Gay Marriage

College Confidential Community
141

<p>
[quote]
blacks have fought much longer to fight against that word in the oppressive sense than gays have fought against "gay" or "fag"

[/quote]
Are you honestly saying that discrimination is okay as long as it doesn't last too long?</p>

142

<p>


</p>

<p>Because the comment was wrong. The privacy argument was indeed the majority opinion (and a roundly criticized opinion it was too), but Sandra Day O'Connor's concurrence on equal protection grounds was an integral part of the case. Anyways, moving on...</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>So how long are you suggesting gays be persecuted before they've been persecuted enough for you to accept that? Should they have to endure second-class rights and widespread (if not intense) persecution for another 100 years? 200? 25? When would be enough, in your opinion?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Irrelevant distinction. The only distinction here that matters is whether or not people choose to be that way. You cannot seriously be contending that as long as an aspect of your personality is hideable you should have to hide it. I find that bigoted and disgusting. And you would to, if you were gay or you were able to empathize with gay people.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Watch yourself. I'm being polite here. Don't stoop to personal attacks to make up for your argument's manifest weakness.</p>

<p>In any case, blacks have tons of advocacy in the public arena. Maybe you didn't notice all the black preachers, the NAACP, or any of those things? Do you not get out much, or is this more of your tunnel vision ignoring everything not convenient for your argument?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I am stunned by your ability to jump from one sentence to another, completely contradict yourself, and then conclude as if it's a telling point. The things wrong with this paragraph:</p>

<p>1) Gay people have been both murdered and hung for years, in many different societies. They still are today, in Muslim countries. So once again, your tunnel vision "ignore everything that doesn't go along with my worldview" modus operandi makes you say something completely and patently wrong.</p>

<p>2) The social and judicial dynamics in Jena certainly did change. I'd call the massive media swarm, protests and such a pretty big social change. As for judicial:</p>

<p>3) Judicial activism is as integral for black civil rights as for gays'. The Jena controversy was resolved by a judge using their discretion and activism ability to significantly reduce (or remove) sentences and convictions. That's judicial activism too - you just don't call it that, because in the your world judicial activism only means judicial activism that you disagree with.</p>

<p>Are you saying Don't Ask Don't Tell is bad? I think it's bad for not going far enough to foster acceptance. But you should love it - it basically forces gays to shut up - exactly what you want. Bigoted, but should be amenable to you. No?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>...right... gay people can be bigoted too. But their claims of bigotry are based on how oppressed they are for their sexuality, and most gays are very open-minded about sexual preference. So unless you are postulating that they are more bigoted in some other way on average, they must on an aggregate scale be on average less bigoted.</p>

<p>As for marriage being about gender... no. Marriage is a contractual association between two adults. Male, female, doesn't and shouldn't matter. You can't just define marriage to be about gender because it suits you, when that's obviously not true.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>...wow...wow...wow. So, basically, as long as it wasn't your original idea to discriminate it's not your fault if yo perpetuate the discrimination? Another lovely crappy argument. By this exact logic, if you lived in the 50's it would have been totally acceptable for you to be a vocal supporter of segregation, simply because it wasn't your original idea. Disgusting point of view.</p>

<p>And by the way, constitutional democracy is set up to avoid tyranny of the majority, which is what you're talking about.</p>

<p>By the way, reading through your posts, I found another jewel of you being totally wrong:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>This is absolutely and totally, totally incorrect. For several years after AIDS hit the public radar, it was steadfastly ignored by Congress. When the issue mounted more and more, it became clear that it was being ignored precisely because it was consider a gay men's disease. It took Reagan 5 years to even acknowledge that AIDS was a growing epidemic, though this was known in 1981 he said nothing publicly till 1986.</p>

<p>Now, AIDS receives much more funding than other diseases (it didn't back then) because it is the disease having the most global impact. In Africa, it is killing MILLIONS - and almost all are straight. No, this is not about gay people - this is about averting the wholesale destruction of an entire continent - and possibly even more (it's spreading rapidly in India too).</p>

<p>Do you ever get tired of being flat-out wrong?</p>

143

<p>
[quote]
For starters, I came into this thread because the point was to discuss marriage; how does that prove that I'm not trying to foster acceptance? (And why are you bothering to start a debate on something you consider "frivolous stuff," anyway?) Do you seriously think that the only thing I do related to the gay community is talk about this? If so, you're mistaken. I've talked to peer advocacy groups about my experiences as a lesbian, I've answered people's questions about sexuality and done what I can to promote tolerance. I don't know about you, but I'd say that's the very definition of trying to foster acceptance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>However, you're not promoting tolerance by attacking someone who feels differently than you. You're not promoting tolerance by calling people "bigots" when the sole reason for saying that is because they disagree with you, and not a truly bigoted mindset. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
And you see, for me, fighting for the right to marry is a part of fostering acceptance- my government's acceptance of my relationship, the way the government accepts yours. I do believe that I have a right not to be treated as a second-class citizen based on who I love and want to marry- and furthermore, this right infringes on precisely zero of your rights, so I fail to see why you are so desperate to prevent me from getting it.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>You're right, but I don't believe you're being treated as such just because same-sex marriage isn't legal. Truth is, gay marriage isn't the only thing that isn't permitted through our marriage laws. Siblings and first cousins can't marry, men can't legally marry multiple women, beastiality, etc etc. Of those groups, I'd say gays are the most accepted, but the law isn't singularly against same-sex couples. It's just pro-marriage in the Biblical sense -- one man and one woman. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I've said everything I needed to say; if you won't even consider it from my point of view, there's little point in continuing. Enjoy your marriage privileges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I see it from your point of view, I just don't agree with it. I don't believe in writing sex into law any more than people agree to writing religion into law. If this was in response to gay marriage bans, I'd see your point. But this seems like a preferential change based on lifestyle choice.</p>

144

<p>
[quote]
Because the comment was wrong. The privacy argument was indeed the majority opinion (and a roundly criticized opinion it was too), but Sandra Day O'Connor's concurrence on equal protection grounds was an integral part of the case. Anyways, moving on...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So it wasn't wrong as much as it was "true". </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
So how long are you suggesting gays be persecuted before they've been persecuted enough for you to accept that? Should they have to endure second-class rights and widespread (if not intense) persecution for another 100 years? 200? 25? When would be enough, in your opinion?

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I'm saying gays don't get to rid on Blacks coattails and say, "well, you accept them, so now you have to accept us too!" It's whole other kettle of fish, and Blacks aren't entirely in the clear in terms of discrimination (there's still more hate crimes against people based on race than on sexual orientation). I'm saying gays will have to fight against their alleged persecution on their own terms, and not expecting ethos Blacks have built up over the past few decades to carry over onto them....even though, in some ways, it already has.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Never said it wasn't. But then again, neither did the person who originally posted the thought - she merely said that it would be bigoted and is a situation that unfortunately happens all too often to gays nowadays, and that it is unjustified on the parents' part. All of those things are true. Doesn't mean the parents aren't allowed to do it. So what were you taking issue with?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's completely justified on their part. It's their house, and their right to have whomever they want in it...unfortunately, even if that means their own kid pays the price. My whole point is, if you know your parents aren't cool with the gay thing, wait until you're in the position to freely lead the life you want to lead, or get very good at hiding it. I don't feel sorry for people who bring on their own problems. And when you're a teenager, you don't need to be trying to get "involved" with anybody like that anyway. There's other stuff to focus on, and you'll have plenty of time to work out your orientation when you're in your twenties. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Irrelevant distinction. The only distinction here that matters is whether or not people choose to be that way. You cannot seriously be contending that as long as an aspect of your personality is hideable you should have to hide it. I find that bigoted and disgusting. And you would to, if you were gay or you were able to empathize with gay people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's actually VERY relevant. You keep asking me why I say they're different...that's one of the fundamental reasons why. Black people have to face character assessments based on their skin color. Gay people have to face character assessments based on who they are sexually attracted to, which is something that's a) private and b) something you can disclose, or NOT DISCLOSE, if you so choose. It's a big difference.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Watch yourself. I'm being polite here. Don't stoop to personal attacks to make up for your argument's manifest weakness.</p>

<p>In any case, blacks have tons of advocacy in the public arena. Maybe you didn't notice all the black preachers, the NAACP, or any of those things? Do you not get out much, or is this more of your tunnel vision ignoring everything not convenient for your argument?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh please. You butted your nose into something I'd said to someone else, and you've been making personal attacks on me since we started this discussion. If anything, you're the one who needs to watch yourself. I hope I haven't given you the impression that because you're on the sanctimonious end of this discussion that I'm going to sit by and let you make all the snippy, passive-aggressive comments you want. I'm not, and if you don't want this to get personal, I'd strongly suggest you don't take it there.</p>

<p>I asked you a page or two ago to stop being obnoxious to me, and you've ignored it. </p>

<p>Maybe you need to leave it alone if you can't handle discussing the topic without getting emotional.</p>

<p>I think it's you who is suffering from tunnel vision, considering I didn't say anything about "advocacy in the public arena". Maybe you need to read that over.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am stunned by your ability to jump from one sentence to another, completely contradict yourself, and then conclude as if it's a telling point. The things wrong with this paragraph:</p>

<p>1) Gay people have been both murdered and hung for years, in many different societies. They still are today, in Muslim countries. So once again, your tunnel vision "ignore everything that doesn't go along with my worldview" modus operandi makes you say something completely and patently wrong.</p>

<p>2) The social and judicial dynamics in Jena certainly did change. I'd call the massive media swarm, protests and such a pretty big social change. As for judicial:</p>

<p>3) Judicial activism is as integral for black civil rights as for gays'. The Jena controversy was resolved by a judge using their discretion and activism ability to significantly reduce (or remove) sentences and convictions. That's judicial activism too - you just don't call it that, because in the your world judicial activism only means judicial activism that you disagree with.</p>

<p>Are you saying Don't Ask Don't Tell is bad? I think it's bad for not going far enough to foster acceptance. But you should love it - it basically forces gays to shut up - exactly what you want. Bigoted, but should be amenable to you. No?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) But that's not quite the case in this country, which is kinda what I've been referring to this whole time. Let's try not to move the goal post too much.</p>

<p>2) Huh? Because a lot of people went down there to protest, doesn't mean anything changed. It may have been a temporary change based on what went down, but I doubt anybody changed their racist views after that. I'd call the fact that the white separatists/KKK whomever who went down there with nooses around their trucks like a week or two later not much of a change.</p>

<p>3) "Solved", you say? The one guy, Mychal Bell, had the charges dropped because he was tried as an adult, not a juvenile, even though the charges had been reduced. I think he still got some time, and the others still have cases pending. </p>

<p>I'm not going to get into a discussion about DADT. I'm ambivalent, because I do think gays should be told to "shut up" (as you say) about their sexual orientation in that kind of situation (considering it has nothing to do with what you're doing in the Army), but I agree with you that they should have found another way of fostering tolerance. Making them shut up altogether is the safest route, but it only masks the real problem.</p>

<p>The point I have with bringing it up is that you talk about persecution against gays, but I generally see society jumping to defend them in terms of policy and law when there's something like this that happens. I'm saying there were numerous atrocities (and similar ones...like James Byrd in Texas) that didn't much of an "I'm sorry" from society, and Blacks have to deal with it. AND not to mention the numerous atrocities that went on BEFORE this country stopped giving them such a raw deal, i.e. the Sunday morning lynchings, segregation, infecting Black men with syphilis (among other things) to see its effects, figuring out what drugs are addictive to Blacks and then importing into this country to keep them drugged out, homeless, and oppressed, ignoring their housing crises in the past, but leaping to help middle-class whites who are now losing their homes...to name a few.</p>

<p>
[quote]
...right... gay people can be bigoted too. But their claims of bigotry are based on how oppressed they are for their sexuality, and most gays are very open-minded about sexual preference. So unless you are postulating that they are more bigoted in some other way on average, they must on an aggregate scale be on average less bigoted.</p>

<p>As for marriage being about gender... no. Marriage is a contractual association between two adults. Male, female, doesn't and shouldn't matter. You can't just define marriage to be about gender because it suits you, when that's obviously not true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, yes it does matter. If all that mattered in terms of marriage was legal consent, gays would be able to marry. They can't...because it's two men and two women trying to marry. It's not what I define marriage as being, it's what it IS defined as being. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
...wow...wow...wow. So, basically, as long as it wasn't your original idea to discriminate it's not your fault if yo perpetuate the discrimination? Another lovely crappy argument. By this exact logic, if you lived in the 50's it would have been totally acceptable for you to be a vocal supporter of segregation, simply because it wasn't your original idea. Disgusting point of view.</p>

<p>And by the way, constitutional democracy is set up to avoid tyranny of the majority, which is what you're talking about.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>That is a crappy argument, it's just not mine. I don't see that as discriminatory, at least, not in a bad way. You and many others do, but...y'all don't speak for me. You know what's a crappy argument? Using Black people's struggles to promote gay marriage.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
This is absolutely and totally, totally incorrect. For several years after AIDS hit the public radar, it was steadfastly ignored by Congress. When the issue mounted more and more, it became clear that it was being ignored precisely because it was consider a gay men's disease. It took Reagan 5 years to even acknowledge that AIDS was a growing epidemic, though this was known in 1981 he said nothing publicly till 1986.</p>

<p>Now, AIDS receives much more funding than other diseases (it didn't back then) because it is the disease having the most global impact. In Africa, it is killing MILLIONS - and almost all are straight. No, this is not about gay people - this is about averting the wholesale destruction of an entire continent - and possibly even more (it's spreading rapidly in India too).</p>

<p>Do you ever get tired of being flat-out wrong?

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Do you ever get tired of moving the goalpost? You said I was completely wrong, and then followed it up by saying the exact same thing I said. Once again, I'm talking about the U.S.. AIDS gets more funding than other diseases, but there's like ten other diseases that kill more people than AIDS. Also, the risk of getting AIDS as decreased tremendously since the 80s thanks to spreading awareness and advances in medication, and the life expectancy for people with AIDS have increased.</p>

145

<p>


</p>

<p>...you're still not answering the question. Are you saying that when gays are being discriminated against, they should not be able to refer in any way to the gains in civil rights over the past 50 years? That we should be lynching them, making laws against sodomy and everything else until they've had a couple of hundred years of concentrated mistreatment (even though gay people have been discriminated against in Western society for a long time, something you still refuse to acknowledge)? Seriously, you keep saying gays should "fight on their own terms" and stuff like that. What does that mean?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Here's my thought: your inborn bias against gays makes it difficult for you to empathize and see the other side of the coin. Yes, parents have the right to have whoever they want in their own home. Does that make it justified for them to kick out their child for being gay? No, absolutely it does not. It is still wrong, morally and otherwise. It is allowed, but that does not make it right. Do you agree or disagree?</p>

<p>And by the way, would you tell a straight person who had a boyfriend or girlfriend in their teens not to get involved because they'd have plenty of time to work out their orientation in their 20s? I suspect not.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Sorry, but me calling you out on comments that are incorrect is neither a personal attack nor passive-aggressive. I'm not surprised you see it that way, though. When someone is systematically dismantling your argument, it's tough not to get annoyed/offended.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I'm emotional? I don't think so.</p>

<p>As for tunnel vision, you said that gays have much more control over "public perception" than blacks ever did. I pointed to a number of public advocacy groups (whose job it is to control public perception) to rebut your point. Instead of saying "BUT I NEVER SAID THAT" to try and distance yourself from yet another thing you were totally wrong on, how about a legitimate response?</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>1) You keep changing your statement. Your statement was "Gay people haven't been ritualistically hung for decades before someone decided that hey, this is pretty messed up!" That is exactly what happened - with the singular exception that gays continue to be persecuted in many parts of the world.</p>

<p>2) I disagree. I think many people in Jena were very self-conscious of the very negative media coverage. I suspect there was grassroots change after the whole controversy. As for the KKK/white supremacists, they've always been around and always will be. The difference is that KKK members are a minuscule minority of people in America and elsewhere. They're a vocal one, and love to pull off publicity stunts like the noose thing (because otherwise nobody pays them any attention), but they're a tiny minority. Saying that their presence means blacks have made no gains is illogical - there are always bigots, no matter how much progress is made. In 500 years, we could all be living in harmony, and there will probably still be some KKK members. That's just the way these ideas work - there's always lunatics out there.</p>

<p>3) Unfortunately, for all the racism involved, crimes were still committed. I hate that these kids are probably still going to be found guilty, but there's nothing to be done - the judge has used as much discretion as he had to reduce their sentences. He does not have the judicial latitude to strike them totally. Menawhile, the most unjust parts of the case (the white man who wasn't charged when he pulled a shotgun; the white man who assaulted the boys and wasn't charged) have been solved. I can't figure out what else is possible to do, given the (unfortunate) facts of the case.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>...I'll say that your response was unexpected, to your credit.</p>

<p>The reason DADT is discriminatory is this: if a bunch of guys are talking about their significant others, they can all talk about how much they miss their wives, whatever. If a gay person mentions in passing anything about missing their boyfriend, or anything else, that's the end of their military career. I consider that discriminatory.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>In the present, society jumps to defend blacks just as society jumps to defend gays (to an extent) - Jena demonstrated this. Thankfully, we as a society have realized that discrimination is not to be tolerated.</p>

<p>And by the way, you don't need to remind me of all the ridiculous injustices perpetrated upon blacks. It's disgusting how much of it is in this country's history, and I'm well aware of that. I am curious though, what you're referring to the whole drug importation thing. I have yet to see a legitimate source for that claim, though it is made a lot, and would love to see one.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>That's a cop out. Of course it's defined that way. We're saying that it should not be, you're saying that it should. What it is defined as now is not really relevant. You have to justify why it should be defined that way on a priori grounds. To say otherwise would be like me saying that women shouldn't be able to vote because for hundreds of years they couldn't. It's an insufficient argument.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>When something is discriminatory, I consider anyone who supports it to be as culpable in the discrimination as the person whose original idea it was. End of story. I find it insufficient to say "but I didn't start it!" as a way of defending one's complicity.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Here's what was completely and factually wrong about what you said:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Preferential? No, equal. Currently, gay people cannot marry the person they love. Straight people can. Gay people want that right. Is that really preferential? Seriously?</p>

<p>Now, something I'd like you to respond to:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Mind telling me whether or not you think gay couples deserve any of those benefits accorded to straight couples? And if not, why?</p>

146

<p>
[quote]
I hate that these kids are probably still going to be found guilty, but there's nothing to be done - the judge has used as much discretion as he had to reduce their sentences. He does not have the judicial latitude to strike them totally. Meanwhile, the most unjust parts of the case (the white man who wasn't charged when he pulled a shotgun; the white man who assaulted the boys and wasn't charged) have been solved. I can't figure out what else is possible to do, given the (unfortunate) facts of the case.

[/quote]
I'd just like to point out that comparisons to Jena are probably not warranted as there was, in actuality, little racism involved there - contrary to early media reports. It was just another case of the media jumping the gun and not doing fact-checking to get a scoop and then never reporting on it again when they found out there was nothing really going on - not even apologizing for their initial misreporting.</p>

147

<p>I'm not sure I agree that there was "little" racism going on in Jena, but there was certainly less racism than the initial characterization of "THEY LYNCH BLACK PEOPLE FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND THEIR WHOLE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS SET UP TO SCREW BLACKS" suggested.</p>

148

<p>
[quote]
...you're still not answering the question. Are you saying that when gays are being discriminated against, they should not be able to refer in any way to the gains in civil rights over the past 50 years? That we should be lynching them, making laws against sodomy and everything else until they've had a couple of hundred years of concentrated mistreatment (even though gay people have been discriminated against in Western society for a long time, something you still refuse to acknowledge)? Seriously, you keep saying gays should "fight on their own terms" and stuff like that. What does that mean?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But it's not the same, like I keep telling you. You don't get to compare the two because in 1908, Blacks had laws specifically to express economic and social servitude to white people, but in 2008, gay people can't marry each other because the law hasn't been extended to include same-sex marriages. It's not the same thing. If we were truly talking about liberties and real discrimination socially and economically, I'd change my tune. Marriage isn't a right the way people seem to think it is, and it's nowhere near what Blacks have had to face. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Here's my thought: your inborn bias against gays makes it difficult for you to empathize and see the other side of the coin. Yes, parents have the right to have whoever they want in their own home. Does that make it justified for them to kick out their child for being gay? No, absolutely it does not. It is still wrong, morally and otherwise. It is allowed, but that does not make it right. Do you agree or disagree?</p>

<p>And by the way, would you tell a straight person who had a boyfriend or girlfriend in their teens not to get involved because they'd have plenty of time to work out their orientation in their 20s? I suspect not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, it is does make them justified if they don't want to accept their child being gay. It's makes them justified if their child doesn't want to wash the dishes every night. That's life. Ethically speaking, no, it's not right, but they are justified.</p>

<p>I'd tell a straight person that, too.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sorry, but me calling you out on comments that are incorrect is neither a personal attack nor passive-aggressive. I'm not surprised you see it that way, though. When someone is systematically dismantling your argument, it's tough not to get annoyed/offended.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, it's little comments like the last one, that I'm talking about. It's the subtle allusions to calling me a bigot. It's this idea you have that you're reading me the riot act, when all you're doing is disagreeing with me for no reason. We're debating opinion, not "fact", so there's no possible way for you to tell me if I'm correct or not.</p>

<p>You've yet to "dismantle" my arguments. I could keep going on like this for awhile, and I've yet to break a sweat once with you. Might want to lose the cocky attitude.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm emotional? I don't think so.</p>

<p>As for tunnel vision, you said that gays have much more control over "public perception" than blacks ever did. I pointed to a number of public advocacy groups (whose job it is to control public perception) to rebut your point. Instead of saying "BUT I NEVER SAID THAT" to try and distance yourself from yet another thing you were totally wrong on, how about a legitimate response?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not going down a line of discussion I never started. Since gays elect to tell people they're gay, they do have some control over who knows. As opposed to Blacks, who have to face discrimination on their skin color, it's not the same. And you mentioned black preachers and the NAACP, what an ambiguous example to "public advocacy groups", considering one of those isn't much of a group. Other thing is, I wasn't talking about public advocacy...for the second time. </p>

<p>
[quote]
1) You keep changing your statement. Your statement was "Gay people haven't been ritualistically hung for decades before someone decided that hey, this is pretty messed up!" That is exactly what happened - with the singular exception that gays continue to be persecuted in many parts of the world.</p>

<p>2) I disagree. I think many people in Jena were very self-conscious of the very negative media coverage. I suspect there was grassroots change after the whole controversy. As for the KKK/white supremacists, they've always been around and always will be. The difference is that KKK members are a minuscule minority of people in America and elsewhere. They're a vocal one, and love to pull off publicity stunts like the noose thing (because otherwise nobody pays them any attention), but they're a tiny minority. Saying that their presence means blacks have made no gains is illogical - there are always bigots, no matter how much progress is made. In 500 years, we could all be living in harmony, and there will probably still be some KKK members. That's just the way these ideas work - there's always lunatics out there.</p>

<p>3) Unfortunately, for all the racism involved, crimes were still committed. I hate that these kids are probably still going to be found guilty, but there's nothing to be done - the judge has used as much discretion as he had to reduce their sentences. He does not have the judicial latitude to strike them totally. Menawhile, the most unjust parts of the case (the white man who wasn't charged when he pulled a shotgun; the white man who assaulted the boys and wasn't charged) have been solved. I can't figure out what else is possible to do, given the (unfortunate) facts of the case.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) So where's your proof that that's the case in this country, which is the place I've been referring to this entire time?</p>

<p>2) Of course you'd dilute what I said, but the truth is nothing changed amongst all the media attention. Neither judicially nor socially.</p>

<p>3) Uh huh, so then it wasn't solved...at all. Which goes back to #2 with how nothing really changed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
...I'll say that your response was unexpected, to your credit.</p>

<p>The reason DADT is discriminatory is this: if a bunch of guys are talking about their significant others, they can all talk about how much they miss their wives, whatever. If a gay person mentions in passing anything about missing their boyfriend, or anything else, that's the end of their military career. I consider that discriminatory.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not that simple, actually. There was a story a few months back about a guy who mentioned his boyfriend in a piece for 20/20 (I think) and he wasn't discharged. It was a big deal because of DADT, and he said this on national TV. But still, its not solely discriminatory because gays can't engage in full disclosure. Equal isn't always the same.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In the present, society jumps to defend blacks just as society jumps to defend gays (to an extent) - Jena demonstrated this. Thankfully, we as a society have realized that discrimination is not to be tolerated.</p>

<p>And by the way, you don't need to remind me of all the ridiculous injustices perpetrated upon blacks. It's disgusting how much of it is in this country's history, and I'm well aware of that. I am curious though, what you're referring to the whole drug importation thing. I have yet to see a legitimate source for that claim, though it is made a lot, and would love to see one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Jena didn't demonstrate this. Jena was a largely "black media" event. I mean, for real. You could've mentioned Hurricane Katrina, but Jena isn't proof of anything, except discrimination still exists towards Blacks, and it's not all sour grapes.</p>

<p>I doubt there's ever really been a ton of research done into that, but it's really just common sense: how did they get here? Blacks didn't import it into this country. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
That's a cop out. Of course it's defined that way. We're saying that it should not be, you're saying that it should. What it is defined as now is not really relevant. You have to justify why it should be defined that way on a priori grounds. To say otherwise would be like me saying that women shouldn't be able to vote because for hundreds of years they couldn't. It's an insufficient argument.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>You should've said that. I thought you were making a factual error. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
When something is discriminatory, I consider anyone who supports it to be as culpable in the discrimination as the person whose original idea it was. End of story. I find it insufficient to say "but I didn't start it!" as a way of defending one's complicity.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>I disagree with that as a general rule. I'm sure it's easier for you to just go around judging people in huge groups and ignoring nuance, but ultimately, that's intellectually dishonest. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
That is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it's totally wrong and in fact quite the opposite of the truth. The truth is that AIDS was shoved out of the limelight and given basically no government attention precisely because it was considered a gay man's disease. This was one of Reagan's biggest failings.</p>

<p>Now, AIDS gets massive funding. But this has not been true until recently. And by recently, I mean when AIDS became a pandemic in Africa, and started killing more people than almost every other disease combined on that continent.</p>

<p>America funds AIDS at such a high level not because it kills many in America, but because it is the single biggest health challenge facing the world as a whole today, and thankfully America's policymakers and others responsible for supporting research realized that globally, it is the #1 health priority of our time. This has nothing to do with gay people (the vast majority of AIDS-infected people today in the world are straight), and everything to do with averting a global crisis (well, not averting - it's already happening, but rather controlling the damage from it).

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>First of all, if you're going to quote me, please quote me in its entirety. You quoted half a piece of a sentence.</p>

<p>Reagan thought it was a gay male's disease, largely because it was. That wasn't any reason to let them die, but...it was in the gay community first.</p>

<p>And AIDS might need funding in Africa and other undeveloped parts of the world, but in America, AIDS doesn't kill more people than any other disease. More people die of heart disease than AIDS, but AIDS has more funding. That's off to me.</p>

<p>And once again, it goes back to, there's a way to curb the effect of AIDS, but we still don't know entirely what causes cancer, for example. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Preferential? No, equal. Currently, gay people cannot marry the person they love. Straight people can. Gay people want that right. Is that really preferential? Seriously?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Men can marry women, women can marry men. Men can't marry men, and women can't marry women. That goes for everybody regardless if they love each other, or if they're gay or straight. </p>

<p>It is preferential.</p>

149

<p>Race isn't always something that is easily visible. Prior to the end of Jim Crow laws, many lighter skinned blacks "passed" as white people. True, this usually required them to cut off contact with their families, hide great portions of their lives, etc. but I guess they really can't claim that they were discriminated against in any way since they managed to hide the aspect of them that was being discriminated against. Anyway, enough of this race/sexual orientation comparison. I don't like that it always tends to come down to a "who's more oppressed?" debate.</p>

<p>I would like to say that I really like the compromise that the Catholic diocese of San Francisco came up with when the city passed an ordinance requiring that any organization receiving city funds (which Catholic Charities does) offer domestic partner benefits. The church's solution was to offer benefits to any one person with whom the employee shared a legal residence (a spouse (of either gender) a sibling, a friend, etc.) thereby taking the whole sex aspect out of the arrangement. </p>

<p>Marriage laws shouldn't be all about sex. Marriage is really just a contractual relationship recognizing that life is a lot easier when you have a partner of some sort to share everything with.</p>