Judge Halts DADTFollow

This was always a stupid argument. It's as if you've never learned anything about Jim Crow laws. Since the law applies equally to everyone it's totally not discriminatory right?

I believe the bolded portions speak for themselves, and that the conclusion is that everything in the book of Leviticus has been null and void for Christians for about the last two millenia.

It isn't equal. Homosexual relationship aren't equal to heterosexual relationships or else they'd both have access to exactly the same legal protections.

You're trying to frame the picture around a totally irrelevant perspective that conveniently suits your idiotic argument. "Any man of any sexuality can marry any woman of any sexuality," is totally meaningless because the issue here is not gender but sexuality. It's also an argument that supports racial segregated marriages. "Any man of any race can marry any woman of the same race." See, everyone is equal!

Depending on the living arrangements, a Man Soldier can room with his wife (* That's assuming they're both in the service and in the same unit, of course). For instance, I live in a two~three man CHU (common housing units), which allow married couples. Of course, a barracks that holds a good half dozen people or more would be understandable. You get the patch for being in a combat zone for ... thirty days, I believe, not for being a combat unit. Usually of the division you're attached to. Not only that, but depending on how you're attached, you might get multiple patches, and you can wear whichever one you feel like. I've got like five now (two from just this deployment) and I use them on my uniforms to keep track of which I've worn and which are in need of cleaning.

Edited, Oct 16th 2010 12:20am by lolgaxe

And again that's not relevant. When I build a submarine I care about achieving equal density with water; not equal specific heat, not equal viscosity, not equal mass, not equal volume, not equal shear. When discussing homosexuality the concern is over equality in sexuality; not in gender, not in age, not in race. You're right that every gay male is as equally male as a straight male, but you're wrong in thinking that matters. Is every sexuality as equal to heterosexuality? No.

You're dodging the question because you know you're wrong. You know that homosexuality isn't treated legally equal to heterosexuality, and so you achieve the cognitive dissidence required to hold your position by conflating sexuality with gender.

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that you changed positions and are boggled down on the details. The details don't change the fact that you changed position. Are you going to address this issue or are you going to keep ignoring it?

Second, I'm not denying your point, the problem is once again, you're focusing on "fairness" while at the same time dismissing the value of "fairness".

The law is created equally in reference to sex, the fact that it isn't considered equally in every aspect is a matter of fairness. Under your philosophy, nothing can ever truly be considered equal. That is why there is a difference between equality and fairness. The law is created to equally effect males and females, so therefor it was created equally in respect to sex. If the law gave one sex more privileges than the other, then the law would have been created unequally in respect to sex, but that wasn't the case.

What you are claiming is absurd. Under your philosophy, none of our laws are equal, because they all have criteria, i.e. US citizenship. A visitor or illegal immigrant doesn't have the same rights as a US citizen. That doesn't mean the laws aren't equal, because they were created for US citizens and as long as they are equal for US citizens, then they are equal.

The fact that a Japanese native and other foreigners can't vote in the US Presidential election is a matter of fairness, not equality. To you, it might be fair, to someone else it might not be fair, either way, the law is equal. It would only be unequal if we allowed some foreigners to vote while disallowing others to vote with no criteria other than "just because".

So, if no laws are equal, then why care about equality?

So, I'm not wrong in any sense. You all contradicted yourself and instead of addressing the fact that you changed sides, you're attacking the same argument that we already had numerous times over that has no impact that you changed sides (at least with Belkira).



???

I don't disagree that equality is based on metrics, but if a law were created equally based on certain metrics, then you can't claim that law weren't created equally. It may not be equal in another set of metrics, but once again, that's the difference between equality and fairness.

Why you all refuse to accept that fact is beyond ridiculous. You can never create a law that would be truly equal in every aspect. No one cares, because that's not what we're striving for, we aim for fairness. That's why laws affect people differently depending on location, age, sex, health, etc. It's not about being equal in every aspect, but to be fair to all party members.

No matter what law you create, you can always say "it isn't 'equal' under another set of metrics". So what does that mean? What value does that add? Does that mean we should change the law because it isn't "equal" under an arbitrary set of metrics? Given the fact that no law can practically be equal in every set of metrics, it is dumb to make an argument based off of that.

I challenge you that I could find some sort of inequality in just about every law you present to me. The equality of a law is based on the metrics it was created on. Rather that law is equal to everyone and everything is a completely separate issue.

Fairness is subjective and legally not used.

No, it's about being equal in relevant areas. That's the important part, relevance.

That's the point alma. Only the relevant areas actually matter. If you go and say well, but it's not equal this way, it doesn't matter. As such if we're having a discussion about sexuality and how this is a factor that needs to be treated equally, or that it shouldn't make a difference, it doesn't work to say it's equal wrt to gender, because we're not discussing that. Great, it should also be equal wrt to gender, but again, that's not the metric we're applying, so in fact it is very much not equal.

Yes that is what people are saying, you're the one who keeps bringing up irrelevant ways laws are equal or not equal.

People are saying there needs to be equal treatment between these two very well defined groups, and you're reading people saying everything needs to be perfectly equivalent, which is a different thing altogether.

Edited, Oct 16th 2010 12:34pm by Xsarus

So is relevance, I've already agreed to this. Both fairness and relevance are subjective, the only thing objective is equality. All you're doing is fighting to expand the equality in different areas that you *believe* to be relevant, which is exactly what fairness is.



Read above, relevance is also subjective. Being equal in relevant areas =........ wait for it, wait for it,....... FAIRNESS. You just can't label something irrelevant because you don't want to deal with it or vice-versa, claim it's relevant because you want something from it. But guess what? You can surely call something relevant or irrelevant based on your opinion, does that make it relevant? How is that any different than being fair? If that were the case, people wouldn't get their panties in a bunch when opponents mention other forms of banned marriages claiming that it's "totally different". Under your logic, they are the same exact thing, "It isn't equal, therefore the law should change".

"I can't marry my horse, that's unequal, therefore the law should change". Well that's stupid, you know why, the law was made for humans not animals, so it is equal among humans. If the law allowed you to marry a dog, cat and a parrot but not your horse, then you can say it's unequal.



Once again, I'm not arguing against your statement. That is true, under your argument, the marriage laws are not "equal" for sexualities, I've never argued against that. Matter of fact, I agreed to that. My point is, even so, you can't say that the marriage laws in general are not equal, because they weren't created under the metrics that you are applying for your argument. So, you can claim that the laws aren't "equal", because they are, they are just not "equal" to your metrics that you deem to be relevant, which is...... wait for it.... wait for it..... FAIRNESS.



No I'm not, that's because you fail to utilize words correctly and grasp the difference between equality and fairness. If you admit that everything is not, nor can not, be equal, how does claiming one thing "unequal" suppose to change anything? How can you not see the flaw in that tactic?

You admit that laws aren't equal nor should be equal, so why should a law change just because it isn't equal? There has to be more to your argument than simply "It's not equal", because you have accepted the fact that laws aren't equal. You have to show how your metrics are relevant to the law, which is a matter of fairness not equality.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the fact that you all (at least Belkira) have changed sides when the script was flipped against heterosexuals being denied to live with their love ones.

That alone proves that you all are full of BS

I never said anything about living with loved ones. Nice try, though. Stop letting your emotions rule over logic, Alma.

This doesn't matter at all. We're saying that the inequality with regards to sexuality is unjustified. It doesn't matter at all why marriage laws were created, and at any rate, when marriage laws were created gay marriage wasn't illegal anyway.

Because we're focusing on a specific point of inequality.

Whatever. What Nadenu said. This is all going over your head anyway.