Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#2227 Sep 19 2010 at 6:59 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I believe that there can exist logical reasons to discriminate against someone's sexuality or sexual orientation


How can an ostensibly American black man possibly make this statement without being the biggest @#%^ing hypocrite on the planet?

Really, Alma....REALLY?

You keep saying that the military needs a solid image, corps cohesion and discipline and that gays in the military are a disruptive force of same. You realize that exact same argument was made to keep colored folks out years ago, right?

Or at least out of combat: "Golly, them Niggra boys sure can haul ammo, but goddam if we'll let 'em carry a rifle!"

The only possible way to justify your attitude is homophobia.


1. physical trait != personality trait. Comparison is inaccurate.

2. I never argued that homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military

3. No, the same exact argument was not made years ago, because one was on a physical trait and the other was on a personality trait.

4. I never made the argument that gays in the military are a disruptive force. That's stuff that you made up. I said, removing DADT while having Sodomy laws would create hypocrisy. Get rid of the sodomy laws first then attack DADT.

5. Not believing that homosexuals are some special group of people of the military != homophobia

Nice try though.

Just because the thread is 45 pages doesn't give you an excuse to come in making stuff up. Friends don't let friends post with out reading..
#2228 Sep 19 2010 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
That is only because you have the belief that there are no logical explanations to discriminate against homosexuality. So, in your mind, you have created this false image of me having a negative attitude towards homosexuals, which simply isn't true.


So you lied when you said they disgust you? So you don't really think it's ok to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation?

There is no logical reason to discriminate against someone for being homosexual. None. Not one. The only reason to discriminate against someone because he or she is a homosexual is because they disgust you. And that's not logical.

Also, you keep implying that sexual orientation is not a "physical trait." I assume you mean that you cannot tell ones sexual orientation simply by looking at them, which is true. That does not mean that it is a "personality trait," which means it is just some silly quirk. It is just as much a part of someone as their skin color.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 8:07pm by Belkira
#2229 Sep 19 2010 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I'm sorry for the possible triple post, but I'll end the night with this.

Since you people love using race as an example.

Repealing DADT without attacking Sodomy laws is like if the military were "white only". Instead of changing the laws to allow all ethnicities to join the military, you decide to only extend it to allow Native Americans to serve, while keeping it illegal for any non-white person to serve.

You know, this is as opposed to getting rid of the "whites only" rule and then allowing ALL ethnicities to join.

#2230 Sep 19 2010 at 7:11 PM Rating: Default
-REDACTED-
Scholar
***
1,150 posts
After 45 pages, does either side of this argument really think they will get the other side to change their mind?
#2231 Sep 19 2010 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That is only because you have the belief that there are no logical explanations to discriminate against homosexuality. So, in your mind, you have created this false image of me having a negative attitude towards homosexuals, which simply isn't true.


So you lied when you said they disgust you? So you don't really think it's ok to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation?

There is no logical reason to discriminate against someone for being homosexual. None. Not one. The only reason to discriminate against someone because he or she is a homosexual is because they disgust you. And that's not logical.

Also, you keep implying that sexual orientation is not a "physical trait." I assume you mean that you cannot tell ones sexual orientation simply by looking at them, which is true. That does not mean that it is a "personality trait," which means it is just some silly quirk. It is just as much a part of someone as their skin color.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 8:07pm by Belkira


I did lie... that wasn't my last post for the night... this will be.. maybe

Homosexuals don't disgust me, the act of homosexuality disgusts me and I've told you a million times that I didn't let my personal opinions cloud my judgment. I think being a ***** is disgusting also, you despise me for that?

I'll address your post in full later
#2232 Sep 19 2010 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
I'm sorry for the possible triple post, but I'll end the night with this.

Since you people love using race as an example.

Repealing DADT without attacking Sodomy laws is like if the military were "white only". Instead of changing the laws to allow all ethnicities to join the military, you decide to only extend it to allow Native Americans to serve, while keeping it illegal for any non-white person to serve.

You know, this is as opposed to getting rid of the "whites only" rule and then allowing ALL ethnicities to join.



It's a step in the right direction.
#2233 Sep 19 2010 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
lets see... mentally competent adults in private. That's the generalisation. There are dozens of sensible nuances, modified by the golden rule trying to take care of each individual feeling and taste, and balancing each person's needs against other people's protections.

Outdoors is fine, if you can manage not to be caught by kids or other adults that would be offended.

Watching other adults is fine, or being watched, if you join a club where that's part of the point.

Having sex with multiple partners, ditto. Private houses instead of clubs, where there are party rules, allowed.

Swinging, ditto.

Sado-masochism and bondage, fine, as long as there is both consent and safety measures put in place, and safe-words that are strictly adhered to.

Domination and Submission, ditto.

Teenagers unfolding their sexuality and having sex with other teenagers, fine. The law in Aus is that they are supposed to be within two years old of each other, to try and minimise maturity and personal power differences between them. I'm not opposed to them being more than two years apart, if each one is confident about saying no when they are uncomfortable, and each one is attentive and will stop for the within other's comfort.

Little kids playing "I'll show me yours if you show me mine" together, fine.

Little kids spying on adults occasionally out of curiosity. Fine, very educational.

Mentally ill people are usually compos mentis enough at least to handle their own sexual relations. If they aren't, that's a whole other medical issue for the person.

Mentally retarded people kind of need care and shelter. For each individual, their unique situation, in which hopefully a guardian will give them a caring and safe space in which they can explore and enjoy sex with people they are mutually interested in, and as much privacy is granted to them for sex as is commensurate with their safety. Their guardians must think through and help handle their contraceptive issues, and must be alert that they are not taken advantage of or molested.

Permanent group relationships, fine. They don't have legal recognition in the west yet. So far, not much of a public legal issue yet. Perhaps there's not many with the maturity or inclination to want one. Perhaps almost all who do participate are the sort of people who think marriage is anachronistic anyway, and would be happy as defacto partners to a sole person, as well as to more than one partner. In Australia you cannot construct a legal polygamy, but you can keep your polygamous marriage if it preceded your residence here.

Group marriages from other cultures, fine, as long as the power difference between all the members is not too unequal. Each member should be a consenting adult, someone who really wants the relationship that way, and who has the power and resources to walk away from the situation if unhappy. Western culture has no room to throw stones at group marriages where the females are tyrannised into them, and within them, since this used to be a characteristic of the majority of our marriages in our recent past, historically speaking.

An over-age partner with an under-age partner: they shouldn't be too many years separated in age, for power difference reasons. In this situation, it's a matter of context and the individuals involved. I wouldn't raise my eyebrows at an 18 year old with a 25 year old, or a 17 year old with a 23 year old. A 16 year old with a 27 year old is getting questionable. Individuals develop maturity at different rates. Some teenage girls and boys are very mature and independent, with advanced life skills, perhaps already earning a good income. Some of them are immature, mentally/emotionally ill, hooked on drugs, whatever. The former deserve their sexual independence, the latter need to be protected from being preyed on.

An adult or teen trying to have sex with a pre-teen. Well that's not on is it? Do you really want the exposition?

As a summation, it's all about making sure sex is about pleasure, and not about pain. Unless pain is erotic for you and wanted and you are competent to involve pain in your life in an enriching way, and not a destructive way.
#2234 Sep 19 2010 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Homosexuals don't disgust me, the act of homosexuality disgusts me[...]


What's the difference, really? If someone performs those acts, I'm pretty sure you're disgusted by them.

Almalieque wrote:
[...] and I've told you a million times that I didn't let my personal opinions cloud my judgment.


I think that's pretty obvious that that is not true.

Almalieque wrote:
I think being a ***** is disgusting also, you despise me for that?


Despise you? no, because being a ***** is a choice. Who you fall in love with is not. It certainly won't gain you any respect, though.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 8:16pm by Belkira
#2235 Sep 19 2010 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm sorry for the possible triple post, but I'll end the night with this.

Since you people love using race as an example.

Repealing DADT without attacking Sodomy laws is like if the military were "white only". Instead of changing the laws to allow all ethnicities to join the military, you decide to only extend it to allow Native Americans to serve, while keeping it illegal for any non-white person to serve.

You know, this is as opposed to getting rid of the "whites only" rule and then allowing ALL ethnicities to join.
Holy ****. You fail on so many levels.
#2236 Sep 19 2010 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm sorry for the possible triple post, but I'll end the night with this.

Since you people love using race as an example.

Repealing DADT without attacking Sodomy laws is like if the military were "white only". Instead of changing the laws to allow all ethnicities to join the military, you decide to only extend it to allow Native Americans to serve, while keeping it illegal for any non-white person to serve.

You know, this is as opposed to getting rid of the "whites only" rule and then allowing ALL ethnicities to join.

It would be sensible to get rid of the sodomy laws. But you are still not getting that gay =/= sodomy. Male gayness means that you are romantically and sexually attracted to other men. It's how you are, it's inherent. Part of that might be a strong feeling of wanting to have intercourse with a man, but the intercourse is not necessary to your existence the way that love and lustful attraction to males is.

A gay man can live without buttsex if he has to, but he's never going to stop falling in love or lust with other men on the inside.

Straight men have resorted to sodomy with other men for aeons if women aren't available, while remaining straight. They aren't attracted to the sodomy partner, they just want the physical pleasure of an ****** stimulated by somebody else's *******, as a superior physical experience to the ****** induced by ************* Or in the case of a heterosexual male raping another male, it's also about a complete expression of dominance.

Legal sodomy as an issue is closely related to out gays in the military, or SSM, but it's really not the exact same issue. Making sodomy legal, and keeping homosexuality illegal isn't going to free homosexuals in any way. If that happened anywhere, all it does is free up heterosexuals' sexual activity. Making sodomy legal and keeping DADT will keep homosexuals second-class, precarious citizens in the military. It will also keep a culture of condoning homophobia present in the military.
#2237 Sep 19 2010 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
Basically, Alma's argument appears to be that he wants to be able to receive a ******** while he's still in the Army.
#2238 Sep 19 2010 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
After 45 pages, does either side of this argument really think they will get the other side to change their mind?

I have time that needs killing.

Edit: Beating to Death, maybe.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 10:03pm by Aripyanfar
#2239 Sep 19 2010 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,969 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I believe that there can exist logical reasons to discriminate against someone's sexuality or sexual orientation


How can an ostensibly American black man possibly make this statement without being the biggest @#%^ing hypocrite on the planet?

Really, Alma....REALLY?

You keep saying that the military needs a solid image, corps cohesion and discipline and that gays in the military are a disruptive force of same. You realize that exact same argument was made to keep colored folks out years ago, right?

Or at least out of combat: "Golly, them Niggra boys sure can haul ammo, but goddam if we'll let 'em carry a rifle!"

The only possible way to justify your attitude is homophobia.


1. physical trait != personality trait. Comparison is inaccurate.
You keep saying this and it's still invalid. Did you, in your life, ponder the choice of **** and hetero and then pick one? NO!?!??! Neither do others.

2. I never argued that homosexuals shouldn't serve in the military.
You will note that I did not say this.

3. No, the same exact argument was not made years ago, because one was on a physical trait and the other was on a personality trait.
SEE: 1.

4. A)I never made the argument that gays in the military are a disruptive force. That's stuff that you made up. B) I said, removing DADT while having Sodomy laws would create hypocrisy. Get rid of the sodomy laws first then attack DADT.
A) No, you just implied it...over and over again.
B) Homosexual != sodomite

5. Not believing that homosexuals are some special group of people of the military != homophobia
Almalieque wrote:
I believe that there can exist logical reasons to discriminate against someone's sexuality or sexual orientation

But, that is.

Just because the thread is 45 pages doesn't give you an excuse to come in making stuff up. Friends don't let friends post with out reading..

I have read every single post in this thread. Thanks for playing, though! Smiley: clown


Edited, Sep 19th 2010 8:10pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#2240 Sep 19 2010 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
You keep saying that the military needs a solid image, corps cohesion and discipline and that gays in the military are a disruptive force of same. You realize that exact same argument was made to keep colored folks out years ago, right?

Or at least out of combat: "Golly, them Niggra boys sure can haul ammo, but goddam if we'll let 'em carry a rifle!"


3. No, the same exact argument was not made years ago, because one was on a physical trait and the other was on a personality trait.

I really wouldn't argue this issue with a man who says "coloured folks" naturally. I'd say he is a man who remembers those times well, or at least is steeped in that historicity.

Also: read some medical journals, or at least watch some decent science documentaries. You aren't up enough on your general knowledge about neurology as pertaining to sex and sexuality. You can't see the kidneys either, but they're still a physical trait.

You'll let gays in as long as you don't have to knowingly bump into one. How generous. Not.

#2241 Sep 19 2010 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
-REDACTED-
Scholar
***
1,150 posts
Another lolcat. This one seemed rather approprate for this topic.

Surprise!  Butseckz!!
#2242 Sep 19 2010 at 8:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
This is the thread that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Some people, started posting in it, not knowing what it was. And they'll continue posting in it forever just because...

This is the thread that never ends...



sorry, can't get the song out of my head
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#2243 Sep 19 2010 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
-REDACTED-
Scholar
***
1,150 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
This is the thread that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Some people, started posting in it, not knowing what it was. And they'll continue posting in it forever just because...

This is the thread that never ends...



sorry, can't get the song out of my head


Heh. Never thought I would find a use for this. Watch closely now. Smiley: tongue

Never ending song
#2244 Sep 19 2010 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,053 posts
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
This is the thread that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Some people, started posting in it, not knowing what it was. And they'll continue posting in it forever just because...

This is the thread that never ends...



sorry, can't get the song out of my head


Heh. Never thought I would find a use for this. Watch closely now. Smiley: tongue

Never ending song


Forget me replacing your keyboard and monitor if I can't fall asleep tonight because I can't get that song out of my head.

Both you and Ugly will owe me for wasting an Ambiem CR, if I'm still awake at 2am.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#2245 Sep 19 2010 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
This is the thread that never ends. It goes on and on my friends. Some people, started posting in it, not knowing what it was. And they'll continue posting in it forever just because...

This is the thread that never ends...



sorry, can't get the song out of my head
I made this joke liek 3 pages ago and an admin edited my post.

whaddacnut.

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 9:48pm by Bardalicious
#2246 Sep 19 2010 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,735 posts
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
Keep going, we might hit 50. Is this Zam's longest thread evar now?


Longest thread was the Army of Kefka thread. Started in =10 then ended in someone's journal.


645 pages.

Ahh....good times.
#2247 Sep 19 2010 at 9:55 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Pff, only 32,300 posts.

We can do it!
#2248 Sep 19 2010 at 11:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Screenshot
.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#2249 Sep 20 2010 at 6:11 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm sorry for the possible triple post, but I'll end the night with this.

Since you people love using race as an example.

Repealing DADT without attacking Sodomy laws is like if the military were "white only". Instead of changing the laws to allow all ethnicities to join the military, you decide to only extend it to allow Native Americans to serve, while keeping it illegal for any non-white person to serve.

You know, this is as opposed to getting rid of the "whites only" rule and then allowing ALL ethnicities to join.



It's a step in the right direction.


No, that's not a step in the right direction. I can fly from Japan to California going west through Asia, Europe,the Atlantic Ocean and through most of the US. Just because I still end up in California, doesn't mean it was "a step in the right direction". The right direction would be going east through the Pacific ocean.


Arip wrote:
lets see...

......

As a summation, it's all about making sure sex is about pleasure, and not about pain. Unless pain is erotic for you and wanted and you are competent to involve pain in your life in an enriching way, and not a destructive way.


Thanks for your response. I didn't know about the 2 year teen rule. I'm sure that law is broken all of the time with the Senior boys nailing freshman girls.. lol

I see, but you do realize that society has placed limitations on people's sexual desires, rather if it's for others protection or not. Someone can't simply say "well I was born that way" so it should be ok.


Belkira wrote:
What's the difference, really? If someone performs those acts, I'm pretty sure you're disgusted by them.


Completely false. I think eating cooked liver is disgusting, I don't hold some ball of disgust against people who eat chicken liver. I just think the act is disgusting. It is very possible to separate the two.

Belkira wrote:

I think that's pretty obvious that that is not true.


Based on what? If that were true then I wouldn't want DADT repealed in any situation nor the lift on the ban on SSM. Once again, you're just creating a picture because you don't understand how someone can not be a bigot (or equivalent) and not fight for homosexuality. That is a personal problem.

Belkira wrote:

Despise you? no, because being a ***** is a choice. Who you fall in love with is not. It certainly won't gain you any respect, though.


What if the person claims that they were born that way with the need to have sex with multiple people? Is it still a choice? Are you suggesting that these people should go against their natural feelings and hide them to fit in? Who defines love? What if they claim that they are in love with these people, who are you to say that they don't?

I'll respond to the rest later, I have to go to work...
#2250 Sep 20 2010 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Based on what? If that were true then I wouldn't want DADT repealed in any situation nor the lift on the ban on SSM. Once again, you're just creating a picture because you don't understand how someone can not be a bigot (or equivalent) and not fight for homosexuality. That is a personal problem.


You've stated that you do not want DADT lifted, and you are against SSM.

One can easily not "fight for homosexuality" and still be unbigoted. Unfortunately, sinc eyou seem to think sexual orientation is something you can "logically" discriminate against, I don't see that happening in your case. You seem to be fighting "against" homosexuality. Or any positive change that involves sexual orientation discrimination, really.

Almalieque wrote:
What if the person claims that they were born that way with the need to have sex with multiple people? Is it still a choice? Are you suggesting that these people should go against their natural feelings and hide them to fit in? Who defines love? What if they claim that they are in love with these people, who are you to say that they don't?

I'll respond to the rest later, I have to go to work...


Obviously you have no idea how sexual orientation works. By the way, I don't know if the majority of homosxuals "claim" that sexual orientation is something inborn. As a heterosexual, though, I know it is. I never made the choice to like boys. When I was in the fourth grade, I had a huge crush on Matt. I thought he was cute, and seeing him in the hallway and in class made my tummy feel funny and my knees weak. Same thing happened when I saw Mike in the seventh grade. That was not a choice. Believe me, it would've saved me quite a bit of heartache in the years to come if it hadn't happened.

And I have absolutely no idea where you think I ever said anyone should "go against their natural feelings" or "hide who they are."
#2251 Sep 20 2010 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Posting in a long drawn out thread in a long drawn out class.
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 248 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (248)