Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Nothing wrong with those scenarios you mentioned, but you can't pretend as if they are the only two scenarios. Furthermore, you can't pretend that since one man showered with one homosexual, then he should be ok to shower with another one...

Edited, Jan 8th 2011 2:32pm by Almalieque

Actually he can. What you shouldn't do is pretend since he was ok showering with one gay, and is ok showering with any other gay, that everyone would be comfortable showering with any gay. What we also shouldn't do, is worry about that group, because, you know, they're bigots.

Just for additional lulz, in the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" (hahaha... nice name; stay classy, Eric Cantor!) contains this provision in it...(bolding mine)

Why... it's almost as though Rep. Cantor might be lacking in the legislation naming talents but he understands that repealing a law doesn't magically make all the other laws from the past rush in to fill its place! Who'd have thunk it?? Oh... I can think of someone....


Huh.

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 8:13pm by Jophiel

relevant.

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 8:32pm by Bardalicious

Hahahah...


Erm, no. Hence the additional provision that the laws would be restored. A completely unnecessary provision if this was the default rule. You would simply say "Job-Killing Health Care Law- Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed" period-full-stop.


Again, you don't understand legislation which is why you thought this was some tricky question. No, we're not. That doesn't mean what you think it does. What makes it a repeal is when it plainly says that the section consisting of DADT is struck from the law.


Erm, only if you have some newbie's understanding I guess. Which you are apparently hellbent on proving you do.


lulz.



There is a general idea that a repeal of a repeal restores the original law. So if the DADT Repeal Act was in turn repealed by the Repeal The Job-Killing DADT Repeal Act, then DADT would be restored. But only because we're dealing specifically with repealing a repeal act. The military appropriations bill in 1994 didn't "repeal" anything, it simply set a new standard of rules.

I already understand that you're not able to follow along with this. I understand that you will keep saying "But repeal only means this!" like some twit arguing that the theory of gravity is just a guess because it has the word "theory" and they only grasp the most simplistic meaning of the word and can't wrap their noggin around the idea that it might have a deeper and more nuanced definition within specific professional circles but, well, it's always fun to watch you try.

LOL. That's your golden argument? "You have legal definitions and examples from legislation but I have school children who agree with me!! You hear me?!! SCHOOL CHILDREN!!!"

Thanks for proving me correct so quickly. And congratulations on siding with school children over legal dictionaries.

Legal dictionaries were just created by the gays to destroy the military man.

Oh, I forgot who I was arguing with. You're just trolling now.. For the people who actually believe that nonsense, his statement is false because 1 person doesn't represent an entire group of people. That's like telling women who ever showered with a male significant other that it's no different showering with a group of male strangers. The only way his idiotic claim could be true is if all homosexuals were the same.



Now, we're getting somewhere. If your argument is based on "discrimination", then guess what? In life we discriminate. That's what happens, there is no way around it. Discrimination is not inherently bad or good. Separation by sex is discrimination. In some situations it's justified in others it isn't justified. If you can justify it, as I did with homosexuals, then the discrimination stands. If you can't justify it, then the discrimination falls. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't justified. I don't like the fact that women have an entire 3 extra mins to run on their physical fitness test than me, but it doesn't change the justification.



I guess you realize that you're wrong now, by your short responses and attempt to change your argument. Uhhhh.... my argument was that homosexuals are ABLE to join as long as they kept it secret. That was the whole point of DADT, to enable homosexuals to join without lying. That doesn't mean being a homosexual is allowed. You responded that I was confusing being homosexual with homosexual conduct, that those people are being discharged for homosexual conduct. I quoted in the policy where the person doesn't have to actually do any homosexual conduct, just have evidence that s/he is a homosexual.

So, you're wrong. You know you're wrong. Just admit it. It's not that hard.

By the way, you forgot to answer my question below.


I didn't say anything about assault, so please answer the question."So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe?"

So,you agree that discrimination isn't inherently wrong.

If it were because of body parts, then both men and women would be separated in the office too. Men don't lose their penises in the office, nor do women lose their vaginas in the office. So, why aren't men and women separated in the office? Why are they separated in the bathroom? Now, every bathroom have stalls and urinal dividers.

If you want to live in fantasy world and believe that this has nothing to do with privacy and comfort, go ahead, but it'll be difficult to answer those questions without leading to that conclusion.

Edited, Jan 7th 2011 2:44pm by Almalieque

stealing from joph,


Alma, when people use discriminate they are referring to these definitions most of the time. You arguing about the ability to discriminate between apples and oranges is irrelevant because that's a different definition, and you very well know how they are using it. It is a completely correct use, and in this use discrimination is inherently wrong.

Edited, Jan 7th 2011 10:27am by Xsarus

How does nudity have any part in the discrimination of sex in the office? Answer my questions. Why aren't men and women separated in the office? Why are they separated in the bathroom? Now, every bathroom have stalls and urinal dividers.



Overlooking the fact that you're just making up crap that sounds good to you, your argument is "well that's the way it has always been, so why change?".



No, this isn't about treating homosexuals differently than their sex, but treating them the same in reference to the situation regardless of their sex. The real reason is about comfort. People don't feel comfortable with the possibility of someone looking at them while being nude. That's the bottom line. So, society has segregated men from women for modesty reasons. Now in 2011, more people are open about their sexuality and so the same concerns exist with men as they do gay men. So, they are treated the same, segregated for comfort reasons in the showers. If this separation occurred in the office, then you could claim unjustified discrimination.



So, if society agreed to the ban of homosexuality in the military, you would be ok with that?



Dude, really? You're not helping your team.

1) Separate But Equal didn't work because it wasn't equal, not because it was separate. People fought to end that because the only way to be treated equally was to not be separated. This stupid belief that black people wanted to hold hands and work and live along side white people is beyond delusional.

2. No one is arguing that gay people shouldn't be able to work along side or go to school along side heterosexuals.

3. What do you mean All Boys/Girls schools *didn't* work, they still exist.



I like how you said "most" in your reference to making stuff up. Hating homosexuality has nothing to do with the comfort of not wanting to be checked out in the shower. There are women that I don't want checking me out in the shower. As I said, people like you, are only using hate speech as a way to scare people to agreeing with you. I hate thieves and liars, but I have no concern with them in the shower unless they are checking me out, regardless of sex. You're trying to make this about sex when it's about modesty and comfort.



Look at nude beaches.. The same argument can be made there, so why are we separating by sex? Oh, that's right, because people do care.

If you believe that there were only 5 cases in Canada where a homosexual at least checked out a heterosexual, you're sadly mistaken. As stated earlier, there was this Soldier in my last unit that was sexually assaulted by a homosexual, that's 20% of your claimed cases.

Your statement is implying that I believe their would be a noticeable increase in sexual harassment/assault cases with homosexuals. That isn't my argument. I'm not concerned with the numbers, because I don't know. My argument is that a man can feel uncomfortable with the idea that someone might be checking him out and not be a bigot/homophobe based on the same reasons used by women.



It is not inherently wrong because within that definition it states "where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes"


I gave him and Belkira a chance to explain the reasonable distinction between the groups. Stating the distinction (i.e. ***** vs ******) is not stating the reason for discriminating against the ***** and ******. I'm not asking you what you're discriminating, I'm asking why are you discriminating against the two?

For example, RDD said that women have extra time to run in the military because they run slower. That is a reason for discriminating against having a *****. You can't say, women have extra time to run because men have penises. That doesn't make sense. So, along that same line of thinking, I want a justification for the segregation of men and women in the showers.