• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon: No Plans to Change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy After Court Ruling

The Mark said:
Well, actually, it would depend on the issue.

If, for example, texmaster was opposed to a federally funded road construction project in Arizona.

And, for some reason, the entire "gay community" (the "official" one, that is) supported it.

Would that make him a "bigot, homophobe, etc?"

Nope.

----------------------

On the other hand, if texmaster supported a law requiring catching any known gay person and placing them in a cage hanging from a bridge (yes, I pulled that one out of my ass).

And for some reason (yeah, right), the entire "gay community" (probably not just the "official one") opposed it, then yes, he would be a bigot/homophobe, among other things.

-------------------

So, what is the issue he disagrees with homosexuals on, in this case?
Click to expand...

That's a real sttttttttttttttrecccccccccccccccht
 
One can disagree with homosexuals and feel that homosexuality is wrong without thinking that homosexuals are not entitled to equal rights.

that is the point most gay supporters miss when they label anyone who is against homosexuality as a bigot.

hell i think eating boiled okra is nasty and disgusting, but i fully support anyone's right to eat it.
 
OscarB63 said:
One can disagree with homosexuals and feel that homosexuality is wrong without thinking that homosexuals are not entitled to equal rights.

that is the point most gay supporters miss when they label anyone who is against homosexuality as a bigot.

hell i think eating boiled okra is nasty and disgusting, but i fully support anyone's right to eat it.
Click to expand...

So you think homosexual marriages should be recognized by the state then right?
 
The Mark said:
Why?

*10 characters*
Click to expand...

Because we aren't talking about such off the wall topics as whether Blacks support banning electrocution of pigs by pork farmers...or gays supporting road construction......
 
OscarB63 said:
One can disagree with homosexuals and feel that homosexuality is wrong without thinking that homosexuals are not entitled to equal rights.

that is the point most gay supporters miss when they label anyone who is against homosexuality as a bigot.

hell i think eating boiled okra is nasty and disgusting, but i fully support anyone's right to eat it.
Click to expand...

True...however most people do not believe the way you do. Most of the anti-gay folk are completely for banning them from sharing in the same rights/privileges as everyone else. It is THAT that makes them bigots.
 
apdst said:
No other source, besides the veterans on this forum, plus the commandant of the Marine Corps. But, we're all just a bunch of bogits and racists. Am I right?

BTW, looks like the DoD didn't cow-tow to the 9th Circus, as preidcted.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
1) I never said that all the vets on this forum agree with me.

2) Show me the quotes that prove that MOST vets on this forum say that abolishing DADT will work.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

So what we have is you claiming to speak for veterans, when you don't, then do the same thing to me you falsely accused me of doing, so I never used the word "most". I said "many". I think you will agree that those words have significant;y different meaning. Double fail there, very impressive.
 
Navy Pride said:
You don't even have you own party on board....There are a lot of dems against lifting the ban also........
Click to expand...

Again, the largest portion of opposition is based on the timing, not the actual repeal. Those opposed who have expressed an opinion are mostly waiting for the DoD/Pentagon report early next year. I even agree with them, it should wait on that report.
 
Redress said:
So what we have is you claiming to speak for veterans, when you don't, then do the same thing to me you falsely accused me of doing, so I never used the word "most". I said "many". I think you will agree that those words have significant;y different meaning. Double fail there, very impressive.
Click to expand...

You don't, "speak for veterans", when you say that most vets agree with you?? You're clearly wrong, in saying that vet do so.
 
apdst said:
You don't, "speak for veterans", when you say that most vets agree with you?? You're clearly wrong, in saying that vet do so.
Click to expand...

Are you still confused by the word "many"? It does not mean "most". I specifically said "many". Here, let me show you:

Redress said:
The veterans on this forum don't all agree with you. Speak for yourself, as many of the vets here think not only is DADT repeal coming, but that it will work.
Click to expand...

Note the bolded word. It's not "most". I did not claim "most". The word "many" is not a synonym of the word "most". They have entirely different meanings. I am clearly right in saying many.
 
Redress said:
Are you still confused by the word "many"? It does not mean "most". I specifically said "many". Here, let me show you:



Note the bolded word. It's not "most". I did not claim "most". The word "many" is not a synonym of the word "most". They have entirely different meanings. I am clearly right in saying many.
Click to expand...

You're wrong when you say that many vets on this forum are in your corner. They're not.
 
apdst said:
You're wrong when you say that many vets on this forum are in your corner. They're not.
Click to expand...

People have different definitions of what constitutes "many". Given the size of this forum and the number of veterans on this board, what round about number would constitute "many" to you?
 
disneydude said:
True...however most people do not believe the way you do. Most of the anti-gay folk are completely for banning them from sharing in the same rights/privileges as everyone else..
Click to expand...
:shock:
What rights/priviliges are gays denied that everyone else has?
 
Goobieman said:
:shock:
What rights/priviliges are gays denied that everyone else has?
Click to expand...

I don't want this to get stupid again, but homosexuals cannot marry the adult human not relative they love and are attracted to. Heterosexuals can. That means there is a separate standard. Don't even try to argue they can marry someone they don't love and are not attracted to because that's just stupid and disingenuous as an argument.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't want this to get stupid again, but homosexuals cannot marry the adult human not relative they love and are attracted to. Heterosexuals can.
Click to expand...
Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals can marry someone of the same gender.
Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry somene of the opposite gender.
Everyone has the same privilege; everyone has the same limitation.
Where's the discrimination?
 
Goobieman said:
Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals can marry someone of the same gender.
Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry somene of the opposite gender.
Everyone has the same privilege; everyone has the same limitation.
Where's the discrimination?
Click to expand...

As I said, this type of argument is dishonest and disingenuous, not to mention stupid. Marriage is less about gender and more about who you love and are attracted to. If you are allowed to amrry someone you are not in love with and not attracted to, you essentially have no right. And that is discrimination without just cause for the limitation.
 
Boo Radley said:
As I said, this type of argument is dishonest and disingenuous, not to mention stupid.
Click to expand...
You may then show me how the law treats anyone differently than anyone else.
If you cannot, then you cannot soundly argue that the law discriminates.
 
Goobieman said:
You may then show me how the law treats anyone differently than anyone else.
If you cannot, then you cannot soundly argue that the law discriminates.
Click to expand...

I already have. heterosexuals look at the person they are attracted to, love. And they marry that person. Homosexuals look at the person they are attracted to, love, and are not allowed to marry them. Discrimintation. This is why they keep winning in court. The law sees the discrimination and not the silly arguement you're making. Without just cause to discriminate, the law says you can't. You have to argue more as a cause then you don't like it.
 
Boo Radley said:
I already have. heterosexuals look at the person they are attracted to, love. And they marry that person. Homosexuals look at the person they are attracted to, love, and are not allowed to marry them. Discrimintation.
Click to expand...
That's not discrimination. For discrimination to exist, under the law, one group of people must have a different privilege or restriction than some other group.

All groups have the same privilige; all groups have the same restriction. Arguing that some people might get to do exactly what they want and some people do not doesnt equate to discrimination, under the law.
 
Goobieman said:
That's not discrimination. For discrimination to exist, under the law, one group of people must have a different privilege or restriction than some other group.

All groups have the same privilige; all groups have the same restriction. Arguing that some people might get to do exactly what they want and some people do not doesnt equate to discrimination, under the law.
Click to expand...

They do ahve a different privliledge. they can marry the person they love and are attracted to. That is what you're side stepping. A restriction must have a valid or just reason for being a restriction. Without that, it is a discrimination.
 
Boo Radley said:
They do ahve a different privliledge.
Click to expand...
No. Its the same. You cannot argue that a restriction that everyone suffers discriminates against you simply because it keeps you from doing something you -want- to do.
 
The government makes decisions based on the effects on society, not necessarily "fairness".

For example I would argue that the constitution implicitly blocks the federal government from making drugs illegal, but they do it because of the negative effect on society.

There are negative effects on society when homosexuality is accepted broadly, just like the negative effects of hetero-divorce. (currently we are screwed WAY WAY more by hetero-divorce than homosexuality)

This is the REAL reason for the reluctance to "just legalize homosexual marriage".
 
Goobieman said:
No. Its the same. You cannot argue that a restriction that everyone suffers discriminates against you simply because it keeps you from doing something you -want- to do.
Click to expand...

Without just cause, you sure can. And again, it isn't the same. It would be no different than saying all peopel ca=n marry blonds, but no one else. With no good reason, there is discrimination. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry who theylove and are attracted to. Heterosexuals are. Again, discrimination.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
The government makes decisions based on the effects on society, not necessarily "fairness".

For example I would argue that the constitution implicitly blocks the federal government from making drugs illegal, but they do it because of the negative effect on society.

There are negative effects on society when homosexuality is accepted broadly, just like the negative effects of hetero-divorce. (currently we are screwed WAY WAY more by hetero-divorce than homosexuality)

This is the REAL reason for the reluctance to "just legalize homosexual marriage".
Click to expand...

And that is what you have to prove, that there is a legitmatie government interest in preventing it. A just cause. A sound reason. And it is not proven that there is any actual negative effects for accepting homosexuality in a society. Much of that feeling is based on misinformation and unsound reasoning. But it what must be proven to prevent it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Without just cause, you sure can.
Click to expand...
Hardly. You arent so important that not getting to do something that you want to do - something that no one else can either - means -you- are being discriminated against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom