Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » don't ask don't tell
Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442236 is a reply to message #442232] Thu, 06 January 2011 03:00 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma:
General (1 Star)
Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29

Imo: this whole debate is somewhat moot. Gays have been allowed to openly serve in the military whether some people like it or not.


Translation: the law has been repealed so let's stop talking about this because now homosexuality is widely accepted everywhere and people won't stand in their way in getting on with their lives!
Nope. If you have read this debate, the last few pages isn't about the law anymore; it's something more simple than that. The debate isn't moot in the least.

Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29

However, DADT advocates are now being called bigots and homophobes for defending DADT. Yet before, they would have been called a bigot or homophobe for not wanting gays in the military at all*.


Doesn't matter in the least. Your side has yet to answer WHY the law was set up in the first place and what was the general consensus/motivation behind it.

It's simple; church thugs did it to get their way. So they deserve all the nasty shit that's coming their way.

Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29

Funny how when the right side of the political spectrum decides to compromise, which may not have been the case then it is now though, the left seems to want to continue pushing their agenda under the guise of equal rights. It's not the fight for equal rights, it is elevating a minority over the majority.


Once again, you have to yet to answer WHY this law was set up in the first place and whose agenda it was before pointing fingers at those who killed the law and blaming THEM for having an "agenda."

Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29

Now because of this, homosexuals that have been passed up for a promotion, demoted, dishonorably discharged, left on the field injured for whatever reason, etc. can now claim that is was because they were gay that what happened to them happened. I know most of them will not do that, but there are some who will.


This is an incredibly demeaning thing to say; in the past it would have been:

Quote:

Now because of this, blacks that have been passed up for a promotion, demoted, dishonorably discharged, left on the field injured for whatever reason, etc. can now claim that is was because they were black that what happened to them happened. I know most of them will not do that, but there are some who will.


Not playing the race-card here, but pointing out similar problems in the past which all boiled down to misinformed intolerance. What you said comes down to denial and downplaying the effect of DADT; so far we know that unnecessarily 14,000 skilled military people who would otherwise could have held on to their posts were kicked out for being gay. To deny this and twist it into what you just did above shows the sinister bias you have against homosexuals.

Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29

And on this note, let me also state that I'm for civil unions or something along those lines replacing marriage in the state's eyes and allowing religion to keep their version of marriage.


Does it make any difference?

Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29

Churches can call marriages marriages. They'll have their right to. But in the eyes of the law, straight/gay/etc should be called a civil union, or mmarriage, or commonlaw, or anything else other than marriage.


And what EXACTLY IS your reasoning for this? You say you are not a bigot for believing in gay marriage but here you are asking for a social double standard. "Please use any other word except marriage!"

Nobody's out to take the church's power to ordain marriages. But you want "marriage" as we know it

The church has no power and it is always below the state. I don't think the state should bent over backwards just so an outdated entity such as a church can protect its "traditional right" that it supposedly had since the beginning of time. No wait, their tradional right that they acquired over a period of the last 2000 years due to changing social conditions! Why should the state help the church hold on to a power they gained over many years? If they want to have a monopoly on the word "marriage," they are welcome to try to hold on to it themselves.

Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29

The religious connotation stays for the churches that wish to continue that tradition, and in the eyes of the law, everybody is equal and nothing is separate.


This is a double standard right there. So in the eyes of the law everyone is equal and in the eyes of the church (we could care less), they are not. You claim this entire matter is all about a minority getting "elevated" over the majority but here you see the majority wanting to keep the minority buckled down under their foot.

Muad Dib15 wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 06:29

And if you have churches that allow marriages of homosexual couples, then great, the homosexual couples can be a part of -those churches-.


lol so this whole exercise is a complete waste of time. I suggest you figure this out and get a consensus within the faction-based nature of the church and it's multiple denominations before trying to act all united.

By asking for a different verbal description for gay marriage so you can preserve the old way of the church "protecting"marriage, you are obviously asking for a double standard that will further prevent homosexuals from going about their lives. You said, "Oh please call it anything but marriage!!!" If this is not bigotry, I don't know what is.

Are you that insecure about your religion?

btw, I am hetrosexual and will be getting married for sure but WON'T be doing so in a church. Will I still be a "married man" and fit your verbal definition of "marriage?"? Sure I will be...cos of my lady.

Anyone can see thru what Muad REALLY wants; a legalized social divide and distinction between married homosexuals and married hetrosexuals. All just so he can sleep tight at night feeling secure.


Altzan wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 00:35

Only one part of your reply is even worth touching, since you refuse to stop trying to drag me into conversations I want no part with.


^ seems a contradictory statement to say. I wonder what part of the conversation you didn't want a part in when you wanted something lame disproved. Glad to see you ignore the response to that and move on to this:

Altzan wrote on Sat, 01 January 2011 00:35

Quote me where I said I support those laws. Go on.


This coming from someone who said a few months back that not setting up such laws and agreeing to them is "partaking/aiding in such sin." I blame this on either dishonesty or poor memory.


-----

btw, a quick word on "sanctity of marriage." You hear people whine about this a lot and how homosexual marriage will somehow "taint" the "sanctity of marriage."

OK, first of as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread (and conveniently ignored by the religious fanatics here), marriage was never about 1 man and 1 woman. Polygamy was the norm of the day at the time the bible was written and women were mere property. It's important to note that the ban on homosexuality was in effect at this same time! So polygamy was the norm and homosexuality banned. Now we have history-denying church thugs who claim marriage was always about 1 man and 1 woman while at the same time banning homosexuality. Admit it, you lost on this big time. Morals and the way we live and think and behave collectively as a society are changing ALL THE TIME. No response at all to that one from fanatics here.

Not to mention how many times the god christians' worship orders his chosen people to attack countless cities and kill every man AND married woman ("kill all women who have known a man") plus their children. And to take away the virgins as prize.

I find it really arrogant of the church to deny their own bible and now claim rights to decide the "sanctity of marriage." If anybody has the right to decide what this sanctity is all about, it should be by those who are not clouded by such spiteful ignorance and sheer history-denial.

btw, the church can preach its "sanctity" crap to its millions of members who walk down the aisle each year and split up years later citing "irreconcilable differences."


http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8746/buzzsigfinal.jpg
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message icon4.gif
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: UK attempting to ban internet porn
Next Topic: anyone else think anime sucks?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Dec 23 10:33:19 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02901 seconds