reality.

Jesus saved the woman from stoning by convicting her accusers of their sins. He said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." He saved Mary the prostitute at the well by saying, "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more." Jesus was not about absolution or exoneration, He was about love, repentence and forgiveness. He loves the sinner, but condemns the sin. I have no problems with loving the homosexual (in a Christian sense) and witnessing about God's grace and Jesus' atoning death, etc. But my Christian love does equal God's forgiveness, that's God's business.

Got to run, perhaps more latter.

Posted by: Old Soldier at March 2, 2006 07:43 AM