The General is absolutely correct. From a Darwinian standpoint, it is obvious.

Could you please explain your use of a "Darwinian Standpoint"?

Are you stating that because gay's don't help to propogate the species that it is by that "darwinian standpoint" alone immoral?

Do you personally agree with this statment?

Ben

I don't see how biology and evolution can be moral or imoral! These are processes that happen without our human judgement input about its morality. There are many things in human beings that evolution by survival of the fittest doesn't explain. However, there are other mechanisms through which evolution occurs, namely, sexual selection. Although I don't think sexual selection applies to homosexuality, we have to bear in mind that evolution happens through the erratic mutation of genetic code and we just have not yet found the mutation that causes homosexuality in humans and other mammals.

I believe that the general was refering to homosexuality not as an evolved/biological trait, but as a choice some individuals make, such as entering into an adulterous relationship. Under that rationale, he considers homosexuality imoral. And THAT is what is obvious here. He thinks it is a matter of choice, of morals, to act upon homosexual tendencies.

That being said, please understand that I in no terms agree with such an idiotic comment and it fills me with fear and disdain to know that such an unintelligent person is the head of the chiefs of staff (argh!)

The only thing that constitutes real morals is deliberately harming others needlessly. Since no intelligent argument exists to claim that there is a victim in consensual homosexuality, there is clearly nothing immoral about it.

Whether it is biologically based, as most evidence seems to support at present, or choice based is completely irrelevant. No one gets hurt; it is not immoral.

As for it being natural, well, it is pretty rampant throughout the animal kingdom. So, if this is in some way unnatural, nature sure has a lot of it going around. If I were trying to make a case against homosexuality, I certainly wouldn't look to anything in nature, including natural selection, to do so.

That leaves any rational human being to say something along the lines of "why would I care about anyone's sexuality if I don't want to have sex with them?" I think, "doesn't concern me" should pretty much say it.

Lastly, in these days where we've become so imperialistic that we feel the need to start taking over countries to protect our oil interest (a truly immoral act), the people who support this type of behavior should be exactly the ones would be thrilled to have more people volunteering for the military. It's completely illogical for them to rule out anyone based on bigoted views!

I will let the Church determine morality. As a Scientist, I look at life from a evolutionary standpoint. There is no record of a great homosexual society in the past, nor will there be one in the future. Survival of the fittest is in our genes. Can't change nature. This liberal idea of "gayness" is only a flash in the pan in the life of the universe. Sorry if this does not fit your political agenda, but Nature is bigger than you. The world is running out of resources. We will soon be using tooth and claw to get a piece of bread. Just too many people and too few resources. Plagues and pestilence are in our future.

Actually Dr. Watson, morality is very much in the realm of science. Perhaps you should try reading The Naked Brain, which has a bit of this discussion in one chapter. Or, better yet, search for other books where it is the primary focus. Sorry, I can't remember the name of the work quoted in The Naked Brain.

You are correct that there is no record of a "great homosexual society in the past". However, there is a tremendous amount of homosexuality and bisexuality in nature. I'd suggest that nature is bigger and more diverse than your tiny view of it as well. Homosexuality has function for some species too. It is used to assert dominance of the alpha wolf over subordinates. It is used to difuse tensions in bonobos (all of whom are bisexual). It's not a prime interest for me, so I can't come up with other cases at the moment. I think there are many others, but would have to check. I don't know of it serving a particular purpose in dolphins or sea birds.

Your last point about too many people and too few resources however, is indeed correct, though far from relevant to this discussion. Except of course that it is relevant in our own bleak prognosis for survival as a species regardless of other factors.

"Homosexuality has function for some species too. It is used to assert dominance of the alpha wolf over subordinates." You are right Misanthropic, in prison I saw that, but I would not advocate that for society at large as something to aspire to. Are you suggesting that our military could have gay brigades to use this "asserting of dominance" tactic on the enemy? I know that Iraqi Arabs were upset over Ms.England and her partner's tactics.

Lars, are you making an active choice to sound like an idiot? What misguided bunch of shit has derailed this post from a potentially rational conversation about human rights? As a proud member of the LBGT community I am extremely offended that you would dare suggest that homosexuals would be used as tools to dominate or suppress heterosexual members of the military. The right to serve their bigoted and homophobic country is one that no member of the military should be denied regardless of their sexuality. Perhaps it is the flagrantly high rates of heterosexual rape in the military that leads ignoramuses to think that by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly, that the likelihood of unwanted gay sex would suddenly explode through the roof. Gay people are not trying to get their rocks off with other soldiers; they are perhaps trying to show a reverence for a nation that owes them the same.

Lars was asking Misanthropic if he was suggesting. Lars would never suggest this because it would be a human rights abuse. I know that Ms England and partner were soundly chastise for such behavior.

Dr. Watson:

Are you kidding me? Most culture is homosexual culture. Rome. Shakespeare. Tchaikovsky. The fashion industry. Acting. Jane Addams. Edward Albee. Pedro Almodovar. John Ashbery and W.H. Auden. Those are just the A's, my friend. Educate yourself.

No! Lars, I have never had my words twisted quite this badly before and am frankly quite taken aback by this. First you quote my comment about wolves and say that you have seen this in prison. I assume you have then been to a wolf prison. Or, are you so misguided as to be unable to tell members of your own despicable species, homo sapiens, from beautiful wolves, canis lupus?

Further, I was making neither judgment of wolves nor recommendation for humans. I do not believe that your post is a good faith attempt at discourse. I think that you are a simpleton and a homophobic who seeks to make some ridiculous and bigoted point by twisting my words beyond all recognition. I would suggest a wonderful place for you to go, but do not believe that such a place exists. Please, in the future, when you have a point to make, use your own words. Do not twist mine.

And thank you for reminding providing me yet another reason for being a misanthrope.

Hey Dr Watson,

is there any record of a great left-handed society in the past? If not, does that make left-handedness immoral?

As for your assertion that "This liberal idea of "gayness" is only a flash in the pan in the life of the universe", that is also true of the idea of humanness. As you say, Nature is bigger than us, and we've been shitting all over it for far to long.

A bit OT, but it pisses me off that suddenly everyone is jumping on the "Global Warming" bandwagon. Even the conservatives who for the past 40 years have been sneering at and maligning environmentalists as "long-haired hippies", "f***king communists", "damn tree huggers", etc. Seems that nearly everyone is an environmentalist these days, but not one word of apology have I heard. Not once have I heard a conservative say "We have been wrong for the last 40 years; the frigging tree-huggers were right all along." I suppose they fear that if they were to make such an admission it would open the door to closer examination of their other misguided beliefs.

The rest of the world thinks that we are odd to have gays in the military. Catholism 1+billion, Isam 1+billion, just for starters. The Catholic church states that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Islam goes even further. When the Mexican and Chinese(conservative society) immigrants get the vote, then it will become clear(state marriage amendments pass with 75% of voters) that we believe that this homosexual practice is immoral. Only a few small countries have homosexual military policies. In Europe, due to immigration and the high birth rate of Moslems, this talk of homosexual practice will sooner than later, be a thing of the past.

Numbers of people believing a certain way do not make something right. Or to put it another way, a billion flies can't all be wrong. Shit must be delicious!

Don't refer to third world people as flies. You are only showing your racist arrogance that gets USA into trouble.

Isabella are you a *complete* jerk, or is your grasp of English so much worse than your posts would indicate? No where in his analogy, or even in his post, did MS mention 'third world people'. He was merely pointing out the lack of basis for your post.

If anything it seems that your post shows more arrogance than his does. You find homosexuality to be immoral (and sound as though that belief makes you superior), but don't seem to see any immorality in "the high birth rate of Moslems", despite the prevalence of poverty and hunger in this already over-populated world.

I was not refering to any people any where as flies; I would not insult flies that way. Have you never heard of the term analogy?

Thanks DaveD for getting to this before I did.

By the way DaveD, if you really want to get depressed about the state of the world and the U.S. in particular, consider this. The U.N. Millennium Development Goals for sustainable development were supposed to include a statement about limiting population goals. However, three “nations” objected to any population limitation goals. See if you can guess what nations objected. I’ll wait …

OK, if you guessed Iran, The Vatican, and The United States of America, you’re right!! (I wonder what all of these three might have in common.)

Personally, I think if you want the goal to be that the planet can sustainably support a particular number of humans, Malthus may have overestimated when he said a billion. I think we’re mining our renewable resources, i.e. stealing from future generations, to feed the current population. I’m just hoping not to witness (and be a victim of) The Great Human Die-Off.

Let's not defame Moslems. It is true, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, homosexuality practice is illegal because it is immoral. But please do not sterotype. Every Moslem baby is a blessing from God. Europe will soon(through having more bablies) have the blessing of Islam in their culture, because Islam will be the dominent cultural influence. The Europeans are dying out from a lack of reproduction.

Karoosh. We are now way off topic here and should probably defer this to some other thread. But, I'm human and unable to prevent myself from responding. So here goes and I apologize to anyone that wanted to stay on topic.

I am not defaming anyone in particular. I hate all of humanity. I like some, even many, individuals but do not like our species as a whole.

That said, we must reduce our population. All people, everywhere on the planet, must stop breeding like rats. Many other species can breed as fast as possible because they have numerous predators keeping their population in check. Outbreeding predators is their survival mechanism.

We are not built that way. We do not have to worry much about predation on our species. No predator is capable of killing more than a few of us, unless you choose to count either microbial predators or ourselves.

We are a blight on the planet and run a very serious risk of extinction due to our own overbreeding. Many other species have already gone extinct because of us. When we eat out our resource base people of all races, colors, and creeds will die. No one will be singled out. No imaginary friend will come to anyone's aid. We must reduce our population or it will be reduced for us.

Misanthropic makes a point. Wars, plagues and pestilence are in our future and that is just Nature's way of putting things into balance if we do not do it ourselves(which we won't).

I call bullshit: No actual scientist, as Watson claims to be, would hold such a preposterously cartoonish, anthropomorphized (capital-N-Nature!) view of evolutionary processes or make normative inferences from them so sloppily. This is someone who read a couple pages on evolution in his sophomore science class last week, not someone who's studied it an advanced level.

One would expect alleged, solely self-proclaimed "scientist" (he's not yet informed us po' ig'nan't souls as to which branch of science he has dedicated himself) Dr. Watson to be of the "Intelligent Design" Bible-beating lynch-mob crowd, considering his viewpoint regarding homosexuality. Rational people who consider Darwin's theory of evolution to be valid usually have a much more open mind... And maybe the General's so touchy because his first name is Peter and his last name is Pace?