lesbians need not apply

[redrosesix]

Easy to say when the assumption is we are all heterosexual, white male.

 

[CowboyCO]

Easy to say when the assumption is we are all heterosexual, white male.

What assumption there that everyone is white and male? It is assumed that your employment will bring benefit to the organization. As soon the benefits you bring are outweighed by your liabilities (race, gender and creed being exempted), you are a detriment, thus gone.

 

[Master Mason]

Master Mason, I repectfully decline to argue with you.

You do not know what you're talking about. You can site all the laws, opinions, and arguments you wish. No amount of arguing and blustering will negate the fact that you do not live this life therefore you can not knowledgably debate the discrimination contained within it.

Sorry that's a BS attitude, to state that I can't understand because I am not gay. People can understand alot of things. Such as, people that had never been slaves realized it was a bad thing and changed it. The civil rights laws of the 60's were signed into place by white people that had never been black, did they not understand the problems. The list could go on forever.

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they can't understand your arguement or your thoughts.

You don't have to debate with me if you don't want to, but I will not allow my thoughts to be marginalized simply because you think I somehow can't understand something because I'm not gay.

 

[Uncle Remus]

What assumption there that everyone is white and male? It is assumed that your employment will bring benefit to the organization. As soon the benefits you bring are outweighed by your liabilities (race, gender and creed being exempted), you are a detriment, thus gone.

As noted in many teachin's, bein' gay is a detriment.

Why does the military 'expel' fully trained qualified professional soldiers for expressin' they miss their loved ones at home?

Ooops, same sex.
Broke the DADT "rule."


The ruling of Lawrence v Texas is not enough.
It's just a li'l more complicated than that.

 

[Cindy F]

..... you think I somehow can't understand something because I'm not gay.

No, I think you can not understand sexual orientation discrimination exisits regardless of laws and your thoughts; because you are not gay.

 

[Master Mason]

No, I think you can not understand sexual orientation discrimination exisits regardless of laws and your thoughts; because you are not gay.

No what I can't understand is whining that we need more laws when you just stated we already have such laws. Enforce the ones that exist we don't need a new law that would be ingnored just as much as the current laws.

When there are bad laws or rules such as DADT, I'm all for changing them and think it should be done.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

No, I think you can not understand sexual orientation discrimination exisits regardless of laws and your thoughts; because you are not gay.

so to follow your logic all those white people that marched with Dr King were just doing it for the exercise because they couldn't possibly have understood racial discrimination. I'm sure the families of those white students killed in Selma for advocating voting rights for blacks would be interested in hearing that.

 

[Cindy F]

No what I can't understand is whining that we need more laws......

Because you are not gay.

 

[Uncle Remus]

No what I can't understand is whining that we need more laws when you just stated we already have such laws. Enforce the ones that exist we don't need a new law that would be ingnored just as much as the current laws.

When there are bad laws or rules such as DADT, I'm all for changing them and think it should be done.

Hey, that must fall into that debate more, learn more theory of yours, huh?

 

[Cindy F]

so to follow your logic all those white people that marched with Dr King were just doing it for the exercise because they couldn't possibly have understood racial discrimination. I'm sure the families of those white students killed in Selma for advocating voting rights for blacks would be interested in hearing that.

No, I do not believe that, you however; are free to believe as you wish, and draw conclusions as you wish. I have less than no interest in arguing with those who like to argue.

 

[Goofyluver]

First your comparing apples to oranges, your comparing Married people to unmarried people. A more accurate comparison would be a cohabitating couple of any sexual preference. What are the inequalities if any comparing those to situations.

I'm not arguing for something I don't believe in, I am arguing for someone right to hold those beliefs if they so choose. And when proper, such as in the case of these two girls to act on those beliefs.

Also, as I have explained, Debate forces one to think of their stance, why the believe as they do. If you can argue the other sides arguement, then you can understand it better, and also be better able to find any wholes in it if they exist. Sort of the same reason you learn your competitors products in the business world.

Bull. You argue for arguments sake. This is not about the argument Master Mason.

This isn't high school debate class, dude. This is about people's lives.

Ever hear that saying: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything?"

Get up, Master. You tripped.

No what I can't understand is whining that we need more laws when you just stated we already have such laws. Enforce the ones that exist we don't need a new law that would be ingnored just as much as the current laws.

When there are bad laws or rules such as DADT, I'm all for changing them and think it should be done.

It takes a big person to admit they don't understand.

 

[CowboyCO]

As noted in many teachin's, bein' gay is a detriment.

Why does the military 'expel' fully trained qualified professional soldiers for expressin' they miss their loved ones at home?

Ooops, same sex.
Broke the DADT "rule."


The ruling of Lawrence v Texas is not enough.
It's just a li'l more complicated than that.

The military expels anyone that has a sexual relationship within their own unit, whether heterosexual or not. Obviously, most units are made up of just male soldiers. Your argument fits into my argument - what a soldier wears on his sleeve is a rank and duty. I personally believe that DADT is BS. You either serve honorably or do not serve honorably. If you make your sexuality an issue that causes a detriment to the unit or if your behavior is against regs -- you are gone.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

No, I do not believe that, you however; are free to believe as you wish, and draw conclusions as you wish. I have less than no interest in arguing with those who like to argue.

I'm following YOUR logic. You've plainly stated that if a person is not a member of the discriminated community, they can never understand the discrimination of that community.

Your argument doesn't hold water and the civil rights movement has plenty of evidence as to why it doesn't.

Are there no straight people who are on your side of the equal rights for gay people argument? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Uncle Remus]

The military expels anyone that has a sexual relationship within their own unit, whether heterosexual or not. Obviously, most units are made up of just male soldiers. Your argument fits into my argument - what a soldier wears on his sleeve is a rank and duty. I personally believe that DADT is BS. You either serve honorably or do not serve honorably. If you make your sexuality an issue that causes a detriment to the unit or if your behavior is against regs -- you are gone.

Then why are heterosexual soldiers "tolerated"?

They are allowed to miss their loved ones.

 

[wonderlanne]

Because you are not gay.

sorry, but this seems a bit overboard to me. there are scads of compassionate people who believe in the same things of which you are a proponent who are not homosexuals.

 

[wonderlanne]

The military expels anyone that has a sexual relationship within their own unit, whether heterosexual or not. Obviously, most units are made up of just male soldiers. Your argument fits into my argument - what a soldier wears on his sleeve is a rank and duty. I personally believe that DADT is BS. You either serve honorably or do not serve honorably. If you make your sexuality an issue that causes a detriment to the unit or if your behavior is against regs -- you are gone.

i agree.

there have been homosexuals in the military forever. what has changed is that people make their sexual orientation/preference/practices a matter of public discussion and display instead of keeping those private things to themselves.

 

[Cindy F]

I'm following YOUR logic. You've plainly stated that if a person is not a member of the discriminated community, they can never understand the discrimination of that community.

Your argument doesn't hold water and the civil rights movement has plenty of evidence as to why it doesn't.

Are there no straight people who are on your side of the equal rights for gay people argument? I find that hard to believe.

I find it hard to believe that you think your response is logical.

I was not speaking to the people who marched on the Pettis bridge. I was speaking to Master Mason.

Master Mason stated he was "wondering where this so called discrimination is occurring".

I told Master Mason he (Master Mason) did not understand because he was not gay.

I highly doubt anyone on the Edmund Pettis bridge would have wondered "where this so called discrimination is occurring"....nor would any of their family. So, I'm going to guess that the families of those who marched on the Edmund Pettis Bridge (which would include me as a matter of fact) would be totally fine with what I said. I know I am.

You were stating that there is wide spread discrimination, but can only come up with a single issue, an issue were currently people are ALL treated equally. I'm not arguing gay marriage at the moment, just wondering where this so called discrimination is occuring.

Some roads must be traveled in order to understand. You have not traveled that road therefore you can not understand and no one can explain it to you.

It is also obvious that you would rather argue in order to maintain your current knowledge set and preconceived notions rather than seek true enlightenment/true understanding of someone else's situation.

 

[Cindy F]

i agree.

there have been homosexuals in the military forever. what has changed is that people make their sexual orientation/preference/practices a matter of public discussion and display instead of keeping those private things to themselves.

 

[wonderlanne]

I told Master Mason He did not understand because he was not gay.

this is ridiculous.

a person doesn't have to be black to understand and/or feel compassion towards civil rights (which by the way aren't only about minorities).

a person doesn't have to be homosexual to understand and/or feel compassion towards the social desires of homosexuals.


a person doesn't have to transform into a dog or cat to understand and/or feel compassion for animals.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I told Master Mason he (Master Mason) did not understand because he was not gay.

how does that change the premise? If one straight person cannot understand because they are not gay, how does that not imply that only gay people can understand.

Again-are there no straight people aligned with the cause of equal rights for gays?