Ousted Homosexual Soldiers Looking To Return To Service

[Danno 1,228]

Yes, the institutionalized oppression of minorities is an awful bore, isn't it?

And thank goodness those nasty "homos" remain precluded from exploiting the marriage-based immigration loopholes that you or I are able to. We'd be overrun with "unbecoming" Americans.

Those who enjoy multiple wives are also one of the Oppressed minorities turned away by our immigration laws.

are you crying for them also?

[faust-yusov 103]

Ah yes - the political parity of homosexuality with a practise solely intent on the subjugation of women.

One can only be glad that you weren't around to scupper the civil rights movement.

[Danno 1,228]

Ah yes - the political parity of homosexuality with a practise solely intent on the subjugation of women.

One can only be glad that you weren't around to scupper the civil rights movement.

"Subjugation of women"?

Are you in a position to know the dynamics of all these family arraignments?

Or maybe you are injecting your prejudices on all women who might choose this type of marriage?

[faust-yusov 103]

Are you in a position to know the dynamics of all these family arraignments?

Or maybe you are injecting your prejudices on all women who might choose this type of marriage?

Are you?

It is your proposal to equate polygamous marriage with monogamous homosexual relationships.

Naturally you will be aware of the history of polygamy, of keeping concubines, and its roots in misogyny, and thus the reasonably sturdy political ground for its opposition, unlike same-sex marriage.

[Danno 1,228]

Are you?

It is your proposal to equate polygamous marriage with monogamous homosexual relationships.

Naturally you will be aware of the history of polygamy, of keeping concubines, and its roots in misogyny, and thus the reasonably sturdy political ground for its opposition, unlike same-sex marriage.

It's Dec 23, 2010.

News flash: a lot of families are living in the shadows in this very same arraignment just fine.

Who made you judge over these women and how they decide to live their lives.

Tsk, Tsk,Tsk

[faust-yusov 103]

If you'll read our discussion, I have only suggested that your comparison is insufficient and reductive.

Were it even an appropriate parallel, your contemptuous intent on arguing against the case for equality for same-sex couples on any grounds other than its own is an odiously transparent attempt to further promote a view supported only by prejudice.

[Danno 1,228]

If you'll read our discussion, I have only suggested that your comparison is insufficient and reductive.

Were it even an appropriate parallel, your contemptuous intent on arguing against the case for equality for same-sex couples on any grounds other than its own is an odiously transparent attempt to further promote a view supported only by prejudice.

The sound of a wiffle bat... missing the ball.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If you'll read our discussion, I have only suggested that your comparison is insufficient and reductive.

Were it even an appropriate parallel, your contemptuous intent on arguing against the case for equality for same-sex couples on any grounds other than its own is an odiously transparent attempt to further promote a view supported only by prejudice.

why is the argument insufficient?

After all, the whole argument is about 'consenting adults.'

You cannot bring up one minority group while keeping another down. Who are you to judge polygamy? Just as who is another to judge homosexuality?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's all ok, or none of it's ok.

Society and its morale compass is jacked up these days all around on all sides of the prejudicial aisle...

[faust-yusov 103]

why is the argument insufficient?

After all, the whole argument is about 'consenting adults.'

You cannot bring up one minority group while keeping another down. Who are you to judge polygamy? Just as who is another to judge homosexuality?

Goodness me! It appears I need to spell it out in stronger terms still. I have not condemned nor even passed opinion on polygamy, but this is not the point.

You very well can bring up one minority group at a time. It would rather assail the course of progress if you could not. As I immediately responded to this nonsensical line of argument, perhaps by the same logic we might have argued Dr King down by pointing to each inequity he neglected to mention.

To put it another way, say I did abhor polygamy, and say that I was prejudicial to do so. Would my advocacy of equal rights for homosexuals then be wrong, or my arguments to that end intrinsically fallacious? Clearly not. At best you might call me a hypocrite, though in either case I would maintain that the two issues do not share common ground historically or politically (and allow me to add, in the apparent absence of cogent comprehensive skills pervading this section of the forum, that this is an observation fully free of any judgment).

Do you see the extent to which we deride the cause by playing into the hands of such a feeble line of argument? I have pointedly refused to pass any opinion on polygamy in an effort to avoid doing exactly that.

Edited December 23, 2010 by faust-yusov

[Danno 1,228]

Goodness me! It appears I need to spell it out in stronger terms still. I have not condemned nor even passed opinion on polygamy, but this is not the point.

You very well can bring up one minority group at a time. It would rather assail the course of progress if you could not. As I immediately responded to this nonsensical line of argument, perhaps by the same logic we might have argued Dr King down by pointing to each inequity he neglected to mention.

To put it another way, say I did abhor polygamy, and say that I was prejudicial to do so. Would my advocacy of equal rights for homosexuals then be wrong, or my arguments to that end intrinsically fallacious? Clearly not. At best you might call me a hypocrite, though in either case I would maintain that the two issues do not share common ground historically or politically (and allow me to add, in the apparent absence of cogent comprehensive skills pervading this section of the forum, that this is an observation fully free of any judgment).

Do you see the extent to which we deride the cause by playing into the hands of such a feeble line of argument? I have pointedly refused to pass any opinion on polygamy in an effort to avoid doing exactly that.

Say what you want, you are on record for stereotyping people who don't fit your concept of what marriage should be, welcome to the Club.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh dear, Danno faced with another critical thinker and found sorely wanting. Next thing you know there'll be accusations of high horsiness and librulism.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Danno loves a bit of bait and switch

[Danno 1,228]

Danno loves a bit of bait and switch

I've learned to fight fire w fire.

[mendeleev 68]

Danno loves a bit of bait and switch

Or is that bait and snatch?

Its clear there are several here (maybe he's one) unable to engage in any mental activity that requires the least bit of effort or subtlety...

[Danno 1,228]

Or is that bait and snatch?

Its clear there are several here (maybe he's one) unable to engage in any mental activity that requires the least bit of effort or subtlety...

The truth is, for many their level of activity is "dodging the questions if not the subject but lets see how you do.

Q: what exactly does an "openly Gay service member" mean?

We know in most gay relationship one plays the more masculine roll and the other plays the feminine roll. Will the typical lisping effeminate acting person be acceptable for service or will that be considered acting "Too openly"?