Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Washington Times' disgusting DADT editorial

Adam Serwer is a staff writer for The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.

Last week, I wrote that the case against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell "relies largely on an archaic, rapidly diminishing cultural revulsion toward homosexuality." This morning, The Washington Times shows you what that revulsion looks like, with an editorial titled, "Queer eye for the G.I."

The destructive force unleashed by the Pentagon's collaboration with the leftist agenda is apparent from the circus created when homosexual activists like Dan Choi sashayed over to the Times Square recruiting center to make a political point in the short period in which the Phillips order was effective. Leftists are only interested in political points and symbolism here. Providing defense to the nation in the most effective way possible is the furthest thing from their mind. Treating military recruitment primarily as a diversity issue opens up a closet full of absurdities. On what basis, then, would the military discriminate against the elderly? Why can't grandpa become a paratrooper? Should the military not reject someone merely because he is handicapped? Why not a wheelchair-bound infantryman?

The idea that homosexuality is akin to a physical disability is self-evidently absurd -- the military doesn't prevent gays and lesbians from serving, just serving openly. The question of whether or not gays and lesbians are physically capable of doing so isn't even at issue. It's not just the Times making this silly argument either--Republican Sean Bielat, who is challenging openly gay Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank using a blatantly homophobic ad campaign, recently said "I don't see anybody protesting" the fact that men under 5'2 aren't allowed to serve.

Look, I could point you to the empirical evidence showing DADT discharges slowing after 2001 when the military stopping being able to take recruits for granted. I could point out that countries like Israel allow gay troops to serve openly. I could mention the $95 million the Government Accountability Office estimated it would have cost to replace already discharged servicemembers back in 2005. I could point out the distinction between "task cohesion" and "social cohesion," adding that while the latter is affected by allowing openly gay and lesbian servicemembers, the former is not and it is the only factor that actually influences unit effectiveness. I could even go the public opinion route, and cite the fact that most Americans want the policy repealed, meaning that it's hard to characterize this as the pet project of a few LGBT rights activists. Those opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly comprise shrinking homophobic fringe whose disproportionate influence is a result of the anti-majoritarian structure of the U.S. Senate.

But that would all be useless. Because Judge Virginia Phillips already made most of those points in her ruling overturning the policy, and the Times editorial board didn't address any of them. That's because The Washington Times isn't making an empirical or rational argument, it's just counting on the reader being as frightened and hateful as they are.

There's no response to that, other than disgust.

 

By Adam Serwer  | October 25, 2010; 10:45 AM ET
Categories:  gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Morning Plum
Next: Are Dems really scapegoating outside groups?

Comments

It's not akin to a physical disability, but that's not what the editorial is saying. It is worth, however, asking about the logical implications of getting rid of this ban. What is "disgusting" (in my opinion) is the hatred for anyone who points out the downfall of deviant sexual behavior.

By the way, what about OBAMA appealing the judge's decision? Are you okay with that?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 25, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"The idea that homosexuality is akin to a physical disability is self-evidently absurd"
-----------------------------------------

True. It is a mental abnormality. Not physical.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 25, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Greg, I saw this comment over the weekend:

******

So the issue is that people want to preserve real time commenting?

Also, one other decision: Re laying out rules for hostility, here's the deal, as of today: We reserve the right to determine who is posting with intent to harass and who isn't.

Right now, if I see any more multiple postings in a row, thread bombings, overuse of capital letters, that person will be banned within a day. You've been warned.

Posted by: sargegreg | October 24, 2010 6:48 PM

*********

Thank you! Amen!

But really Greg, the problem was one guy. He may have had a dozen different sock puppets, but it was just one guy who was out to ruin it for the rest of us.

Posted by: nisleib | October 25, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"By the way, what about OBAMA appealing the judge's decision? Are you okay with that?"

No one should be.

But the most logical defense I've heard is that if Obamacare should lose in court and Obama be out of office then he wants to be sure that any incoming admin would fight for this law based on this tradition (admin defends congressional law as constitutional in court).

Posted by: sbj3 | October 25, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

The Democrat party is 110% pro-homosexual and every time the Democrats rule the homosexuals go on a full frontal charge to homosexualize everything.

Every time, the Democrats go into a nose dive. If the homosexual agenda was as universally loved as you guys pretend it is, Democrats could ride the homosexual wave of good feelings right to the ballot box and re-elections for all.

Truth is, America does not like it one bit.

It's just another of many reasons Democrats are about to be given the bums rush........again!

One of the other biggies that curses Democrats is that outlaw "immigrant" thing. Get with the program people!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 25, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

"The Democrat party is 110% pro-homosexual."

If only that were true!

Posted by: sbj3 | October 25, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I've noticed that no one here actually addresses the points that the writer makes. Can any of you actually defend your position against gays serving openly?

As for homosexuality being "deviant" behavior, well, have any of you ever opened an anthropology or a human sexuality textbook? Homosexual behavior is universal throughout the human and animal world. A bizarre phobia of it is the only thing that is deviant.

But again, this isn't the subject of discussion and, we're not trying to avoid the issues in the article, are we?

Posted by: jv1759 | October 25, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

"a full frontal charge to homosexualize everything."

B'ground, why are you against everything becoming fabulous?

Oh, that's right, fear.

Also, don't you think your desire to give the Dems the "bum rush" in the election is saying a little more about your desire than you intended?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 25, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Do people honestly think that having an "openly gay" infantry platoon leader or company commander would have no negative impact on that unit's soldiers and NCOs? Of course it would. It would be an absolute nightmare and there is no need to undermine national security so that gays can feel better about being public about their sex lives. DADT avoids that problem and does not discriminate -- with DADT, gays can serve but they don't put the country at risk when doing so.

Posted by: sigfriedallen | October 25, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"Of course it would."

Hey, ruk, when you were in Vietnam humping through the jungle, would you rather have had an Lt who was gay or who was a frigging idiot?

I'm gonna guess you'd rather stay alive than worry about whether your commanding officer really dug chicks or not.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 25, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Go back 60 years -

Do people honestly think that having an "openly gay" (BLACK) infantry platoon leader or company commander would have no negative impact on that unit's soldiers and NCOs? Of course it would. It would be an absolute nightmare and there is no need to undermine national security so that gays (BLACKS) can feel better about being public about their sex lives (the color od their skin). DADT (SEGREGATION) avoids that problem and does not discriminate -- with DADT (SEGREGATION), gays (BLACKS) can serve but they don't put the country at risk when doing so.

Posted by: sigfriedallen | October 25, 2010 11:27 AM

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 25, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Prag, see also sports, black quarterbacks, coaches.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 25, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

All, my response to Politico story saying Dems are using outside money as an "excuse":

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/are_dems_scapegoating_outside.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 25, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: jv1759 "I've noticed that no one here actually addresses the points that the writer makes. "

-----------------------------------------
Sorry, I can't fix your illiteracy. Maybe, study up on what it means when someone quotes the author and then addresses it? I don't know. You have to fix your own deficiencies yourself.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 25, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

what a surprise -- every self-loathing, closeted fudgepacker rightwingnut has posted on this board already.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 25, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Times still exists?!?

Posted by: gmart68b | October 25, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I agree that homosexuality is a mental abnormality. But so is having a genius IQ. the ability to speak 5 languages, and having perfect pitch or a photographic memory. Sadly, the vast majority of people are very average (given that that's essentially the definition of normal).

The USA is an exceptional country, and its military is abnormally competent and successful. "Normal" is a horrible criterion to use when deciding who we want to defend our country. We should be looking only at a person's ability to contribute positively to our abnormally awesome country's defense.

Posted by: GregoryOR | October 25, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: GregoryOR: "I agree that homosexuality is a mental abnormality. But so is having a genius IQ. ..."
--------------------------------------

Correct. But extend the "abnormality" of a high IQ to all and that is good for the species. Extend the homo abnormality to all and the human race wouldn't exist.

However, libs aren't known for the use of logic but, for the use of emotion.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 25, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"Extend the homo abnormality to all and the human race wouldn't exist."

So, you don't want gays in the military because in the off-chance everyone becomes homosexual the human race will cease to exist? Yeah, that's logical....

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 25, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"However, libs aren't known for the use of logic but, for the use of emotion.


Posted by: illogicbuster | October 25, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse"

What a hilarious comment in light of the frothing response from you teabag wingnuts to anything having to do with gay people.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 25, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

@sigfriedallen: "Do people honestly think that having an "openly gay" infantry platoon leader or company commander would have no negative impact on that unit's soldiers and NCOs? Of course it would."

I'm not sure that that actually follows, as night follows day, so inevitably. What's the actual evidence of that, other than a personal discomfort with homosexuals?

@illogicbuster: "Correct. But extend the 'abnormality' of a high IQ to all and that is good for the species. Extend the homo abnormality to all and the human race wouldn't exist."

That's actually wrong on both counts. Folks who are extremely intelligent tend to be extremely intelligent (genius level) in certain areas, while neglecting important areas of life. Ergo, we might have a unified field theory, while starving to death because the mundane tasks of hunting and gathering provided inadequate mental stimulation.

But, more to the point, homosexuals are entirely capable of reproducing. Numerous lesbians have conceived, and brought children to term, and then raised them. Many homosexual men have fathered children, many of them in the most direct way possible--by fornication with a real, live lady. Indeed, there have been, it turns out, a fair amount of gay men who are married with children.

So, it's unlikely that homosexuality, extended to homogeneity, would spell the end of the human race. Indeed, in that respect, birth control and a popular culture that rewards indulgence but not child rearing would seem much more pernicious threats.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: schrodingerscat" "So, you don't want gays in the military because"

--------------------------------------
LMAO! You're as illiterate as the other libs here. Where did I say I opposed gays in the military? If you can't find where I said that, at least admit your illiteracy. Okay?

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 25, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

@Observer: "what a surprise -- every self-loathing, closeted fudgepacker rightwingnut has posted on this board already."

Hmm. I think your homophobia is showing.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I spent 10 years in the Marine Corps infantry. What mattered to me - and to every Marine I knew - was that my fellow Marines were Marines. I didn't care where they were from, what color they were, how rich they were, or whether they were attracted to men or women (and yes, I served with gay Marines). Anyone who thinks sexuality matters more to a Marine than professional competence and discipline doesn't understand the Marine Corps - and worst of all, they use Marines as an excuse for their bigotry. Sorry bigots, that's not why we serve.

Posted by: ncooty | October 25, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Kevin_Willis "That's actually wrong on both counts. Folks who are extremely intelligent tend to be extremely intelligent (genius level) in certain areas, while neglecting important areas of life. "
------------------------------------------

REALLY? So, you MUST have to hand, the MULTIPLE scientific studies to back up this made up claim?

Let's see them...

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 25, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ncooty: "Anyone who thinks sexuality matters more to a Marine than professional competence and discipline doesn't understand the Marine Corps - and worst of all, they use Marines as an excuse for their bigotry. Sorry bigots, that's not why we serve."
----------------------------------------

Well said ncooty.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 25, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

@illogicbuster: "REALLY? So, you MUST have to hand, the MULTIPLE scientific studies to back up this made up claim?"

Alas, I left them in my other pants. Although I could recommend any biography of Albert Einstein as one anecdotal example.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"Where did I say I opposed gays in the military?"

I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that you would not want a military full of mentally "abnormal" (your word, not mine) soldiers who are not "good for the species". My bad.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 25, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Kevin_Willis: Alas, I left them in my other pants. "

----------------------------------------
Just kidding. I already knew you were making up stuff because you had nothing real & valid to refute with. As a lib you CAN learn to use logic and not rely on emotion, which causes you to lie. It's a tough road I hear but, one well worth walking.

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 25, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat said: "I assumed (apparently incorrectly)"
--------------------------------------

That's the danger of using emotion rather than logic. You see things that aren't there as they only exist in your mind. But, keep working on it.

ciao

Posted by: illogicbuster | October 25, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"So, you MUST have to hand, the MULTIPLE scientific studies to back up this made up claim?"

From everything I've read, Kevin's correct. We just got that very same lecture from the gifted teachers at my daughter's school. It's also why there are always huge disclaimers on IQ tests downplaying the results as any sort of predictor of potential success, ambition, interest, etc.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 25, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

illogicbuster wrote:
"It [homosexuality] is a mental abnormality. Not physical."

------------------------------

Two questions:

1) What do you mean by "mental abnormality"? The American Psychological Association (of which I'm a professional member) does not recognize homosexuality as an abnormal psychological condition (though perhaps the professional use is more specific than you intend). If you just mean that it's not sufficiently prevalent, what is your cut-off for sufficient prevalence to allow service? (Keep in mind that we allow citizens with ADHD, PTSD, near-sightedness, sterility, and other "abnormalities" to serve in the military. In fact, as you have recognized, DADT allows homosexuals to serve already, just not openly. So you seem to argue that it is not the "condition" but the openness of the "condition" that will harm us.)

2) You distinguish between mental and physical abnormalities. Which mental abnormalities or functions do not have physical manifestations?

Posted by: ncooty | October 25, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

@illogicbuster: "Just kidding. I already knew you were making up stuff because you had nothing real & valid to refute with."

Dude, I provide as much academic refutation as you do. If you disagree, that's fine, but both my direct experience, and much of what I have read regarding folks with genius level IQs, suggest that there is a tradeoff involved.

Or, perhaps you believe that sometimes there is, in fact, a completely free lunch?

"As a lib you CAN learn to use logic and not rely on emotion,"

Um, I'm pretty sure I rely less on emotion than . . . well, you, for example, as I generally make simple refutations or ask questions (as opposed to making sweeping pronouncements about people I don't know from Adam) using all CAPS.

Also, I'm not a liberal. Not sure if you're thus characterizing me, or launching into a professorial non-sequitur, but in case you were confused, I thought I'd straighten you out.

"which causes you to lie."

Well, while Ethan2010 would agree with you, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. It's not a lie. It's a statement of what I have read and personally encountered, informed by my opinion. And a belief that there are always trade. I may, in fact, be wrong, and it's even likely that it's incomplete, given the limitations of time and characters involved in blog commenting. However, to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying suggests that, perhaps, you are relying on emotion and not logic. Because pure logic should lead you, in fact, to a more rational, if less emotionally gratifying, conclusion.

"It's a tough road I hear but, one well worth walking."

Indeed. You should give it a try sometime. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

illogicbuster is still claiming to be "logical"? Too funny. But typical with rightwingnuts and teatards -- they just deem words they like to use to mean whatever they want.

Posted by: Observer691 | October 25, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"As a lib you CAN learn to use logic and not rely on emotion, which causes you to lie."

Hey, Kev! Glad to have you on board! When did that happen? I guess it was all that LOGIC and not emotion that led him/she/it to assume you weren't a conservative, eh?

"You see things that aren't there as they only exist in your mind."

Kind of like how Kev's a "lib", right?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 25, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

@schrodinger: "Hey, Kev! Glad to have you on board! When did that happen? I guess it was all that LOGIC and not emotion that led him/she/it to assume you weren't a conservative, eh?"

As I told you, I am familiar with right-of-center litmus tests. I am, as it turns out, highly impure. Ideologically speaking.

:)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 25, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Some rightwing nimrod said: "homosexualize everything."

How funny is that. What a backwater, red(neck) state comment.

Posted by: darrren12000 | October 25, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

There's still a Washington Times? Wow, who knew?

Posted by: 54465446 | October 25, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Most of the arguments I see are ones of extremism. I do *not* support the LGBT lifestyle as being correct. However, I *do* support (in as much as possible) allowing people to make their own mistakes and even "pursue their damage" to their own detriment and even some minimal intrusion into others' vision of what society "should" be. DADT is where we are at, and it is there for good reason, in my estimation. However, the one Judge making the most sense is not even in the mix that most people will talk about. The Judge I am talking about is U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton, who ruled quite well in the case of Margaret Witt as best as I can see. But that is off subject, although a good tangent.

"Treating military recruitment primarily as a diversity issue opens up a closet full of absurdities. On what basis, then, would the military discriminate against the elderly? Why can't grandpa become a paratrooper? Should the military not reject someone merely because he is handicapped? Why not a wheelchair-bound infantryman?"

Greg, I see your point about this not being written very well. It should have been using examples such as Pedophiles, Hypochondriacs, Pyromaniacs, Kleptomaniacs, and others like that who say "they have no choice" and "they were born that way" as the foil to which to compare Homosexuality to.

These "disabilities" (damage, as I call it) are more in line with the Homosexual lifestyle. I can see anyone with those disabilities serving in the Military, as long as their particular damage does *not* make an appearance of any significant kind. That is kind of what DADT is all about, albeit with the twist that these other groups (for the most part -- I am ignoring NAMBLA and others like that) are not accepted enough for them to feel empowered to push for a the level of acceptance to allow them to be "free to be and express themselves" as they want to.

"I could point out the distinction between "task cohesion" and "social cohesion," adding that while the latter is affected by allowing openly gay and lesbian servicemembers, the former is not and it is the only factor that actually influences unit effectiveness."

Although I will grant you most of the other arguments, I think you are 100% wrong here. However, most who have not served will buy that, so it has traction with the Majority of Americans. In "some" cases, (like that of Margaret Witt) I think such *is* the case. However, that is *because* in her case, she had "played well" with her comrades in arms, and *despite* the fact that she was a Lesbian and known as such within a small circle, she achieved a level of "social cohesion" within her group that will *not* be established by making a Law that it "will be so" as if such a decree has any weight on the human heart.

In time, this can be done. Done all at once *invites* Flamers and Activists like Lt. Dan Choi to act out in their "Loud and Proud" ways that *will* impact "task cohesion" negatively.

Think about it.

;'{P~~~

Posted by: Clearbrook | October 25, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Let's cut to the chase shall we?

Homosexuality is not benign or harmless. I have known dozens of homosexuals over a long period of time and most of them are dysfunctional. A lot of them do indeed have issues with their mothers and are hostile to women. The gay culture is infested with drug abuse and sexual abuse. Despite knowing how the Aids virus is transmitted, gay men still practice unsafe sex. Gay men lust after straight men that they think are cute, even going so far as to pick them up with ruses like promises of employment. Their personal conversations about straight men would disgust most men.

That said, there are a minority who lead relatively normal lives with or without gay partners, have steady jobs or run their own businesses, don't do drugs or frequent gay bars. Their personal lives are not on display in the public.

I have no idea why some men and women prefer to have sexual relations with members of their own sex and I don't care what the reason is. What I object to is the behavior of gay men and women and the in-your-face attitude of many gays and lesbians. As my 18 year old son says, ok, we get that you are gay, so shut up about it.

As for the military and DADT, this seems like a decent response to what should be a non-issue. A person's sexuality is private and should be of no consequence in the military, or elsewhere for that matter. Why is it so important that the military allow gay men and women to advertise their sexuality? Isn't it important that we judge people by their character and not whether they are male or female or gay or what color their skin happens to be?

If a gay man is qualified in all respects just like anyone else to serve in the military then of course he should. His sexuality is personal, in the same way that the sexuality of all soldiers is personal.

Posted by: sgi1 | October 25, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"Those opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly comprise shrinking homophobic fringe"

I believe you're mistaken about this Adam.

I'm not a homophobe but I'm not blind to the challenges that gays and lesbians face and create either.

DADT exists to protect the privacy rights of heterosexuals. It is illegal to force a person to be naked at work in front of anyone who could become sexually or romatically attracted to him or her. That's why there is sex-segregation of males and females.

Remove DADT and you either have to bully and ridicule every heterosexual out of asserting his or her rights, or you have to provide private sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas for each soldier.

Radicals will fail to bully everyone into silence (although they are making a heroic effort at just that)... so the days of billeting soldiers on the cheap are over.

Posted by: blasmaic | October 25, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Well, it's nice that the ALLCAPS guy is gone. Now the comments are just half a dozen people bickering quietly.

Posted by: hellslittlestangel1 | October 25, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

We need to boycott the WT for the right rag that they are. Do the Moonies still own it?

Posted by: jcooper968 | October 26, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

Posted by: shadow_man | October 28, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.


And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Posted by: shadow_man | October 28, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Posted by: shadow_man | October 28, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Posted by: shadow_man | October 28, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company