Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

That be some meta ****, duuude.

Pass the joint.

At least the animals are enjoying it more than we are enjoying your stupidity. Sadly, the only cure for that is lots and lots of life experience, and a mind willing to learn. It's not something we can cure, so we're kinda hoping one day you'll grow a pair and finally become more mature.

Sadly, some adults never grow up past age 8 or so.

I'll answer your question by addressing your flaw. You are assuming that the Soldiers that bust the standard weight chosen by the military will impede the mission and that's false. They are plenty of Soldiers, especially females and weight lifters, who don't make height weight and sometimes body fat percentage who outperform those who do. Their weight, just as someone's sexuality, plays no role in their ability to do their job. I've stated that people will catch a hard time just for looking fat regardless if they meet the standard or not. That's how the military works and homosexuality isn't anything special to be exempted from that behavior.

If there are no grounds for which weight might impede the ability for a person to do their job, then that should be addressed. However, I find it likely that there are other reasons there is a weight standard that I am just not aware of.

The two are not equivelent though, because one is allowed to serve in the military as homosexual, so long as no one knows. Do you see the difference?

edit: Just to be clear, you argument is that the military discriminates on personal traits and that it's ok to discriminate on sexual orientation because other traits are also discriminated against? That makes about as much sense as 'seperate facilities for blacks, but we also need to exclude jews and latinos because we can't just exclude blacks', and reads just as such.

Edited, Sep 27th 2010 10:18pm by WDN

I knew that people were just brushing off his questions as dumb and irrelevant because they were, but I thought that breaking it down in the 'round peg goes in the round hole' fashion might make things easier to resolve.

He's so open-minded in fact, that he changed his opinion from "I'm against it." to "I'm against it for different reasons."



Been there, tried that. Have fun though.

I remember reading a book, I think it was Owlsight, or one of the series, on how a character mentioned that whatever people accuse others of being, they tend to be themselves. So all the people who accused the main protagonist as being lazy were lazy themselves, etc.

I've found that to be disturbingly true. It's a very handy way to see into your own personality though. Interestingly enough, I generally don't accuse people of being anything, though for alma I make an exception.

Mainly because I used to be exactly like him when I was younger, before various life circumstances forced me to grow up or die from depression.

So once again, the theory of like accuses like proves itself true! Don't worry though, I'm hoping eventually Alma has his own inner journey of discovery and grows more caring for other people as well.

Same thing you dolt.

Perhaps you don't understand alma. I went from blind Christianity moral values, to the opposite end of the spectrum. I used to be one of those hardcore bible thumpers, before I hit puberty and realized I was gay. It was so natural for me to like guys, that at first I didn't even realize that I was different from the majority of people in that respect. One day, I was just an ordinary kid, the next, I hit puberty and realized guys looked nice. There was no choice in the matter for me, and there isn't for the vast majority of homosexual men. (lesbians currently defy all logic and patterns)

Having to face that crisis of old values vs something I couldn't change (and believe me, I spent years agonizing and trying, and it nearly damn killed me), I finally learned to accept who I was and within a week my personality had radically changed from a depressed useless kid to someone who was happy and far more productive.

I'll admit there are times when segregation and discrimination are important. However, like you said, there has to be a logical reason behind it, and it cannot be "because it makes people uncomfortable" or "it's icky". Such laws can only be in place if A)physical harm would come to people if allowed, or B) mental harm (and I'm talking trauma here, not the "ick" factor here. Rape and verbal abuse fall into this category) would arise from allowing said behavior. Laws, by default, are there to limit harmful behavior, not limit socially unacceptable behavior. To do otherwise violates the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" in our constitution. Of course, martial law is different, but the problem is, it SHOULDN'T be. Human beings don't magically turn into lifeless robots when you enlist in the military. They may try to act the part to the best of their ability, but deep down inside, they are still humans, with all the same emotions, biases, and desires as anyone else. Trying to make someone something they are not is just harmful to people within the military, and the military as a whole. Rather than trying to turn people into mindless automatons, the military should be playing on the strength of human intelligence and comrade, helping them work together toward a common goal while maintaining their individual strengths.

DADT is just a stupid policy put in place that serves no useful purpose. It puts stress on gay and lesbian individuals in the military that doesn't need to be there, limiting their military efficacy. It encourages discrimination of said individuals, ruining comrade and creating friction, by saying they are second class to "socionormal" people. It has resulted in thousands of troops being fired for ridiculous reasons, harming the military's ability to do it's jobs in many fields. And for what? To protect some people who are scared they'll get the gay cooties? So some men get uncomfortable that other men might think they look good? Please, I've been hit on by women all the time, but do I go into hissy fits and start punching the **** out of them for daring to flirt with me? No, I take it as a compliment, but don't return the interest or tell them so. By removing the law and putting protections in place against discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc, you are forcing people to grow more mature and act like grown ups, learning that sometimes people are different from you, sometimes they do things that disgust you, but they are still wonderful people, damnit!

DADT doesn't do anything beneficial to the military, and a lot of harm. It violates the basic human rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, for no compelling reason. Changing the policy to allow equal rights to people by default would drastically improve the military's efficacy, while having the added benefit of forcing people to act more mature and hopefully realize just how meaningful pulling a trigger to kill someone really is. Maybe then we won't get so many "accidental" civilian deaths, so many cases of torture of POW like we've seen recently in the news, or so many cases of soldiers killing people who posed no threat to them. Killing of another human being should never, EVER, be done unless it's in self-defense, and the first question one should ask is whether you can solve the problem more peacefully. Hell, even in martial arts, they tell you that if you get attacked in a dark alley, the first option isn't to defend yourself but to run away if possible.

America's stupid military policies are ruining people's lives the world over, and that **** WILL come back and bite us in the *** big time. Oh wait, it already is. All the more reason we need to change our policies immediately, and do what we can do, as soon as possible, before what we made to protect us becomes our ultimate downfall.

To be fair, the repealing of DADT will most certainly lead to a dramatic increase in *** biting within the armed forces.

I'm really happy this thread is still going.