I am a proud service member who has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I am insulted in the worst way by this billboard. Our great patriots, who have gone before us and sacrificed their lives would be turning in their graves at the sight of this. Who cares about this guys' sexuality?? As americans, we have the right to make our own lifestyle decisions. However, To advertise your sexuality in a uniform that Marines are buried in does the US military, Marine Corps, and all the men and women who give their lives for our country an injustice. It does not give us honor nor does it give us the proper respect and courtesy we deserve for all the sacrifice we encounter both at home and abroad.

Insulted Veteran

I am surely in the minority but I am a former Marine who did not have a problem at all with this billboard. Sadly, I am not surprised at all that a bunch of hateful jackasses destroyed it.

David Lindsey
Kilo Company 3/23
1993-1999

@ tqwingman

I do agree that a persons sexuality is of no matter as long as they can perform the job. But isn't that billboard one of the basic rights that we entered the service to defend? I do not see it as a dishonor or an insult. Destroying it is much more of an insult.

"Who cares about this guys' sexuality?? "


apparently those responsible for instituting DADT.

@ tqwingman

blah blah blah


Uninsulted Veteran

So, twingman, you served in our nation's military in order to earn the right not to be insulted?

Insulted Veteren, go back to the stone age, this is 2009, and we are evolving and moving forward without you. Women and African Americans have earned the right to serve openly and proudly in the military, and gay men and women will do so as well. We'll stop making an issue of sexuality when we stop violating the Constitution and grant Gays and Lesbians the same rights as straight people. As for the cowards who tore down the billboard, Peter Gabriel once said "You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire..."

First of all, the Marine did not truly protect America’s freedom in the last 50 years or more. The US Constitution only allows war that is declared and is under the ‘common defense’. The Constitution is not subordinate to UN policy, or any other entangled alliance that subverts the law of our land. The unconstitutional stationing of our troops during peace-time in over 150 + countries may be the reason for all of these attacks on our soil over the last century. Muslims consider their land ‘holy’ and for us to have our military there during peace-time is a violation of their worldview and ideology. Our indirect stealing of their oil does not help matters any. As Congressman Ron Paul said, ‘we wouldn’t want other nations stationed in our cities across America during peace-time. Getting to the point of the billboard; sexual activity has nothing to do with military activity. This is a major category fallacy. There is also much question begging as to what moral law to use determining whether hatred toward that lifestyle is good or bad. If there is no ultimate, universal, and moral law-giver, then anyone’s moral view is just as valid as the next. There can be no true response as to the destruction of the message of the bill-board; only arbitrary and subjective desires. If the LGBT community objects upon sexual grounds, then they have no sound standing. If they object on the grounds of the destruction of property; namely, the sign itself, then they should object on property rights violation. I wonder how the LGBT community would respond to a vandalized sign by a Marine that professed bestiality and serving the country?

so you're in favor of selective destruction of private property? or is that some kind of category fallacy, lol...I'd say they can legitimately object on property destruction grounds AS WELL AS the obvious intent of the cowardly vandal to silence a point of view. No matter, the destruction of that billboard will only bring more attention to the cause of freedom, justice and equality for all Americans. Chg, even for you, that post was all over the place. I wonder how you would respond if a billboard erected by Bellevue baptist Church professing jesus as the son of God was vandalized.... of course, someone who believes in received knowledge would think THAT was wrong, correct? Or am I incorrect in that assumption? Is it equally wrong to vandalize this gay marine billboard and a billboard promoting Christianity? Or are they both merely wrong only on destruction of property grounds? BTW, you cannot prove YOUR received knowledge is any more true than someone else's received knowledge. No matter h o w h a r d y o u t r y t o d e l u d e y o u r s e l f.

"I wonder how the LGBT community would respond to a vandalized sign by a Marine that professed bestiality and serving the country?"

classy.

And CHG continues to serve up pretzel logic with his hate flavored Kool-Aid.

BTW, are you advocating that bestiality be made legal?

Because homosexuality certainly is.

@Twingman:

Some of those Marines who were buried in that uniform were gay... something to reflect upon.

And if it so offends you to see people use their uniform to announce their sexuality, I take it you turned down every liberty call the entire time you were in?

"Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar."

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

-Barry Goldwater

@twingman you've never served anywhere; you're a liar.

Packrat,

You didn't understand my response. I am against destruction of property, which is theft. Why is it wrong to voice free-speech against a point of view? You are attempting to 'silence' their point of view against that lifestyle! Given your viewpoint, we should allow all points of view, that is; hatred of all races, acceptance of theft, murder, rape, slander, libel, etc. According to you, voicing any opposition is an attempt at a 'silencing' a point of view. What if the Marine was a child molester or has sex with animals? Again, given your view, we should not attempt to silence any view. Your topic regarding apologetics and epistemology or knowledge of truth is a red-herring and a topic for another issue. If you wish to discuss worldviews, epistemology, or apologetics, you can email me.

Powergamz,

quote: “And CHG continues to serve up pretzel logic with his hate flavored Kool-Aid.” Given an atheistic worldview, upon what absolute morals do you see 'hatred' as wrong? I never advocated hatred, but you are presupposing I did. If there is no absolute moral law-giver, then hatred is no different than any other bodily emotion. If we are nothing more than, 'matter-in-motion', as atheism/evolutionists would say, then hatred is no different than indigestion or some other bodily movement.

Quote: “BTW, are you advocating that bestiality be made legal?” Not me, but again, what morals does your worldview have that make it wrong? Without an absolute in ethics, there is nothing but subjective opinion left. Legality does not equate to truth or 'good' necessarily.

"BTW, are you advocating that bestiality be made legal?” Not me, but again, what morals does your worldview have that make it wrong? Without an absolute in ethics, there is nothing but subjective opinion left."

when the right links homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality (and they do. often.) they are completely ignoring the fact that animals and children are victims in these scenarios. two consenting adult gay men (or women) are not. they are tax-paying, law-abiding American citizens who happen to be gay. no degayification camp run by the spiritual progeny of Rousas John Rushdoony is going to change that.

More pretzel logic. Destroying a billboard isn't free speech. I am not attempting to silence anyone's viewpoint; I merely condemn and make sport of certain viewpoints I disagree with. The one who is attempting to silence a viewpoint is the moron who destroyed the billboard. Given your viewpoint, we should have a body of fundamentlist ministers who decide what viewpoints are valid, no? Since they are the ones who believe in the One true Bronze-Age God who smiteth their naughty foes and buggerers.....again, child molestation is illegal, and your feeble attempts to equate harming children with two consenting adults being gay and living their lives together only further weakens your already limp-assed argument....your lack of logic is bordering on ludicrous at this point.

when I listen to the crack-pot pundits and the internet nuts, I keep hearing about how it's not necessarily about the fact that people are gay; it's that the Left is trying to "indoctrinate" children, to enculturate a certain mindset. while I personally don't see a problem with teaching a sense of egalitarian respect for fellow human beings (which obviously shouldn't include include religious indoctrination. see Bill of Rights and the writings of the founding fathers about that), I can empathize with certain arguments. BUT, I would posit that those left of center wouldn't be so concerned with humanist "indoctrination" if those on the Right had not spent every epoch of American history ignoring or violently opposing the basic tenets of our founding documents. And yes, I do think gay marriage is something that should be (and will be) protected by the Constitution. Just ask Theodore Olson and David Boies.

"First of all, the Marine did not truly protect America’s freedom in the last 50 years or more." This statement from CHG shows how ignorant he is. Our military, and the men and women who volunteer, protect us day and night 24/7. One need not be on a battlefield during a Constitutionally declared war. Their presence alone, and willingness to go when called, is usually enough. If you serve your life is on the line, whether you are in a trench, running around Hohenfels, simmering at NTC, or part of "leftist" peacekeeping duty in Rwanda. Hooah.

right you are, zippy. That comment from CHG is very telling. Why do you hate our military Charles? traitor!

wvfii,

I did not advocate that bestiality be made legal; you injected that out of context. Once again, you are begging the question of moral absolutes. By what standard does your ideology (ya’ like that better than worldview?) make it wrong for animals and children to be victims? Where did the ethical law of ‘consent’ become a norm for behavior? So if one pays taxes and obeys laws they can do whatever they want to that isn’t codified in a local or national law-book? Sounds a bit arbitrary to me. Since you appeal to man-made law and tax-paying as the ultimate standard for ethical behavior, that means that whatever is right today may be wrong tomorrow by popular vote of law. Once again; lawfulness does not equate to good or bad in an absolute sense.

So let me get this straight. Man made law is inferior to man made god law? Man made law isn't absolute. But law made by a man made creator is absolute. So for something to be absolute, it has to come from a god created by man? Maybe I am missing something here. Let me try this again. Absolutes can only come from a book written by men to justify their own existence? Or absolutes can only come from a god created by man, and won a popularity contest between the other man created gods? Or is it that absolutes cannot have any foundation in reality to be absolutes?

Packrat,

Legality does not equate to truth or soundness and validity. What is legal today, may be illegal tomorrow. Your views are merely subjective in nature. The issue isn't one of 'logic', it is of irrational ideology on your part. The tenets of your worldview are incoherent and do not comport with one another.

38103,

quote: “This statement from CHG shows how ignorant he is. Our military, and the men and women who volunteer, protect us day and night 24/7. One need not be on a battlefield during a Constitutionally declared war.”

Attacking the person (ad hominem)does not establish truth. This statement shows your confusion of international vs. local protection and jurisdictions. There is no Constitutional provision for our military to be stationed internationally at this point in time. War has not be declared upon another nation by Congress. Temporary, Presidential War Powers are a violation of this Constitutional authority by Congress.

Packrat,

quote: “That comment from CHG is very telling. Why do you hate our military Charles? Traitor!”

Question-begging a la' mode. I love having a military when war has been declared.

38103,

“So let me get this straight. Man made law is inferior to man made god law?”

I've never heard of a 'man made god law'. Sorry.

“Man made law isn't absolute.”

Correct; man is a contingent and temporal entity, incapable of absolutes.

“ But law made by a man made creator is absolute.”

False. There is proof of a man made creator and if man is the source, then it fits the above definition.


“So for something to be absolute, it has to come from a god created by man? Maybe I am missing something here.”

You are missing the fact that you are using irrational logic. Contingency vs. a necessary being are two different things. Necessary preconditions exist for reality to be coherent in the areas of logic, ethics, and natural law.

“ Let me try this again. Absolutes can only come from a book written by men to justify their own existence? Or absolutes can only come from a god created by man, and won a popularity contest between the other man created gods? Or is it that absolutes cannot have any foundation in reality to be absolutes? “

Absolutes can only come from an absolute being. A cannot come from non-A. Apples do not come from Pear trees.

correction:

I made this quote: "False. There is proof of a man made creator and if man is the source, then it fits the above definition. "

I left out the word, 'no' in front of the word 'proof'. No big deal, but just a correction.

LOL!! CHG has finally chased his pretzel logic full circle.

Why do you come in here spewing falsehoods about the bible, and pretend to be a Christian in spite of all the times you've been exposed as violating Christian precepts?

For the same reason you carry water for Don Black and David Duke, and then pretend to not be a hater?
For the same reason you post falsehoods about the Constitution, and then pretend to not be contemptuous of it?

In any case *you* drew the equivalency between homosexuality and bestiality, but the reality (there's that word again) is that bestiality is illegal just like rape and pedophelia, because of lack of consent.
Homosexuality is not equivalent because it isn't illegal between two consenting adults, just like heterosexuality.

Apparently you wish for the equivalency you imagine, to become true in society, which puts you in the same camp with NAMBLA and those trying to legalze bestiality.

Perhaps you should put up a billboard.

well I certainly didn't suggest you were advocating for the legalization of bestiality. but reading your posts it's difficult not to draw the conclusion that you are associating homosexuality with pedophilia and/or bestiality. i suppose there's no sense in going into how offensive that is. anyway, i was merely suggesting that bestiality and pedophilia are illegal AND wrong for a myriad of reason, but ultimately because of the lack of consent.

the problem with your "Absolutes can only come from an absolute being" is that no matter how badly one may want it to be God or Jesus or YHWH, there's some one else who's equally convinced that it's something else. or nothing at all. whether one likes it or not, this country was founded on the idea that all these folks could co-exist, provided one doesn't infringe upon the rights of his fellow citizen. and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you arguing for a theocracy? some sort of Christian Dominionism? no matter how great this sounds to some people, it's Never. Going to be. Constitutional. It wasn't 200 years ago, and it's not today. some of the biggest advocates for separation of church and state are religious - a lot are even Christians.

How can you even respond to a post as asinine as that? They didn't protect our country because there has been no constitutionally declared war? Bestiality? Pedophilia? WTF? I believe chg may have finally gone completely over the edge.

Powergamz,

You haven't demonstrated falsehoods I've committed on Biblical hermeneutics. When did I violate a Christian precept? All Christians violate tenets of their belief system on occasions just like adherents of any belief system; if that were a specific case here. The truth of a system does not depend upon the statements or actions of one of its adherents. Please show a falsehood regarding the Constitution I have stated? You are using 'legal' as a prerequisite for 'goodness' or viability to endorse a position for a certain behavior. It was 'legal' to execute Jews in Germany at one time, so using your logic, it was a 'good' thing. How do you know some animals do not 'consent' to sex with humans? I have heard of women having sex with dogs who consent to such perversions. Where did you arbitrarily bring in the rule of 'consent' as an absolute in behavioral norms? You are begging the question by assuming I desire something just because it is used as an example by me. That is the fallacy of a major sort. Your worldview does not have any absolute morals that make bestiality ultimately wrong; except the legality issue. So if it became legal, it is a good thing in your worldview system? Your whole ideology is incoherent, as it is base upon contingent subjectivism.

wvfii,


Wvfi,

The bestiality issue is used as a mere example of where a slippery slope view of 'legal' ethics can lead. I am also pointing out the fallacy of appeal to subjective ethical standards in determining their soundness or goodness. Using consent and legality is a very subjective and evolving standard and is no coherent axiom in which to derive ethical norms. Regarding opposing religious views, you are correct, but contradictory views cannot all be valid and sound at the same time and instance. The question is which worldview offers the preconditions for reality. The Christian religion is the only one with both an absolute and personal being that is the perfect source for the major tenets of reality; ethics, logical law, and uniformity of natural law. These three tenets are themselves personal and must be absolute to be universally binding upon mankind. Next, you have arbirarily brought in a moral law, 'all these folks can co-exist, provided one doesn't infringe upon the rights of his fellow citizen.' This is merely your subjective opinion. I do agree it is right, but in my worldview private behavior is accountable to a higher entity. Your view also begs several questions as to what determines rights, etc. I am arguing that only a Theocracy, not an ecclesiocracy can work in a social order. Today, such laws against theft, murder, libel, slander, rape, etc. are Theocratic in nature. They are found in most religions. You can't have it both ways, it is either Theocratic or Humanism. There are no alternatives. The question is which one is the most coherent in the above mentioned tenets of reality. There is no law phrase called, 'separation of church and state'. There is a separation of the institutional jurisdictions of each sphere, but not a separation of ideology between the two.

How exactly are the laws against theft, murder, rape, et al theocratic in nature? These are laws that can be traced back to nearly every civilization pre-dating modern religion. Not to mention the fact that in an earlier post on another board you stated they were christian, but I won't go there. The point being even early man had an understanding of "this is mine, not yours" and "you can't kill your neighbor for sport." These do not come from a religious view point, but rather a societal one. In order for people to live together a list of rules must be determined. This determination came from many sources; the king, the tribal chief, the village elders, the people themselves. As people and societies evolved, sure some references were taken from religious manuscripts. The part that you seem to forget is that these writings were the work of man. They generally brought together old tribal tales and mixed in the prevailing opinion of the populace for which they were written, along with using whatever group that they might not like and their particular way of life and rules as being bad. So again it comes back to man. And the part about christianity being the perfect source for the tenets of reality???? The bible is the best selling fiction book of all time. Where is the reality? Burning bushes, talking snakes, parting seas...need I go on? Yes, christianity provides some excellent guidelines for people to live by, as do most religions, but to say it is the absolute authority upon which every law is based is more than a bit far fetched.

All ethical standards, including yours, are subjective. You cannot prove that your religion is any more "true" than any other religion. Your religion was created by men, just like every other. You've brainwashed yourself that yours is somehow special. To the extent that your religion, or any other, impels human beings to act with kindness, justice, respect and charity towards fellow humans, it is a good thing. but your religion is not the only one which does that. And as students of history well know, religion, when coupled with the blind certainty, power, and bigotry that you exhibit in abundance, can be a very evil force indeed.

CHG = The Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail. "Tis but a flesh wound! I'll bite your legs off!!!"

Mad merc,

They are Theocratic in that they are similarities in varying religions, but they are described as written upon the first man and woman’s natures in Christian Theism. This pre-dates any written record. The fact that you mention similarities as ‘societal’ illustrates my point. You are wrong though; all laws that regulate or attempt to regulate behavior are religious in nature. They presuppose morals, and all morals are based upon a religion, i.e. secular humanism, Christianity, Islam, etc. True, writings were the ‘work of man’ as you state, but some religions believe in plenary inspiration. When you mention that the ‘coming together’ of persons to determine morals, this makes it all arbitrary and non-universally binding. It is mere ‘whim’ or subjective emotionalism. It also begs the question as to what standard determines good or bad in an ultimate sense. To deny biblical miracles is due to your worldview tenets not allowing anything other than empirical observation. This is a problem in the limits of your epistemology. You then have to reject historical mutation/selection as a means of evolution, as it was never observed creating macro-systems, etc. For you to say that ‘Christianity provides excellent guidelines’ also begs the question. What standard are you comparing them to in determining what is ‘excellent’ vs. non-excellent? Absolute authority was mentioned, as without which, ethics are not universally binding.

Packrat,

For you to even say that my ethical standards are subjective simply defeats your point. It is a subjective opinion on your part regarding my subjectivism. What is your evidence that my religion, Christian Theism, was created by men? Men were inspired epistemologically, but they were means, not the source. You state that many actions are good things, i.e. kindness, justice, etc.. How do you know that? First of all, you’d have to have a known objective goal, which you have not demonstrated. Secondly, pragmatism is not based upon objective truth. Since you are saying that ‘students of history’ know that religion is a bad thing, then how can you know they are right? You are assuming an ultimate standard of right and wrong here. What is this standard? Why must I be bound to it, given that it is your subjective opinion? What determines an ‘evil force’ vs. a ‘good force’?

Oxymorons: Jumbo Shrimp, Military Intelligence, and Anyone Claiming Their Religious Beliefs are OBJECTIVE.

CHG the burden of proof about Christian Theism origination is on you. There is no amount of proof that can be amassed against something completely based in brainwashing (otherwise known as faith). I can't disprove Santa, Easter Bunny, Big Foot, Lochness, etc. etc. etc., but it doesn't mean they exist.

Bruce, at this point, I'm reminded of King Arthur's question to the Black knight: what are you going to do? Bleed on me?

Oh yeah, chg, please prove men weren't the source of Christian theism. If you cannot do so empirically (which you cannot), it would appear your worldview is based solely around a set of received knowledge. By definition, chuck, faith is not subject to a set of proofs. You see, you want to have it both ways; you want to have your faith, and have it recognized as THE ONE TRUE FAITH UPON WHICH ALL WISDOM FLOWS, NO OTHER RELIGIONS HAVING ANY VALIDITY, yet also somehow, some twisted pretzel way, have Christianity be logical, rational, and even approaching scientific. So is it faith or is it not? Well, guess what trooper? that just don't work. And the fact that a lot of people believe that snakes talked in the historical past doesn't make it true. A lot of people believe they have been kidnapped by aliens and the Loch ness monster. No one in history has been able to fully reconcile blind faith (belief in Christian miracles, but scoffing at any other religion's miracles) with logic, reason, and empirical science. Is it faith or is it not? It's not up to me to disprove anything, you may be right, or the Havasupai Indians may have it right with their cosmology, how the hell do I know; you're the affiant, YOU prove your position. Or, if you'd like, please disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

"they are described as written upon the first man and woman’s natures in Christian Theism"

That's according to man made accounting of one religion.


"all laws that regulate or attempt to regulate behavior are religious in nature"

So I guess somewhere in the New Testament someone added thou shall not speed? This is a law that attempts to regulate behavior for the basic reason of public safety. I don't see much theology in there.

"all morals are based upon a religion"

I've checked a half dozen dictionaries, and not one mentions religion in the definition of morals. Now, if you care to go to some christian web sites, you'll get an entirely different definition.

"writings were the ‘work of man’ as you state, but some religions believe in plenary inspiration"

Does this explain Joseph Smith and his hat?


"the ‘coming together’ of persons to determine morals, this makes it all arbitrary and non-universally binding"

Hey you're right!!! They are not universally binding. They are different for each culture, ethnic group, location, etc. It has only occurred in relatively modern times that a more universal ideal has come about. This is due to exploration, colonialism, ever improving communications, and the general interaction of the different cultures more than ever before.

"begs the question as to what standard determines good or bad in an ultimate sense"

This has been answered over and over again...your rights end, where my rights begin.


"To deny biblical miracles is due to your worldview tenets not allowing anything other than empirical observation. This is a problem in the limits of your epistemology. You then have to reject historical mutation/selection as a means of evolution, as it was never observed creating macro-systems, etc."

No proof? There is a great deal more proof for the theory of evolution than anything you can offer up. If I'm wrong then prove it. We have fossils, skeletal remains, mummified remains, remains frozen in ice, specimens preserved in amber, and on, and on, and on. Plus we dinosaur bones! Explain that away big daddy!

"For you to say that ‘Christianity provides excellent guidelines’ also begs the question. What standard are you comparing them to in determining what is ‘excellent’ vs. non-excellent?"

Ok, that was a subjective statement by me. It is my opinion that there are some good parts of christianity, but just like most other religions. I think anyone that says to love thy neighbor, care for those that can not care for themselves, and basically be nice to people is not a bad thing.

So there you go. I hope this makes it easier for you to understand. It gets old repeating the same things over and over again. Now anytime you'd like present some proof as opposed to more of the same ol' rhetoric, I'll be here waiting.

Bruce,

He reminds me much more of the "she turned me into a newt!" fellow than anything else. The scene even comes with trumped up charges of witchcraft, a completely illogical explanation, mass hysteria, and a good old fashioned witch burning! Can't get much more chg than that I think.

This is getting way out of hand. Thank God for Tammi, my caring and dutiful mule who nurtures me in these hours of darkness.

sit thee in the comfy chair, merc...

Speaking as a gay veteran who has served honorably, we all knew the deal about keeping our private lives private before raising our hands to take the oath.

Obviously, this guy couldn't hack it and was summarily discharged.

It's about "Duty, Honor, Country" not "Look at me, I'm different and demand acceptance."

It's no secret that the gay community despises the military and this billboard was yet another pathetic attempt to demean our service.

Thankfully, it failed miserably.

"Smith, who grew up in Falkner, Miss., said he was outed shortly before he was to be deployed to Iraq by a church pastor who knew him before he enlisted. Smith said the pastor told him he believed homosexuality to be a sinful choice and felt it was his duty to expose him."

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/…

anyway, here's the problem with the military--
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/008…

it's long as hell guys, but definitely worth your time.

Hey! I worked on the mini version of this sign that they had up at the Cooper Young Festival! They spend a lot of money on their signs :)

Charles, you make less sense than normal on your first post here. You are all over the place. The issue is "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and whether or not it is a moral practice. That's why the billboard went up, and it got torn down because some a$$h0le didn't like gay people, the idea of a gay man in the uniform of the U.S. Marines, or both. You pulled out beastiality and your usual "category fallacy." Personally, with all your persecution of gays, I am beginning to think you might have a thing for category phalluses and just can't bring yourself to face it. I digress. Stay focused for a minute Charles. The Christian Right has lost its deathgrip on the country. I know you won't go away permanently, it's too much to ask. There will always be insecure, fear mongering people around to tell us our pee-pee's are bad and that everything is a sin and that the only place we are going to have any fun is in Heaven and that only the GOOD people who worship the RIGHT religion get to go there. Each succeeding generation in this country is less and less succeptible to your brainwashing and finds the persecution of gays and lesbians to be stupid, and to justify it with the words from a 2000 year old book written by a bunch old dead guys to be even more so. Enjoy going the way of the dinosaur.

I say we put 4 more bill boards in defiance

On the question of where morality comes from if not from God, there's an easy explanation for that one. Banning rape, murder, etc. makes for a better, happier, more stable society. Discriminating against homosexuality does not, and results in unhappiness for the people being discriminated against. Also, in this case, it reduces the number of people able to defend our country. We Atheists don't need archaic, unfair rules handed down by an invisible sky-daddy do be moral, CHG, so stop claiming otherwise. As for why laws change over time, it is because of people throwing out their preconceptions and focusing on what will make life better for everyone.