Stealing clearly causes harm to a victim. You're comparing feelings of love to stealing.

God can require whatever the hell he wants. It has NOTHING to do with justifying how we judge the lifestyles and emotions of other human beings on this planet, or how we make them feel like shit about it, or even worse, continue a mindset in our society where these people can't even come out because they could end up being beaten or killed.

Seriously, why do people who need to insert their religious beliefs into conversations always get so upset and worked up about homosexuality? The Bible condemns a thousand different things, and yet I never hear talk about it. They can justify ENDING A HUMAN LIFE over and over again, and yet they can't get over the fact that some guys happen to be attracted to other guys. It blows my fucking mind.

---

Mass, it seems like that because it is the topic de jour.

I am pretty sure most religious people are against ending human life.

---

But there are countless circumstances in which they would justify it. War. Anti-terrorism. Self defense. etc. etc. etc. Yet I have never seen people who are against homosexuality accept it under any circumstances, e.g. a couple who have loved each other and remained faithful for 20 years. Killing someone is a sometimes sin. Loving someone of the same sex is an always sin. I just don't understand why.

---

Because they themselves don't understand it and by human nature, we shouldn't like what we don't understand???

---

My feeling has long been that I have a hard time believing that God worries about what people do with the dangly bits far less than people do. Or at least he does since he decided to inspire the New Testament.

Or to put it on (slightly) higher theological ground: God will likely waive our Old Testament problems if we have the faith required by the Gospel. But even if we do avoid all the annoying bits in the Pentateuch, we ain't going anywhere but the warm place if we don't have that faith.

---

Well said, Kevin.
+1

Although I'd rather have them kill the other son of a bitch for our freedom. ;)

(see if anyone gets that reference).

---

It's no accident that the General that was roundly criticized for his remarks about gays in the military was a Marine. General Pace subsequently said that his viewpoint was a personal one, but he never did apologize for what he said. I think he called it "immoral" or somesuch.

His remarks were reflective of his subordinates point of view, to a much larger degree than any of them would ever admit.

Marine Officers continue to contribute articles in the Marine Corps Gazette about the "tragedy" of breaking up H style barracks and placing the troops in BEQ's. This "tragedy" was a "loss of unit integrity."

The process took decades to accomplish. For those that don't what what those are, and "H" barracks is a traditional military living arrangement where each "leg" of the "H" would hold approximately 100 men, with the horizontal part of the "H" holding administration, Staff NCO's, restrooms, etc.

Congress would build BEQ's (Bachelor Enlisted Quarters) The grunts wouldnt move in. It started out with NCO's of other units getting them instead. Congress would build more. The non-rated guys from other units would move into those. Congress would build more. Instead of the grunts moving in, they went to non-rated guys from other units going one to a room. (Most were designed to hold 4)

They did not want the infantry guys in those rooms. They wanted them in that "H", with the fire watch, eyes on supervision 24/7 etc. Like I said, it took decades for the Marine Officers of those line units to finally "accept" what to any "normal" person is simply improved living conditions for their men. In the meantime, the men became further resentful of everyone else...The wing-wipers and supply guys living in hotel-type accommodations while they are sleeping, shitting, showering "asshole to elbow"---just further "proof" to them that they were constantly being "intentially fucked-over" The "mob" is an "us against everyone else" and they created their own "rules."-- One of which is no gays (Marines--Navy Corpsmen OK to be gay)

They had another "rule". You do not salute female officers. You avoid them when possible. You walk across the street if one is approaching you.
They (the female officer) "knows" what you are doing, and generally (almost universally) accepts it for what it is. It is an "unfortunate circumstance" if you pass a female officer and fail to salute. She will probably "light you up" as an enlisted man, but if she brings charges, the odds are 99/100 they will not stick.

It's like the various "codes" in a prison. The commanding officer knows damn well that his lance corporal "cannot" salute her, so he's going to bend over backwards trying to get the officer to drop the charges. Most WM officers know damn well that they "can't" be saluted by grunt enlisted men and just "let it go", or more accurately, they will chew the shit out of the kid, almost invariably wanting to know what unit he's in...As soon as she hears something like, "Weapons platoon, Delta Company, 1/5"--An ass-chewing is all she's gonna get out of the deal.

I bring you this little piece of trivia to try and further explain just how weirdly and profoundly traditional they roll, and I also know that the Army units similar in nature "roll" quite the same way. My female officer example is just one of those very strange and seemingly contradictory things I saw in the Corps. This is a place where respect for authority is paramount---just not as regards my "example"--

She will get a picture perfect salute from that very same kid---IF no one else is there to see it. Grunt-wise...

Like I said, it is very, very hard to explain.

One of them (Gates, one of the Generals)-someone...said
We need to go slow--"
The last thing that should happen is that they make the changes because the President said so--He is the ultimate "REMF" to them (grunts)...Some would say, well, just "suck it up" and accept it...

This is what they would do--at least on the surface, but if they didn't "actually" suck it up..."training accidents" will be the result. I'm not saying it's right---again---I'm saying it's "how it is." That is different.

One of the biggest hypocrisies of all branches of religion is war itself.

The good book, no matter the interpretation has clearly dictated that one shall not kill.. yet there isn't a single religion that hasn't waged war for one reason or another, cloaked under the shield of their color... they all have spilled blood for their cause.

So color me indifferent when you try to build the argument that homosexuality is an ultimate sin according to our interpretation.

The day a person can justify breaking one of the 10 commandments without prejudice is the day I will reconsider the damnation of homosexuality.

The very question that lead to me getting booted from the Catholic classes at our church.. albeit it had circumstances of the father openly chastising one of my childhood friends for her way, one that should have remained confidential between the two parties.. try explaining that to your strict Catholic parents.. why their son got booted from class.... lol.. The questions that followed where classic..

Anyway.. the military, from my fathers stories and a couple buddies is a different culture.. a pack type culture.. one that frowns on those that stray from the perceived order and way. Think the NFL is non forgiving in these terms.. by story this would be 10 fold.

---

Every war has been because of religion.

---

Whilst I do think that "coming out" in places/organisations that have a projected general reputation for Machisimo shows an inefficiency in social engineering, it does go without saying that the reception and reaction to the revelation of sexual orientation should not be linked.

The reaction shouldn't be the way it is, a trivial matter such as sexual orientation should be treated with indifference.

It isn't, but that doesn't mean a homosexual man deserves to be ripped on emotionally and physically for revealing something that does not effect anything.

If someone makes another person feel uncomfortable by flirting/suggesting however, that deserves retaliation. If people can accept sexual orientation, there is no place for using it as a tool to make another feel awkward.

The fear of being openly homosexual stretches into organised proffessional sports. The one soccer player who came out during his career got massacred, and ended up a suicide victim.

That Samoan dude whose name I cannot remember only came out after the end of his NFL career, it's the way shit is.

Nobody deserves to be castigated for their sexual orientation, but, it happens, will happen and won't change.

---