Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

What was your question, because I'm pretty sure I asked mine first. Besides, you never answered the question on whether or not you believe you can accurately determine a population's belief on a heavily divided issue by only polling a fraction of 1% of the population?



There you go supporting my argument again. You really do like doing that.

My point was that this wasn't based on what the military wanted, but a political move. You argued that the only reason why it was ever upheld was because people supported it and because now that they don't, it shouldn't be supported. So, if you're now saying that it would have still been repealed one way or the other, then that contradicts your belief on why it was upheld in the first place.

This was already answered in post 206. Maybe.

Unless you're one of the two guys, I guess it's just none of anyone else's dam business, is it?

Nope. The point is, others don't have to share your views.



Exactly. It's none of anyone's business outside of the two people. So, why do people care what others think?



I already have my answer, I was just waiting for you to admit to the answer. I know that admittance isn't in your blood and I don't feel like tricking you into an answer again.

Whatever helps you try to downplay your homophobic Freudian slip.

Hate leads to the Dark Side.

Pretty much, yeah. It's a change from the status-quo. When the status-quo is working for someone, often they'll be leery of changing it to suit someone else. Particularly so when that other person represents something that you're wholly unfamiliar with.

The haters are the real lunatic fringe, but it seems to me that those like Alma and Gbaji are cut from the same cloth. They know that the hatred is wrong, so they don't do that, but in its place they'll grasp at any straw they can for a "logical" reason to oppose homosexuality at every front. The pattern is telling.

Edited, Nov 28th 2011 2:07pm by Eske

Let's try something different. Answer me why you don't believe a person can not accept someone's sexual lifestyle and not fear or hate them? Why do you believe that is impossible?

Consciously or sub-consciously?

I'll start by saying that, of course, you have a right to think whatever you might, and make any personal decisions that are legally afforded to you about others. That's obvious, and it's not really the crux of the issue here.

You've got a right to think irrationally, basically. Now, there are legitimate, rational reasons to, say, not want to room with someone who sleeps with many people. Perhaps they'd keep you up at night, and you'd have many strangers coming and going from your apartment. I'll even grant you that you could rationally take such qualities and use them to make conjecture about that person in a way that might warrant disapproval. For example, if someone cheats on their significant other, you might conclude that they're someone who doesn't honor promises, who might be selfish, and who doesn't care about those close to them. You might be right, wrong, or somewhere in between, but it'd be rational logic, regardless.

You might not want to hang out with, say, a swinger, because you don't approve of it. But if they're otherwise completely nice, friend-able folks aside from that simple fact, then you'd be acting irrationally. That's fine, you can act irrationally. Everyone does. But you have to accept it as an issue with yourself, not with swingers. It's a subjective hump that you can't get over, that has no valid, logical reasoning behind it. It's akin to say, thinking that it's wrong for people to wear blue.

When it comes to homosexuality, I've yet to see a rational reason to not condone it. Whether people argue against it using the Bible, or using flawed "scientific" rationale (as you yourself have done in the past), they're not using a rational argument. They may believe that their opinion is based upon logic, that it isn't motivated by emotions like hate or the like. In some cases, it may very well not be an issue of hate or fear...I really can't say. But what's important is that it is wrong; that it is based on something that is irrational, unscientific, subjective, or fallacious. That is certainly the case with you. On many levels.

You're allowed that flawed rationale, obviously. But it should be fairly self-evident that many people act on it, sowing hatred, or acting to restrict the rights of others, or otherwise doing harm. And that's why it's particularly important to fight against those opinions, regardless of whether or not it's about hatred or fear or anything else. Because they are objectively irrational. Irrationality doesn't do us any good, understanding and acceptance does.

Edited, Nov 28th 2011 4:41pm by Eske

Except the part where child molestation is a crime and buttsex, scissoring, or multiple partners aren't.

That still doesn't work. So what about in a society where being gay WAS a "huge crime" say.. England in the 1950s? In all of these cases you are still basing it all on your personal judgment and hence it still all is subjective and any talk of what YOU think is a crime is irrelevant.

Racist.

Can't believe you guys are still arguing something here.

I think the problem is that you're making what is essentially a subjective argument but then insisting that we can use objective arguments to make exceptions. But that doesn't work in the real world. It works only so long as what you call objective today remains subjectively viewed the same way as it is today. Objectively, if you'd asked someone 100 years ago if homosexuality was bad, they'd almost universally stated it was. Even the best experts in multiple relevant fields would all agree that there were significant social, emotional, psychological, and whatever other problems related to homosexuality.

What changed was subjective. If 100 years from now all the experts say that child molestation is really good for everyone and just some natural expression of love and whatnot, the same people (well, equivalent people) arguing that its wrong and they have a right to disagree with it will be labeled as pedophobes. And those using that language will feel just as justified and just as sure of themselves and just as mollified at how anyone could be so backwards in their thinking as those labeling anyone not on the pro-gay bandwagon today.


Not saying that's going to happen, but if it were to, the logic you're using to create some kind of objective differentiation would not stand up. There are many good arguments to make regarding acceptance of homosexuality. The argument that acceptance is right because it's just wrong to oppose someone for something they do just because you don't like it isn't one of them. Because that's purely subjective and thus acts equally well as a justification for *any behavior*.