Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

I have absolutely no idea what you think I'm wrong about. At all. You're asking an extremely complex and loaded question, and I have no idea why. I don't know what I've said that has prompted this. Was it me saying that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation? Was it me saying that people shouldn't be forced to hide who they are? I can't simply answer the question. There is a myraid of possible answers.

So, I guess my answer is... maybe?



I don't remember agreeing that attacking the sodomy laws before DADT was logical. I might have agreed that it is logical to attack those laws as well.



I don't do anything. It seems like you think I'm spearheading something here. I'm not. I'm supporting a repeal. Just like I'd support a repeal of the assinine sodomy and oral sex laws. Hell, I'll even support the repeal of your "do not grow a beard" law, just for you!

But I'm not standing in a courtroom arguing anything.



Yeah, we've talked about the privacy issues here. In this very thread, actually. So... done?



Yes! I've been saying that for over ten pages now. Welcome to the point! So get to it, sparky. Start the repeal of those laws you don't like. I'll support it, just like I'm supporting the repeal of DADT.

Edited, Sep 22nd 2010 12:50pm by Belkira

I was obviously returning your jester of me giving you permission to change my font.

I do find it funny though that you ridiculed me for differentiating discrimination as something possibly good or bad when the normal interpretation is bad. This is because you done the same thing for the word hypocritical when you know I simply meant "unequal treatment". It's all fair game though, lets proceed.

According to you, my example is unequal treatment, but you can't simply label it hypocritical without knowing the situation. Ok, so back to the DADT, you accept the fact that it is unequal treatment. I've stated that the unequal treatment was hypocritical, you claim that it wasn't. Why is this unequal treatment NOT hypocritical? Just like how the handicap are justified for having their own special spots in the community, what is your justification for the unequal treatment for homosexuals in the military?



I'm not sure why you thought that was an extremely complex and loaded question, because it wasn't. It was essentially a "yes", "no" or a "maybe" and you answered "maybe". You focused too much on the "why" when the "why" wasn't necessary because I asked in reference to the concept, which is why I bold it.

This is all relevant because since you, and every other sane person, believes that the answer depends on the situation, you can not have a blanket response as "it's not right because you are forcing people to not express what is an essential part of them". Just like with my above response to Xsarus, you have to justify why it's different. Simply saying it's wrong to force people to behave that way wont cut it. That's why it's relevant.



You're right, you didn't, I reread it and realized that I misread what you wrote. You said you get how "I" would think that to "me".

So, let me ask you another question then. If no progress were done in either sodomy or DADT, which one would want to go first? The rules on sodomy or DADT? Or, would you want them gone at the same time?



Thanks for pointing that out.



I know, I wasn't trying to revisit them. I was trying to point out that if you were to attack the situation again, those would be the things to discuss.



Uh, that's not what I meant. I meant hypothetically speaking, since you pointed out that we aren't actually doing anything, the approach would have it done on one appeal at once, not two. If they aren't together, the DADT repeal isn't supported by the sodomy repeal which defeats the purpose of having the two done at the same time. The DADT will just fail again.

I feel it is my prerogative to stick my head in here every few weeks or so and exclaim:

This thread is *still* going on?!

No, it is a complex question, and the answer isn't essentially yes or no. There are so many factors to consider in each and every situation, that even saying "maybe" was probably a bad idea.



Ah, but in this situation, it is wrong. Which is why your question was irrelevant. I understand that you don't think it's wrong to ask homosexuals to pretend to be something they are not. I also understand that you know that I do think that's wrong. So, congratulations. We've spent about two pages talking about essentially nothing.



I don't really care.

Says the guy that sold most of his life to the military and spends what little he has left on a gaming forum discussing politics.

Uhhhhhh

Oh, so you are one of those freeloaders sucking at the dried up tits of the American taxpayer system?

Awesome



Also, no wonder we are losing the war.

This is why we can't have nice things

This is the asylum. That's the whole point of this forum.

As to the rating, he's probably being rated up because someone appreciates the activity he generates even as they may or may not agree with him. It's odd I know, to be able to disagree with someone without rating them down, but there it is.

Edited, Sep 22nd 2010 11:51pm by Xsarus

You can't deny Alama has been the most useful Asylum Poster in the last fortnight.

I can and do.

School and 3 hours of work a week. What a hard life, man

False:




I don't recall ever mentioning that people actually get kicked out for sodomy or oral sex. I stated that those charges are usually tagged on to other charges such as rape just to worsen any sentence.

In the quote above, I gave two examples, a woman posing in playboy and people having a relationship deemed improper. You claimed that I wasting time because I could never find anything analogous as stating that you're a homosexual.

You were the one who came up with the example using sodomy and how that was different from homosexuality.You did this because you confused two arguments by merging them together.

1.The first argument was that by allowing homosexuals to serve openly WHILE maintaining the ban on Sodomy is hypocritical, not because the two coincide, but because that's how perception works in the military.

2. The second argument was the one I argued with you, that there exist other reasons that are as irrelevant as sexuality that causes people to be chaptered out of the military.

YOU combined the two and created an argument that I was never making. Not only that, if you agreed that there existed other reasons that were just as irrelevant as sexuality, then why did you insist that they were not comparable and further more that I wasting time because I would never find anything analogous? Obviously you believed that it was indeed unique, until you realized it wasn't, now you're trying to go back. That's why you said (paraphrased), "even if it were comparable, two wrongs don't make a right". That translates that you don't believe it is, but if for some reason you do find one, that's wrong also.



I'm proving to you that your logic used against DADT (personal trait, not an action that can get you discharged without doing anything else) applies to other people in the military besides homosexuals. This means, it is a common thing that happens in the military so you can't use that to repeal DADT, because it is consistent with everything else in the military.



Except I've literally said probably at least TEN TIMES, that I'm not comparing sodomy to homosexuality that this is all about image and perception from the military. I've said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, that homosexuality != sodomy or any other sexual relation and that fact is how DADT is able to work.



Yet, there still exist some that have no negative consequences and are purely based on image and perception, just like I said with overweight people who physically perform better than people within the weight standards. You are basically being discharged because "you look fat". Matter of fact, I had a job offer to work with a General and the Major said that if you had any physical fitness problems that I needed to let her know. I told her about my knee injury and she replied (paraphrased)," oh it doesn't matter, you just can't look like a fatty fat fat kid and out of shape, it doesn't matter if you aren't in the best of shape."



So, you agree that there are other people who are equally discharged for reasons similar to DADT?



Ridicule was a bad word choice, which I knew before I wrote it. I couldn't think of a better word to use. I knew exactly what you were doing, because we had this very same conversation before. I know exactly what they thought, I was just expanding their vocabulary by using the best fit word.

What I was referencing to you is that you claimed that I was trying to "distract" people from the actual debate or something because I knew what meaning that they were referring to. In reality, I was just using the best fit word.

When I used the word hypocritical, I was referring to unequal treatment. Most people assume that unequal treatment is considered hypocritical unless it has been justified. I gave you a scenario and asked you if that was hypocritical, you responded that you didn't know because x could be justified, when you knew I was referencing to the concept of unequal treatment.

So, you essentially done the same exact thing to me as what you accused me of doing to bard. Either way, I adjusted and continued.



Well, let's go back to the example with "activity x". You claimed that you couldn't label that situation as hypocritical because "x" could be justified. So, that means that you accept the fact that the "activity x" scenario is unequal treatment, but you can't say it's hypocritical, because you don't know what "x" is, because, "x" could be justified. Is that correct?



It isn't nor wasn't a "yes" or "no" question. The many factors to consider in each and every situation = "maybe". "Maybe" means it is a situational thing and one just can't blindly say one way or the other without going into further details of each situation. So, once again, this was not a loaded question because I was questioning the concept and not a specific scenario.




False; You're doing exactly what I was trying to prove above. You stated that "there are so many factors to consider in each and every situation", yet you haven't discussed any of those factors on why it is wrong other than the concept of asking someone to pretend to be who they are not. That's why the question was relevant, to see if you conceptually believe that asking someone to pretend to be something they are not is wrong. If you do, then that would explain your stance. If you do not, then that means that you're argument is lacking. So, no time was wasted.



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?

[quote=Belkira]I don't really care. [/quote]

That's interesting that you say that you don't care, because from your responses, it appears that you care a lot more about DADT. It appears that you think DADT is wrong on so many levels but think the sodomy levels are just stupid, not really infringing on anyone's life as much as DADT does.