Belkira wrote:
Heterosexuals wouldn't work there or volunteer there?
ETA: Also, that's not true. A man who is heterosexual but found himself having a wet dream about another man would get "counseling" there if he sought it.
If the qualifications were based off of experience, no heterosexual would work or volunteer. If I were in charge of such an organization, I wouldn't just allow anyone to work with me spreading information that I, or the organization, didn't agree with. I would want people who "been there and done that", not some
Hetero who thinks he understands based off of a movie.
Now, if that hetero was once a ****, then maybe. If my organization were "fair and balanced", then I would allow him. If my purpose were to be biased towards them accepting homosexuality, then I wouldn't.
A heterosexual having a wet dream doesn't equate to a homosexual having a hard time accepting their sexuality. It's a dream. If he wants information on dreams, then he needs to go see someone qualified in that area. If and only if he thought he was possibly gay would his presence have any value. In which case, it's still an organization for gay people.
Belkira wrote:
Not necessarily, considering that gay couples can marry in some states now.
But I'd like to see where it's ok for the government to do so, since we're talking about the military and all. That's sort of what your argument hinges on.
What??
A gay couple != husband and wife. I didn't say marriage organization, I said husband and wife relations. That would discriminate against homosexuals, not out of fear, hatred or bigotry, but simply because a husband/wife relationship is different from any other relation to include bf/gf.
Belkira wrote:
That's cute. Do you care to address the issue and try to explain your point? Otherwise, you just sound like a complete moron spouting lies.
I'm simply showing you how your skin color isn't equivalent to your sexuality. The simple nature of the two are completely different.
Quote:
I got my definition from the people who study this sort of thing.
I didn't ask you where you got it, I'm asking you what it is. If I define it first, then I'll get accused of playing semantics, so I'll just work with your definition, because it doesn't matter. I'm working off of concept.
Belkira wrote:
No, that's never been my argument. At all. Not once. I said that the government can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.
It must be getting late, I'm sure I addressed this. I'm confusing myself with all of these posts.. not sure which one I've already done or not. If I didn't respond to this already, say so, I'll do it.
Belkira wrote:
You don't see the difference between telling people not to act on their urges to rape children versus telling them to stop being attracted to them?
I know the difference, my point was in reference to what you think is right and/or wrong? Do you think it's
conceptually wrong to tell someone not to act on their natural feelings? Or, do you think the morality depends on the feelings and on the situation?
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Xsarus wrote:
It's not really hypocritical though, because sodomy doesn't make you gay, nor is it a defining part of being gay.
It might not make much sense, but nonsensical things don't have to be hypocritical.
It really is though, because I've already said at least twice on this page how.
Well, hell, if you said it...
It's not "because I say so", it's because "that's how the military works". If you had any
military experience you would know what I'm talking about. Once again, feel free to ask any military vet about perception in the military.
To help you out, I found a neat little article giving an example of someone getting in trouble for the perception of doing something wrong.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/community/opinion/airforce_editorial_perception_102609/ wrote:
For the first time in its history, the Air Force has disciplined a former chief of staff.
Secretary Michael Donley issued a letter of admonishment to retired Gen. T. Michael Moseley for accepting gifts from a friend whose company eventually won a $50 million contract to promote the Thunderbirds.
Moseley disputes that he did anything wrong, telling Air Force Times that his friend’s company never had the inside track — it just looked that way.
That, however, is precisely the issue: The Air Force’s top officer has to know that perception in such matters is reality. Even a hint of conflict of interest tarnishes the institution.
Moseley did not have a direct role in awarding the Thunderbirds contract, but he created a problem for himself by drawing his judgment into question, not only about accepting the gifts, but also in communications using government e-mail that blurred the lines between friendship and business.
The Thunderbirds contract, awarded in 2005, was canceled the next year following a protest by a competing bidder.
It took three years for a slow-moving Defense Department inspector general investigation to finally be completed. In the meantime, Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired Moseley for other reasons.
Regardless, however, it should stand as a cautionary tale to all officers: Even the appearance of impropriety is damaging. Absolute firewalls must be maintained between one’s personal and professional lives.
Again, anyone with any military experience knows this. Why you decide to still argue this point knowing that you have no idea what you're talking about, is beyond me..
Edited, Sep 21st 2010 3:36am by Almalieque 
No you haven't. You have insisted it is the case, but that's about it. Feel free to link me to the post you're referring too, I came back to this thread this morning and saw over 100 posts unread.