Dadt

[custom36 4]

Is that fair? Seems hypocritical to say the least.

Fairness is a legitimate debate to have. I obviously fall on the side of believing it's fair. How is it hypocritical?

[Balloon guy 158]

Fairness is a legitimate debate to have. I obviously fall on the side of believing it's fair. How is it hypocritical?

REALLY?

[custom36 4]

REALLY?

For realz. But I'd appreciate an explanation from someone who understands the issue, which you have failed to do so far.

[El Guapo 8]

Fairness is a legitimate debate to have. I obviously fall on the side of believing it's fair. How is it hypocritical?

REALLY?

OK, I'll bite.The gay community is constantly discussing rights and wanting to be treated equal. They feel that they should have the same rights as everyone else.Yet, in your example prominent member of that same community are outing people who don't want their sexual orientation or preferences to be public knowledge. This is hypocritical because they are not respecting the privacy and the rights of someone.Lets take it a step further. Lets say I am into bondage with my wife, in my home. There is nothing illegal about that activity, but is not accepted in the mainstream public eye. Lets now say I am a republican state legislature that voted against having a bondage club in the city limits because that is what is expected of me by my constituents, even though I am a participant in the activity and think there is nothing wrong with bondage. Do you think it is right or fair for people who participate in bondage to out me to the general public, which would most certainly affect my job?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

"Let's say"

[custom36 4]

OK, I'll bite.The gay community is constantly discussing rights and wanting to be treated equal. They feel that they should have the same rights as everyone else.Yet, in your example prominent member of that same community are outing people who don't want their sexual orientation or preferences to be public knowledge. This is hypocritical because they are not respecting the privacy and the rights of someone.Lets take it a step further. Lets say I am into bondage with my wife, in my home. There is nothing illegal about that activity, but is not accepted in the mainstream public eye. Lets now say I am a republican state legislature that voted against having a bondage club in the city limits because that is what is expected of me by my constituents, even though I am a participant in the activity and think there is nothing wrong with bondage. Do you think it is right or fair for people who participate in bondage to out me to the general public, which would most certainly affect my job?

Well, because those who are into bondage still have the same rights as those who are not into bondage. And you're only "into bondage" in private. When you're gay, you're gay in more places than the bedroom. But, to play your game, maybe you should have been honest in the first place. If your constituents know you're into bondage, and you still voted against bondage because it's what your constituents want, you'd both win, no?Like I said, "is it fair" is a good debate. But unfair is not the same as hypocritical.

[El Guapo 8]

Well, because those who are into bondage still have the same rights as those who are not into bondage. And you're only "into bondage" in private. When you're gay, you're gay in more places than the bedroom. But, to play your game, maybe you should have been honest in the first place. If your constituents know you're into bondage, and you still voted against bondage because it's what your constituents want, you'd both win, no?Like I said, "is it fair" is a good debate. But unfair is not the same as hypocritical.

Says who?Maybe that person leads a normal heterosexual lifestyle. Is married, has kids, but has an arrangement with his wife that he is allowed to have sex with men.That would mean he is only gay in the bedroom. Also, it is not your right, or anyone's right to tell someone how their private lives should be discussed or displayed. I don't see keeping thinks like this private as being dishonest. Should Obama hold a press conference every time he whacks it in the shower? What if he is into watching MMF porn? Should we know about that?

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Says who?Maybe that person leads a normal heterosexual lifestyle. Is married, has kids, but has an arrangement with his wife that he is allowed to have sex with men.That would mean he is only gay in the bedroom. Also, it is not your right, or anyone's right to tell someone how their private lives should be discussed or displayed. I don't see keeping thinks like this private as being dishonest. Should Obama hold a press conference every time he whacks it in the shower? What if he is into watching MMF porn? Should we know about that?

exactly, what they are saying is you have a right to privacy unless it suits our agenda.

[custom36 4]

Says who?Maybe that person leads a normal heterosexual lifestyle. Is married, has kids, but has an arrangement with his wife that he is allowed to have sex with men.That would mean he is only gay in the bedroom.

Except that this particular man has no wife. He is single. No reason to hide who he is other than shame or greed.And your example above is inaccurate. If he has a wife he loves and truly enjoys having sex with and screws men on the side, he's probably bisexual. There's no such thing as "only gay in the bedroom."

Also, it is not your right, or anyone's right to tell someone how their private lives should be discussed or displayed. I don't see keeping thinks like this private as being dishonest. Should Obama hold a press conference every time he whacks it in the shower? What if he is into watching MMF porn? Should we know about that?

Again, the legitimate fairness debate. I'm not seeing anything hypocritical at all.And yes, I'd like a press conference every time he whacks it in the shower. Then we could get questions like, "What grip did you use?" which would make for a far more entertaining news cycle.

[custom36 4]

exactly, what they are saying is you have a right to privacy unless it suits our agenda.

Who? What? When have gays asked for the right to privacy other than when trying to avoid discrimination? "Right to privacy" in regards to police breaking in to arrest you for gay sex is far different than "right to privacy" when you're publicly talking about how evil gays are and taking it in the ass at the same time.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

No reason to hide who he is other than shame or greed.

So what if it is shame? Does that make it anyone else's business?

[custom36 4]

So what if it is shame? Does that make it anyone else's business?

When his shame becomes public rehtoric that hurts an equal rights movement? Absolutely.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

So what if it is shame? Does that make it anyone else's business?

bingo, what if because of that shame he kills himself? Isn't his outing then a crime, wasn't it done mostly out of hate?

[custom36 4]

bingo, what if because of that shame he kills himself? Isn't his outing then a crime, wasn't it done mostly out of hate?

What if he's killed by a lynchmob? What if aliens come down to kidnap our gays and include him? What if we LAND ON THE MOOOON?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

When his shame becomes public rehtoric that hurts an equal rights movement? Absolutely.

But you don't know that's the reason he's voting against it. That could be the reason he doesn't want to be outed while still having entirely different reasons for the way he votes.I personally don't know anything about this guy, but this feels like an invastion of privacy to me.

[custom36 4]

But you don't know that's the reason he's voting against it. That could be the reason he doesn't want to be outed while still having entirely different reasons for the way he votes.I personally don't know anything about this guy, but this feels like an invastion of privacy to me.

Which I respect. And, from what I can tell, about half of the gay population agrees with you. Soo...agree to disagree?

[El Guapo 8]

Except that this particular man has no wife. He is single. No reason to hide who he is other than shame or greed.And your example above is inaccurate. If he has a wife he loves and truly enjoys having sex with and screws men on the side, he's probably bisexual. There's no such thing as "only gay in the bedroom."

You are the one who used that terminology, not me. I personally don't care if he is gay or bi or if he has a wife or not. It actually not pertinent to the argument.

When his shame becomes public rehtoric that hurts an equal rights movement? Absolutely.

Absolutely not. This door swings both ways. What if straight people started outing gay people to promote their movement, whatever it may be.

[custom36 4]

Absolutely not. This door swings both ways. What if straight people started outing gay people to promote their movement, whatever it may be.

Apples and oranges. This is gay people outing gay people. If straight people were outing straight people it would depend on who they were outing, why they were doing it, and what the cause was. Moral relativity, I think.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Apples and oranges. This is gay people outing gay people. If straight people were outing straight people it would depend on who they were outing, why they were doing it, and what the cause was. Moral relativity, I think.

I see how it is. First you're all "gays and straights are equal!" but now it's "gays and straights have different rules!" Trying to get the best of both worlds, huh? Not on my watch, buddy.

[timwakefield 68]

Also, it is not your right, or anyone's right to tell someone how their private lives should be discussed or displayed.

Exactly. That's why Don't Ask Don't Tell was such an ugly law. When you have the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 5 star Generals telling you that they think it's a bad law, soldiers telling you they're happy to have it repealed (in an extensive survey), the President of the United States against it, how can somebody rationalize voting against a repeal? Why did Republicans largely vote against it? Yes I know both sides vote with their party just because, but why does the Republican party take that side of the issue? Did Republicans vote against it simply because the President was for it? Why do they align themselves with discrimination?

Also, this was funny:

"Let's say"

[Balloon guy 158]

For realz. But I'd appreciate an explanation from someone who understands the issue, which you have failed to do so far.

REALLY?After all that?REALLY?

[Balloon guy 158]

I mean....REALLY?Crazy Pills!I am taking them.

[El Guapo 8]

Exactly. That's why Don't Ask Don't Tell was such an ugly law. When you have the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 5 star Generals telling you that they think it's a bad law, soldiers telling you they're happy to have it repealed (in an extensive survey), the President of the United States against it, how can somebody rationalize voting against a repeal? Why did Republicans largely vote against it? Yes I know both sides vote with their party just because, but why does the Republican party take that side of the issue? Did Republicans vote against it simply because the President was for it? Why do they align themselves with discrimination?

Also, this was funny:

DADT was stupid, but at one point there was a lot of validity to not having homosexuals openly serving in the military. Personally I don't know if it will be an issue or a distraction at this stage. Things like this need to progress over time. As a society we now deem this being ok, 20 years ago we did not.

[uncooper 1]

So you don't agree that the health bill was raping america?

I like reading this sentence over and over.

[vbnautilus 48]

Maybe that person leads a normal heterosexual lifestyle. Is married, has kids, but has an arrangement with his wife that he is allowed to have sex with men.

man this really hit close to home.