Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Don't you all get bored of talking to a wall with offensive graffiti on it?

Edited, Sep 20th 2010 11:45am by Ehcks

examples please.

Well, if choosing a feeling was the only criteria for equating a physical trait to a personality trait, then you'll be absolutely correct. Unfortunately, it isn't. People don't decide to be afraid of spiders, enjoy the smell of something, be shy or to have anger management problems. That doesn't mean that they aren't personality traits.

The difference is while most of us didn't choose to be attracted to x,y, or z, there was a time when we weren't attracted to x,y and z. Times have changed, but children use to believe in cooties, thinking that the kids of the opposite sex were nasty. Do you think they were all gay? No, as they grew up, matured and most importantly gone through puberty, they developed feelings for x,y and z. Not only that, I can make a decision to try something new. My feelings may not change, but that option still exist.



You said yourself that I implied that homosexuals were a disruptive force. While, that may not be the exact same thing as saying that they shouldn't serve, what's the point in saying that they are if you're not against them serving?



SEE:1



A) No, I never implied it either, see the first "B"
B) Really? I guess I must have forgotten that the first thousand times that I've said it. That fact is how DADT is able to work. Unfortunately, in the military, it's all about perception. Perception is reality and people will perceive that they are having sex, because that's kinda what romantic couples do you know.....



Uh.. No, you are implying that all discrimination is inherently "bad". As I stated, there can exist rational reasons to discriminate against, sex, height, weight, age, religious preference, etc and homosexuality is no different. Just because you discriminate against someone's age doesn't mean you're an age-a-phobe. There can exist a logical explanation for the discrimination.



If you've read every single post in this thread, then I don't know why I'm having to repeat the same answers to the same questions...



Given that my relatives were in the military during the same time frame and have told me the stories, I believe them over a man who naturally says "coloured folks".



You made up that train of reasoning that simply seeing it means that it's a physical trait. I never claimed that. There's a lot more in traits than choosing something and seeing it.



You seemed obviously confused. I will state my points once more for you so there is no further explanation.

1. I have personal opinions against SSM, but would not let my opinion cloud my judgment. If people were to create a logical argument to allow SSM, then I would not display any opposition.

2. I do not want DADT to be lifted prior to or without changing how the military operates to prevent hypocrisy.

Yes, you can logically discriminate against homosexuality, just like you can heterosexuality and men, women, children, old, young, tall, short, black, white, asian and every other aspect that makes you a person.

The simple act of discriminating isn't wrong, it's how you do it.



Read my first response to Bijou



You said that homosexuals had to lie about who they are and behave a certain way to fit in (i.e. not show open affection) under DADT.

Many, many logical arguments have been made. You're still against it. Interesting.



Yeah, I don't buy that.



Again, saying it doesn't make it true. You'll have to do better that just, "It is because I say so."



Ok. And what does that have to do with anything?



Yes. I said that DADT forces them to do that, and that's why it needs to be repealed. I never said anyone should have to, I am saying the exact opposite.

No, that's true. We discriminate against children all the time. They aren't allowed to vote or get married due to their age. That's discrimination.

I can see no scenario where it would be acceptable (or logical, if you will) based on sexual orientation, however.

A man can't join Curves, which is discrimination based on sex. There is logic behind it, though people may not agree with it.

Affirmative Action is a sort of discrimination based on skin color.

Saying that anyone who isn't a Mormon isn't allowed in their temple is discrimination based on religion. The logic on this might be debateable.

Not being able to ride a roller coaster because you're a pygmy is a good example of how one can be discriminated against because of height. Extremely logical.

Being a parent... I don't know about this one. I can't think of anything.

Age has already been discussed. Kids can't vote or get married, and can't be legally bound in a lot of contracts.

I can't think of one way that someone could be "logically" discriminated based on sexual preference, however.

Edited, Sep 20th 2010 3:26pm by Belkira

Gay people not being allowed at a procreation mixer?

I have no problem with gays and marraige but I took your statement as a challenge :P

I think it can be. You're denying them a good or service based on their height. Maybe I'm over-extending the definition, though.

You're not denying them anything, it's simply not possible for them to ride the rollercoaster safely.

Sure you are. They can't ride the roller coaster. That's denying it to them. It's possible for them to ride the roller coaster. But like you said, there's a safety risk. That doesn't mean you're not deying them something based on their height, which would then be discrimination.

A child doesn't have a choice about how old he or she is, either, but they are still discriminated against voting or signing most contracts. They don't hold minors legally responsible for contracts because the child is considered to not understand what they are signing. That discrimination is for their safety, as well.

Like I said, maybe I'm over-extending the definition. But from the arguments you're giving, I'm not convinced I am. If I'm wrong, that's cool. I have no problem with that.

There is that facet of it, and I can see why a Sociology class would narrow it to that, but the defnintion is:



I'm going on number two here, obviously.

ETA: Going by your definition, though, Bard, you would be right, though. There wouldn't be any reason to unjustly differentiate between any of these "groups, classes, or catagories."

Edited, Sep 20th 2010 4:13pm by Belkira