What a sad, truly sad statement about our homophobic way of thinking!

Citations are not synopises done by you. Nor are they urban legends found on the internet. If you actually had any education on this subject you would know that many animals practice homosexual behavior for part of the year and heterosexual behavior for the other part. Some birds, geese especially, tend to mate for life and that includes gay pairs. Big horn sheep live in sex segregated herds except during mating season when some of the rams go with the ewes before returning to the all male herd and engaging in homosexual sex. What Bagemihl's book shows is that sex for procreation is only a small part of animal's sexuality--just as with people.

Religious judgment is nonsense.

The more you explain the more clear your ignorance becomes. Read up on this subject before you debate it.

So, I'm thinking that heteros are no more likely to take advantage of coed barracks than homosexuals. There is no proof for that. It is merely an assumption. And I think it is a bigoted one at that.

Coed barracks should come along with any repeal of DADT. Just like polygamists should be granted marriage rights at the same time GLBTs might get them. Anything else in either case woud be reverse descrimination.

You apparently aren't familiar with both sides, I note that you have not presented any citations and I'm guessing the you haven't read the book either.

My situation? Being trans? That has nothing to do with sexual orientation, we have all the same choices that everyone else has.

I'm okay with polygamy, but men should live separate from women. At least that way they would be housed with equals--or as close as we can get.

Mare, I agree that men and women in the service should not be housed together.

I think its because of the "general" sexual attraction, why do you think it should be seperate?

I am not saying every guy will be lusting after every girl or visa versa, its not always or even usually about lust. Its just an odd feeling for some to dress/shower with others that have a "general" attraction to them even if its not a personal attraction to that person.

Why do you think men/women should house seperate?

Men have shown themselves to be unreliable in the presence of women, women will feel very threatened sleeping, dressing, and showering with a group of men. If it could be guaranteed that there would always be a large group of women and just a few men that would make it safer, but you and I know that sometimes it will be one or two women and a group of men.

As I noted to Siho, men and women are vastly different in strength as a general rule so housing them together makes for trouble. Men housed with men or women housed with women is a whole lot safer for the women. We all know that gays will still be a tiny minority in any platoon, they aren't going to be raping anybody as frequently as men rape women. In fact gay men will often come to the rescue of a woman in trouble with other men.

Will some people be uncomfortable showering with people of the same gender who may find them sexually attractive? Yep, but in every locker room on the planet that is already the case, knowing who is and who isn't might even make you feel safer because you'll know who to watch out for in the shower if you drop the soap.

Hmmm , You not only rewrite the Bible, you also can read my mind.
Now, as for animals having sex with the same sex animal , I see nothing really wrong with that, now on the farm I did turn the hose on a dog or two who were "locked up".
However , I was never tempted to duplicate their homosexual conduct. I believe because my creator wisely elevated the character of man/woman to a much higher level than the animal , "MAN" avoided a natural urge to copy the sex lives of any animal. Those who do are breaking "Gods' Law" and that action is known as PERVERSION!- Case Closed!- Next!

WOW! You say 3 out of five women are assualted by a man in their lives!!
Since , in my entire life , I have never assualted any women and I suspect there are millions of other men just like me, that can only mean , if your stats are true, that many, many men are assualting the same woman!!
Please somebody call the police!!

MARE!!, Just because you may know something about anothers personal life or problems , or just think you know, is no valid reason for telling it!
Life on this earth can be very tough, even in the best of times, so what good does it do you or your victim to spread unkindness? Compassion is a virtue!

Hey Mare!!
Do YOU believe animals can sin? Did Jesus Christ die on the cross at Calavary for the Sins of Man, the Sins of animals? or both?

Do you believe Animals have the Power to "reason"?, as Man/ Woman does?
Do you believe GOD created Man/ Woman and Animal Life to be Equals? Or were Man/ Woman created in the Image of GOD and therefore Superior to all other creatures on this earth?

Hey Always, you're going a little overboard on the Bible thumping. Knock it off. Don't you know it's your ism vs Mare's? You both look whacked from my POV.

If we rely on the science behind homosexuality we find that one set of identical twins that grows up to be one lesbian and the other hetero instantly nullifies the theory that homosexuality is genetic. That's it. Done. Add to that [as if you needed to] that the gays themselves embrace a term called "Bi-curious" and you have them admitting not only that homosexuality isn't genetic, but that they're trying to lure people into their ism.

Yes, that's what it means.

Then add to those points [again as if you needed to] an entire industry that relies on sexual malleability to produce our food and keep our endangered species afloat via artificial insemination; where male animals are routinely fixated via classical conditioning [pairing environmental cues or stimuli to a reward in order to fixate a given behavior] to prefer dummy mounts or same-sexed "collection" mounts [to minimize injury to more valuable female animals].

Then study up on child psychology and read how we are the apex species of susceptibility to environmental cues in the formation of our personalities and behavioral patterns....I mean, the list goes on and on. On the side of homosexuality being an acquired sexual deviance [but also likely fixated** see AI industry] we have a mound of evidence the size of the moon. On the side of it being genetic we have virtually nothing but hopeful speculation. The Pfaus et al. study http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf supports exactly that environmental cues form sexual preference in numereous animal species. And yes silly people, we bleed, lactate, defecate and have mating cycles and tons of evidence to support our animalistic leanings so nix your pathetic retorts of 'we are not animals!". Yada yada. If that's your only rebuttal to this compelling amount of evidence then you'd better pack it up and surrender right now..lol..

So GIVEN that homosexuality is acquired, and may even contribute to an increase of itself via social-learning of homo sapiens via "norms" we had better err on the side of the preponderance of evidence and keep homosexuality in the light as what it is: an acquired social pathogen. They exist you know. Much like the evidence found in watching TV in youngsters. We can pass on wanted or unwanted behaviors via the spongy minds of youth. And just when someone reading this will cry "homophobe"! "hater!" etc., remember it is the gays, not I who embrace the word "Bi-curious"...


What does that mean exactly? Ah, an entire hidden universe in one little word..

Yes, dogtowner!! Kinda makes "Mares'" argument a nightmare for her?, huh

Another way of looking at the animal issue is that if we have a broad behavioral pattern among many species, we can better extrapolate it to humans. But at the same time we cannot assume it's genetic in animals. The Pfaus study is interesting in that I was amazed at how much cognition went into mate-selection across several species. There were indications that an animal's mother's coloring even influenced her offspring's decision on which mate to select.