wow, that's a lot of varied responses. i'll try to briefly address each, but at this point i think i've said my peace.
first, thank you Christcorp for appreciating my angle of attack on this issue. the only real education is self-education, and i believe strongly in owning my development into an adult and officer; which is why i try to be well-read and well-versed on current affairs.
second, bullet, 'm not going to claim credence to any one religion, but i can tell you that you're view of what the Bible says about warfare is very misconstrued. God ordered David into battle several times during the Davidic reign over Israel, so therefore warfare is not, at all times, unbiblical. moreover; "turn the other cheek" has nothing to do with self-defense or the defense of those who need it; i.e. national defense. finally, Christ had several interactions with Roman soldiers during his time on earth, and not once did he tell them to leave the military or that only "civilians" can be his followers. in short, warfare DOES NOT fly in the face of biblical doctrine or Christian living. frankly sir you just need to do more homework on the issue before you can see this fact.
concerning the biblical doctrine of homosexuality, all i'll say is that the Old Testament Law was lifted from the Church after God appeared to Peter. therefore obscure regulations contained within do not apply to us today. however; this merely has to do with ceremonial law. God's moral law never changes. i.e. murder was one of the 10 commandments techinically under the same Levitical law, but that doesn't mean God doesn't view murder to be any less reprehensable today. this is an issue that would require extensive prepartion to deliver, so i'll just keep it at that and strongly encourage anyone who has confusion to look further into this important difference.
with regards to Dr. Zimmerman's work, please don't use his "feminism" line as a copout for addressing the validity of his other claims. first, the full version of that tenant was "Widespread attitudes of feminism, narcissism, hedonism", so feminism was only one part. in fact, the biggest reason he even included feminism was to point out that an increase desire for power and control and therefore decrease in the desire to bear children breaks down the family unit; thereby supporting his thesis.
Zimmerman was not saying women can't have rights or voice their opinion or anything like that. i know it's convenient to focus on this so you can treat the rest of his claims as "hogwash", but that approach is simply illogical.
LASTLY, it seems that my words have gotten some of you to start thinking about the issue, and possibly will urge you to do some of your own independant research on it. i consider that, apart from anything else, to be a success.
cheers!