Looking at others doesn't make you gay, but the desire to look at other men's junk might mean you have some reflecting to do. lol (Don't take offense, I'm just trying to keep things light.) It's one thing to notice, it's another to look on purpose.

I might think a woman is attractive, but it's not appropriate for me to stare at her goods in respect to her own privacy. I have nothing to hide either, but there is nothing wrong or self-conscious about respecting privacy about your own body or others'.

I am going to have to defend gays here for a second. How are they a distraction? Are they going to be having anal sex on duty? Or misplace their rifle with a double sided dildo?

Like you said the only distraction is the person who takes it wrongly, and in that case they become the distraction over the gay.

Sorry in advance if the examples I used are a bit over the edge.

Easy solution, have a whole company/ squad or whatever of gays, then there will be no distractions or arguments/ confrontations etc. They could call themselves Easy company or The Pink Panthas :lol:

I am somewhere in the middle between evolution and a 'god believing' person, but feel that both are fundamentally flawed, more so with religion... so maybe we aren't so different in our view points afterall, as we may have previously thought Texas. :smile: I dismiss religion as dangerous and is a sort of 'perversion' of God or the 'Universe' I like to call it now, word God has been far over used, abused, and has no meaning now, IMO. I think we are the Universe in 'expression', not seperate, but one, and the Universe is "energy and consciencenous". That is one thing that I think that many scientists can agree with. On the part of evolution, it is the means by which the Universe is expressed. Anyways, enough blabbering on my part, i'm sure none of you want to hear it.


Back to topic,
Look at history, when have we had more gays in our society than now? Look at other countries, what countries have significantly more gays than other? There is something at play here that is not merely geographical or genetic. Take Iran for example, not going to start a debate on the matter, but they don't really have much of any gay/lesbian people there at all, whether you support their society lifestyle or not, it is exactly that, an issue of society/lifestyle, the way a country is run, the food they eat, the media they watch, education they receive, religious influence,etc, etc. I really think it is a choice of the individual based on these influences through and through, nothing more.

Hahaha...I live in Sydney & find these discussions pretty funny. Sydney is a very accepting place to live

Human sexuality is a broad spectrum that can't be defined as this or that because the reality isn't that way at all. Sure more gay people choose to live more openly these days...might have something to do with not being publicly persecuted (although I'm sure it still happens a lot, especially in smaller communities)

I've had gay neighbours, work with gay people, have very good friends who are. I also accept that there's many other people I know who's sexuality is different again...doesn't really bother me. I prefer to look at the person rather than who they may choose as a partner of the experiences the may have wanted to have

That was the point. I'm sure the gay person isn't going to be the one causing the problem. I'm sure they are just there to serve and won't be oogling or making passes at any of their fellow soldiers. I'd assume most aren't the flamboyant type either. Its the reaction of others to the fact that person is gay, that will cause the problem.

Predicting that reaction is almost impossible also, given the wide array of people who serve. It could be anything from nothing, to not inviting them to a strip club, jokes about them behind their back or otherwise, taunting, sabotage, to violence. Another major concern for the military, especially for those on tour, is morale. Because even if everyone "tolerates" openly gay persons serving, if their reaction is still jokes and taunts, the morale of more than one person can suffer. Those who support the gay person or just intervene, may come under attack too. Whether its a physical attack or not morale still suffers.

I'm not saying this will happen. But there are people in this country taking their grade school children to anti-gay rallies and teaching them various slurs to speak into TV cameras, so it certainly could.

I could give a frak what gay people want to do (or anyone else for that matter.) If they want to join the military, by all means please do. Goes the same for marriage. You want to do it, you're an adult, you're not forcing people into it, and you are not directly hurting anybody, then you should be able to enjoy all the freedoms everyone is entitled to in the country.
Discriminating against somebody is an invitation for yourself to be discriminated against imo.

As far as evolution and nature/nurture goes;
Sure, there is a lesbian chic and metro dude thing going on now, and there are some people who turn to the same sex after suffering abuse, but I don't think that constitutes the majority of the gay population. Truth is being gay sucks. Who wants to chose to be a social outcast and not being able to live openly and having freedoms restricted?
Homosexuality has been found throughout history is prevalent in all the cultures I know of, even very repressive ones that. Just week from the African nation of Malawi:
"A judge in Malawi has imposed a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison with hard labour on a gay couple convicted of gross indecency and unnatural acts.

The judge said he wanted to protect the public from "people like you"."

Strict laws in Kenya, Egypt, Iran, and Uganda is threatening to make it a capital crime. Yet gay populations persist. Why would anyone choose this?
I knew a kid from HS that ended up hanging himself as he was gay, didn't want to come out, and hated himself (as he wrote in his suicide letter.) F'd up man.

Evolution does not disprove gayness, as there are a lot of inherted traits and genetic expressions that are directly harmful to an individual's fecundity, but are conserved as the trait provides an advantage of the group. IOW, evolution is not limited by the boundaries of our imagination.

Take menopause for example. Women begin to have chances of birth defects rise exponentially from the age of ~30, where by 40, chances of failed pregnancies or abnormal children is likely. If evolution only played on individual fitness, then this trait should not persist. However, it may be more advantageous for the group for this individual female to stop her own reproduction an instead function as a matriarch or other role than is more beneficial to the group, even tho at her own expense.

Basically one needs to be very careful in assigning evolutionary directives or causes to traits or behaviors, as it depends on a limited human understanding of the genetic interactions and selection forces, which is often beyond our ability to easily comprehend.

14000 servicemembers have been dismissed under DADT btw. That's a lot of patriotic gay people.

One thing I don't agree with is that gay/lesbian couples can adopt or have kids (unless the child was born from a "normal" relationship before they turned/decided/found out to be gay). It's one thing to live one's life the way they want, but to subject the kid to "gay bias" while growing up is another. Comes down to what is "biologically correct". Again, this is just my opinion...

Completely agree with that. That should not be allowed at all.

I don't particularly agree with homosexual couples adopting children, however due to our lack of a normal American role. Or lack of a normal way of life. Combined with the law system we have created in America. There is nothing we really can do to prevent this. However who are we to say that that child is not better off in terms of an education and health. Yes there will be a psychological error in terms of what a normal partner represents, but with out them adopting that child where would it have called home?

lol, clearly because we need to save those poor kids for Madonna, Kristie Alley and Jane Fonda.

Yeah no kidding, that's another thing.

If the choice was between abusive hetrosexual parenting & loving, caring homosexual parenting, I suspect all of would prefer the loving, caring parent. Just an example...

I understand the argument for conventional nuclear families - I have one after all but I think sometimes we need to look deeper than our own personal ideals to find what may in fact be a viable alternative

I know a lesbian couple looking to conceive a child...you'd never guess their sexuality if you met them, they have a great relationship, they will be great parents...it seems strange but the child (assuming they conceive) will be loved & have everything that any other child will have. Mum & ....er, Mum have thought through all the issues & have good strategies. I honestly believe they are doing the right thing & their child will be whoever it wants to be

I know another lesbian couple. No plans for kids, living life to the full & incredibly good looking - seriously hot...horses for courses!

I would have to agree as well...I mean you CHOOSE a lifestyle that prevents you from being able to have your own kids, yet you still want them? Not to mention what you mentioned. My ex's mom was a lesbian (which is why she divorced my ex's father) and it had a stange effect on her.