Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Yeah, that didn't happen.

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?



All of this time and that's the best you can come up with?!?!





Yea, it did happen....

At least you replied and attempted... I guess...

I don't know why any of this is relevant.

I was talking about a completely different subject there. I'd say that your reading comprehension is awful, but really you're just being willfully ignorant.

Because my comment was directed at Alma and his, "repealing DADT would make the military hypocrites because they have these anti-sodomy laws." My point was that it's already hypocritical since people can be openly heterosexual.

That and the fact that people are already fighting against DADT, so it's irrelevant to talk about what you think "should've" been done.

Edited, Sep 21st 2010 9:53pm by Belkira

Just answer the question..



Ever since they were created.



No you weren't. You said multiple times that the other "causes" were not comparable to homosexuality. If you were talking about something else, then what was it?



No, you called his statement irrelevant also. Every point that seems to be a good point, you all label as "irrelevant"

No, it's not what we "should have done", but what we suppose to do". The REPEAL WAS DENIED. Simply doing the same thing wont work, you have to make a change somewhere. That change should start off with other laws. You don't want to do it, because all you care about is homosexuality. You just don't want to admit it



Typo, now answer the question again.



It never changed. You're just trying to create some instance as it had. Working with someone is completely different than living with someone. I was talking from a point of working since I live alone. People aren't going to complain on something they can't prove.



I understand your "counter claim", but that scenario is only true because they can't prove anything. That means their roommate aren't doing homosexual things. If the ban is lifted, then they are free to do homosexual activities in the room openly and openly have sexual oriented stuff just like a hetero does.. I'm sorry try again.

Sure whatever man. So are you going to answer the question or are you going to join the club of ignoring questions and labeling them irrelevant?

Tell me why it's relevant and I will.



It was.



I don't know how many times I have to say that I'm all in favor of repealing the sodomy and oral sex laws. Just because I don't see the point in dropping all of the progress that has been made with DADT and do it your way doesn't mean sh*t. Yes, the repeal was denied. That doesn't mean the fight is over. That doesn't mean we should scrap it and give up.


Edited, Sep 22nd 2010 9:10am by Belkira

A kiss on the cheek? A hug? Holding hands? You know, all of those banal displays of affection? What kind of @#%^ed up circle do you roam with where everyone you know has sex in public?

Edited, Sep 22nd 2010 11:19am by Sweetums

Except me asking that question was me attempting to explain to you. You're simply avoiding the question because you realize that you're wrong, else you would have just said "no, it's not hypocritical". You know, the same response you gave when you realized my typo. Now, all of the sudden you can't answer it? lol... and I'm the dense one....get serious..



Read above

Ok, I will: It's relevant because of your answer. Now, answer the question. It really doesn't matter one way or the other. You haven't questioned the relativity of almost anything in the past 48 pages without answering. Now all of the sudden, when you finally realize that you're wrong, you don't want to answer anything.

haha



Neither did I. I didn't say scrap it. You agreed that attacking laws like Sodomy were more logical but wasn't worth the effort to stop the current process. Well, the repeal was denied, you have to try something different. This would be the time to attack the SAME situation with the more logical approach that you agreed to earlier. Simply asking for another repeal with no change will just yield the same result.

See, what you do is, study why you lost, ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES FIRST, then you attempt for the repeal. If you're not going to address the issues that prevented your success the first time, what makes you think they wont prevent the success the second time?

In this case, the 4 star mentioned privacy issues. *Hint, hint* I would find a solution, at least on paper, to address any possible privacy issues. Along that, I would address any other potential issues that also might prevent the success of the repeal, i.e. sodomy laws. Unlike the BS Xsarus mentioned, that bill did indeed consist of more things than just the appeal of DADT. It's not difficult to attack more than one issue at once.




So in other words, you're wrong and you don't want to admit it. You people spend more time typing other stuff than just answering the question. The entire time, I was giving you examples of people getting thrown out for reasons such as sexuality. You kept countering them saying that they weren't comparable to sexuality because homosexuality is a personal trait.


But whatever... let's do this, as your denial doesn't change anything. In your example comparison of sodomy to homosexuality, you stated "Homosexuality is a personal quality and one which might be uncovered about a soldier without them committing any other dischargeable offenses".

You also said that a person's weight is a personal trait. Soldiers can get discharged for weight without them committing any other dischargeable offenses.

So, would agree that discharging homosexuals based on that personal trait is NOT unique, that other people are discharged for similar reasons? If not, how so?

'Atta boy. I knew you'd get there eventually.

Here's the part where I have to explain how the written word works to you again, like you're in grade school.



You had equated homosexuality to sodomy. Here, I'm trying to illustrate that they are not the same thing; that one is an action, and can be avoided, while the other cannot be avoided, because it is inherent. Therefore you cannot argue that bans on homosexuality and sodomy are one and the same. You'll note that I never say that "Anything is justified as long as it is inherent."

Whether or not the physical weight of a person can get them discharged has exactly no bearing on this whatsoever. As I stated before:



I don't know if they're justified or not, and I'm not going to pretend to. They're an entirely separate issue, though.

obviously not, but it's interesting that you are, yet again, trying to use misdirection and purposeful misunderstanding to distract from an issue where you clearly have no real argument.