Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional

The T wrote: ^I have thought of replies to comments in the middle of... ehem... procreational acts... now beat that...

Can we please have a don't tell policy on this sort of thing?

I don't understand the paranoia of showering with gay people......if you're hetrosexual and someone who's homosexual approaches you, is it beyond capability and intelligence to simply say 'no thanks, I'm hetrosexual'?

The T wrote: So what is YOUR view of the issue at hand Pat? You have been very quick at pointing out hypocrisy and dishing out judgements of consistency on this thread but have not once mentioned what YOU think about:  1. Don's ask don't tell repeal.   2. Gay marriage 3. Polygamous, group, incestuous marriage.  So why don't you give your opinion instead of showing how hypocrites the rest are? Maybe you have troubles accepting that for once you don't want total liberty for people? Maybe you don't agree with gay marriage but have to avoid that by trying to catch other people off guard in regards to other kinds of marriage?  Are you troubled because gay marriage is the only one you just don't want?  Or, as I would assume, if you are consistent as consistency is your ultimate desire (maybe even above liberty) you are for people being allowed to have all kinds of marriages... Isn't it right?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: So what is YOUR view of the issue at hand Pat? You have been very quick at pointing out hypocrisy and dishing out judgements of consistency on this thread but have not once mentioned what YOU think about:  1. Don's ask don't tell repeal.   2. Gay marriage 3. Polygamous, group, incestuous marriage.  So why don't you give your opinion instead of showing how hypocrites the rest are? Maybe you have troubles accepting that for once you don't want total liberty for people? Maybe you don't agree with gay marriage but have to avoid that by trying to catch other people off guard in regards to other kinds of marriage?  Are you troubled because gay marriage is the only one you just don't want?  Or, as I would assume, if you are consistent as consistency is your ultimate desire (maybe even above liberty) you are for people being allowed to have all kinds of marriages... Isn't it right?  Isn't the fact that I would attack his hypocrisy indicative of my beliefs? 1) I don't support don't ask don't tell.  2/3) I don't support marriage as a state institution. The state should not recognize marriage. There's no purpose for it doing so. The only thing that can possibly happen when you allow it to do so is that the state would give privileges to certain groups of people as it has done. Marriage is an agreement between two people. The identities of those people is irrelevant. Let a man marry a man. Let a man marry his brother. Let a man marry all 12 of his brothers. The government has no business stepping in here. If you define marriage suitably enough, I'd allow people to marry their lampshades.

I did, it never worked out....she stopped me seeing other people.

Rabid wrote: I don't understand the paranoia of showering with gay people......if you're hetrosexual and someone who's homosexual approaches you, is it beyond capability and intelligence to simply say 'no thanks, I'm hetrosexual'?   If you're THAT bothered by it, take a cork into the shower with you.

As they say in prison "be careful not to drop the soap".

Funny how people are only interested in keeping the government out of marriage now that gay people want in.

"Oh, we have to let gay people in the club? Come to think of it, we shouldn't even have this club to begin with!"

I find it humorous that you think your opinion is absent of the blatant bigotry that is so transparent in your reasoning. I mean, you can't possibly be serious! I'm sure your posts are an April Fool's joke...

I wouldn't dream of ever using that tone with anyone unless instigated to do so. Refer back to page 6 of this thread. I am mirroring Pat's tone with me.

The comparisons to polygamy and incest are touchy, because these same arguments are used to frighten people out of supporting gay marriage, just as they were used to frighten people out of supporting interracial marriage years ago.

Does that mean they are any less legitimate? Not if you look at it in a purely intellectual, objective manner, no. But in terms of practicality, yes, they are night and day. There are not hundred of thousands of incestuous couples waiting to tie the knot, and the only existing examples of polygamy are in very isolated sects of Mormonism which are not even acknowledged by any mainstream Mormon church. There are not people being routinely fired from their jobs, or beaten on the streets for being polygamist or incestuous. Nor is polygamy or incest a sexual orientation.

This comparison offends because it trivializes what is specifically important about treating gay people equally. The goal is to end homophobia in all its harmful forms. Nobody is trying to forbid someone who wants to do his sister from joining the army. In fact, if someone tells their fellow officers in the army that they want ten wives, or that he wishes he could screw his hot cousin, they would probably all buy him a beer.

The point of fighting for gay marriage is to be equal to straight couples. Not to a lampshade. It further offends to say that if gay people can get married, we might as well change the definition of marriage so that anybody can marry anything. It's basically saying, oh, ok, if gay people want to get married, then let's just make marriage into something that is more or less just a joke. And that really  is indicative of bigotry.


Edited by jplanet - September 13 2010 at 13:33

jplanet wrote: I wouldn't dream of ever using that tone with anyone unless instigated to do so. Refer back to page 6 of this thread. I am mirroring Pat's tone with me. The comparisons to polygamy and incest are touchy, because these same arguments are used to frighten people out of supporting gay marriage, just as they were used to frighten people out of supporting interracial marriage years ago. Does that mean they are any less legitimate? Not if you look at it in a purely intellectual, objective manner, no. But in terms of practicality, yes, they are night and day. There are not hundred of thousands of incestuous couples waiting to tie the knot, and the only existing examples of polygamy are in very isolated sects of Mormonism which are not even acknowledged by any mainstream Mormon church. There are not people being routinely fired from their jobs, or beaten on the streets for being polygamist or incestuous. Nor is polygamy or incest a sexual orientation. This comparison offends because it trivializes what is specifically important about treating gay people equally. The goal is to end homophobia in all its harmful forms. Nobody is trying to forbid someone who wants to do his sister from joining the army. In fact, if someone tells their fellow officers in the army that they want ten wives, or that he wishes he could screw his hot cousin, they would probably all buy him a beer. The point of fighting for gay marriage is to be equal to straight couples. Not to a lampshade. It further offends to say that if gay people can get married, we might as well change the definition of marriage so that anybody can marry anything. It's basically saying, oh, ok, if gay people want to get married, then let's just make marriage into something that is more or less just a joke. And that really  is indicative of bigotry.