Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Posting in a thread without having even opened it for the last 104 posts.

Alma's x's didn't have a multiplier. They simple asked which weighs more, x or y (I'm picking y because of the long tail).

That is not an accurate summary.

My point is very simple.

When you join the military, you forfeit many rights, privileges, freedoms, etc. that a normal citizen has. For example, you no longer have the "freedom" to freely express yourself.

So, when people argue against DADT simply because homosexuals can't freely express themselves, I say that isn't sufficient, because everyone is a "victim" to the same rule. Just because YOU believe hiding your homosexuality is worse than any other relationship status rule that the military has, doesn't make it so.

I never said that DADT must remain in order to prevent the military to appear like hypocrites, I said, having current laws like the ban on Sodomy WHILE lifting the ban on DADT will create hypocrisy.

My point has always been, if you want to repeal DADT, do it logically, not rushed because of the hype. It's very clear that people don't understand how the military works and just want change because they think its wrong.

This was all before listening to the 4 star that mentioned the privacy issue. Now, I'm wondering if there's an efficient way to take in consideration the privacy issue. That might put a halt in progress.

I seriously don't see how you can't see the hypocrisy. In the military, perception is reality. It doesn't matter if you are actually doing it or not. If it is perceived that you are doing it, then you are doing it.

The perception is, romantic couples, especially young ones, have sex. If you allow homosexuals to be open about their relationship, it is perceived that they are having sex. Vaginal sex is the only authorized sex position in the military. Since men typically don't have a ****** and women typically don't have a *****, the perception is that they are partaking in unauthorized sexual activities. By not punishing homosexuals for perceiving to partake in sodomy, you are contradicting the point in the ban of sodomy. This is only because the military operates off of "perception is reality". If the military didn't operate off that motto, then there wouldn't be any hypocrisy.


As for your question, as Xsarus pointed out, there is a difference between unequal treatment and hypocrisy. Not allowing homosexuals to state their sexual orientation is unequal treatment but not hypocritical. This is because the military has numerous rules on relationships that prevents everyone from the ability to be open about their personal life. Just because homosexuality just so happens to be one of them, doesn't mean it's hypocritical. Under that logic, anything that is banned under any restriction is hypocritical.

I do, I posted it a few pages back for Belkira.. I forget which page. I gave the link and quoted the text.

Totem vs Alma is a fight I'd pay to watch

No, I'm just trying to get you all to stop talking out of ignorance. When you all consistently say things that absolutely make no sense, it becomes blatantly obvious that the people in question have no idea what is going on. I'm simply trying to get you in the know, but since the information is coming from me, you all refuse to accept it.

Example?

[quote=paulsol]*************
culo

Well, you know the intent is to back up what you're saying.. kinda like how I was just questioned about the "perception is reality", even though I provided a link. But, of course, it's only me. carry on..

You are more than likely correct, but I'm just talking from my stand point as a Soldier. That's how the Army works and that isn't going to change just because DADT is repealed.



Oh, as a member of the military, I would surely hope not. There is obviously a different interpretation on morals and values and even though I despise Republicans most of the time, I, as well with most of the military based on voting history, prefer more conservative laws when it comes to morals and values.

Free to do whatever you want and please and forcing people to "deal with it" isn't considered "morals and values", it's called an agenda.



I completely agree for just about every job I can think of off the top of my head except the military. The military != the civilian work force and as such shouldn't be treated as so. If you make that convergence, then what power does the military have over the servicemen? The fact that it isn't a civilian workforce is how they can force you to do stuff or threaten you with jail time. The only way to maintain order and discipline is to have extra restrictions and lack of individual power.

I don't know what type of military you want where people can just quit at any time and simply just be an individual. I know that you're probably aren't thinking that extreme, but that's exactly what you're promoting by claiming that the military should emulate the civilian work force. It should simply never happen, ever.



I answered this in my last post to you.

Up until I heard the 4 star speak on the privacy issue, my answer was "sure, do whatever you want, I don't care". Now my answer is "maybe", depending if they can address the privacy issue or any other hindering issue. Like I mentioned before, it's not like homosexuals aren't already serving. Some people coming out would probably be a surprise, but I suspect a lot of "Ricky Martins", "Clay Atkins" "Ne-yo's" and "Rosie O'donnels".

One post before 50th page.