Don't Ask; Don't Tell Repeal Blocked

[Kim]

When the hell did I call you a homophobe? Apparently you keep saying I said that, but I can't find it. I did a bigass fancy search for any time I've used homophobe, homophobic, homophobia, etc, and the only forum member I think I've called that is EvilEarl. Note: Straightsplaining is not necessarily the same thing as homophobia. It's just a trend in discussion.

Also, I really don't think you were arguing what you claim you were arguing, but if you want to post the thing that pissed me off, I can go into detail about why it pissed me off.

[Ryanderman]

Straightsplaining sounds exactly like you're calling people homophobes. May not be how you intended it, but it's how it came across.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Straightsplaining sounds exactly like you're calling people homophobes. May not be how you intended it, but it's how it came across.

If I was calling you homophobes, then I'd just call you homophobes. I've called EvilEarl a homophobe when he was being a homophobe, so it's not like I'm afraid of using the word on NPF.

Mansplaining is, from what I've come to understand and put into super-simplified terms, an argument from a privileged individual being made against an underprivileged minority wherein the privileged person "tells it how it is" from their privileged perspective and ignores/disregards anything the underprivileged minority says. (Note: The person is considered an underprivileged minority in the topic being discussed, not necessarily all arguments. The same applies to the way in whch the privileged person is privileged.) Straightsplaining would just be that when applied to arguments regarding homosexual topics. I'm starting to question whether it applied as well as I felt, but there are people who'd be better suited to such a discussion.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by NonCon

If I was calling you homophobes, then I'd just call you homophobes. I've called EvilEarl a homophobe when he was being a homophobe, so it's not like I'm afraid of using the word on NPF.

Mansplaining is, from what I've come to understand and put into super-simplified terms, an argument from a privileged individual being made against an underprivileged minority wherein the privileged person "tells it how it is" from their privileged perspective and ignores/disregards anything the underprivileged minority says. (Note: The person is considered an underprivileged minority in the topic being discussed, not necessarily all arguments. The same applies to the way in whch the privileged person is privileged.) Straightsplaining would just be that when applied to arguments regarding homosexual topics. I'm starting to question whether it applied as well as I felt, but there are people who'd be better suited to such a discussion.

Except in this case that's a load of crap. They were explaining from a "Hey, look at this law over here that could bite you in the ass if you ignore it" perspective that has nothing to do whatsoever with privilege. And just because you may fall into the unprivileged case in this instance, does that give you justification to entirely ignore them, and dismiss their arguments as baseless because they come from privilege the way you did?

Perhaps, they didn't ignore your arguments, they just disagreed? Is their disagreement on the consequences of repealing a law entirely baseless, because they happen to be straight? When their opinion is not based on any specific experience a gay or straight person may have, but rather an objective look at the law, at the people who might exploit the law, and the potential consequences therein?

but there are people who'd be better suited to such a discussion.

...

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Except in this case that's a load of crap. They were explaining from a "Hey, look at this law over here that could bite you in the ass if you ignore it" perspective that has nothing to do whatsoever with privilege. And just because you may fall into the unprivileged case in this instance, does that give you justification to entirely ignore them, and dismiss their arguments as baseless because they come from privilege the way you did?

I didn't ignore/dismiss there arguments. I countered them with points. It is impossible to counter and argue against someone's point if you're ignoring it. It would require you to not ignore it.

The point they were making, or at least the point they seemed to me to be making, was that we should put off repealing DADT until we do something about the UCMJ and put in anti-discrimination laws. My points existed to counter that argument. If they were not making that argument, as Nikose claims, then very well. Sorry for jumping the gun. However, it is an argument that I've seen brought up and again and again, it is an incredibly flawed argument, and even if they disagree with me I'd like for them to argue with the points I made so at least some debate can happen. If I keep hearing the argument without hearing my points countered, I'm suddenly going to not want to debate, and would far rather just give everyone the finger. Not saying it's right to do that, just that that's what I'll end up wanting to do.

An Analogy

Me: I like hamburgers with cheese.

Someone else: Those make you fat.

Me: Yes, but I exercise and eat other healthy foods to balance it out.

Someone else 2: They make you fat.

Me: As I said, I do things to make up for this.

Someone else 3: They make you fat.

Me: Goddammit, I already responded to this!

Someone else 4: They-

Me: Fuck off!

Now, it is entirely possible that Someone else 4 wasn't going to say the same thing these other people did, and the other people did have valid concerns that were in my best interests. The were just trying to act in my best interest while ignoring what I was saying. I should not have told Someone else 4 to fuck off like that. However, looking at it, it's fairly easy to see why I would snap and do so. It's not right, but there's a reason.

My points, some of which had been brought up earlier in this thread, had not been addressed. Simply ignored. Nik did address them, and I thank him for that, even if some other related details kinda irritate me about the whole thing.

Perhaps, they didn't ignore your arguments, they just disagreed?

hahawhat

...

I'm overall fairly new to the terminology and the like, for myriad reasons. Premmy, Fifth, and a few others would be much more qualified to discuss whether I used it correctly, or, if I didn't, if it applied in some way to other facets of the discussion.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Loyal

I think the ancient Greeks, or somesuch in that time period, were pretty big on gay soldiers.

Allow me to geek out on the Spartan issue a bit. They actually had homosexuality as a military institution. As in all the men in the military, meaning all the men period, were required. If you survived through your tender years with such training as learning how to steal food in the dead of night without getting caught under pain of being beaten possibly to death, you'd spend your first years as an adult in the society under the wing (among other appendages) of an older, more experienced soldier who'd become your personal instructor, alpha male figure, and lover, just to make sure you cemented those good ol' military bonds. That resulted in every man in society not knowing which end of a woman was up for his whole life, which made things complicated when it came to expanding the population. The standard marriage ritual was to shave the wife's head, dress her in male clothing, and have her lie in the dark waiting for her husband to sneak in in the dead of night and lie with her. It could go on for literal years without them actually having actual procreative sex. So imagine every woman of age being married to a guy and having to dress like a man and get the back door treatment for several years, if he was even comfortable doing that during his sporadic nocturnal visits, which she also had to ease him into.


On the other hand, until the invention of the short bow, the Spartan army was one of the greatest and most effective militaries the world had ever seen up to that point. So I really don't think having gays in the military hurts anything.

[Kim]

The Sacred Band of Thebes was a non-Spartan Greek army composed entirely of men and their lovers. Look them up. They kicked ass.

[Fifthfiend]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...mmediate_Stay/

Welp, gays no longer have to live in terror of the somewhat applicable legal loopholes in their ability to openly serve in the military, they're back to no longer having it at all.

Thank you President Obama for saving gays from having their rights imperfectly expanded, by ensuring that they are instead not expanded at all.

Originally Posted by Nikose Tyris

@Fifth:
Department of Defense Directive, explicitly stating that Homosexuals will not be asked if they are homosexual [AkA Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Enacted 1994] in E1.2.8.1.

However, below, a seperate entry in the Department of Defense Directive, in E1.2.8.2 states "Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry into the Armed Forces, except as otherwise provided in this section."
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd...3/d130426p.pdf

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

that somehow isn't overturned by the judge's ruling

I would say that I guess at this point I don't really need to explain how this is what the ruling overturned given that for the like two days the ruling was in effect, this was overturned by the ruling, openly gay people were totally free to service their military, openly gay people were totally free to join the military, during the effectivenessity period of this ruling

But then this thread is this thread, so who knows.

*EDIT*

The bit about sodomy being barred that nikose/tahr mentioned was kind of interesting, although I'm not sure to what extent that wouldn't be rendered unenforceable by Lawrence v. Texas.

Originally Posted by Nikose Tyris

This can be bypassed by setting a precedent that would make the military law unconstitutional, since that cannot be bypassed.

Which is to say, exactly what the ruling did

as the ruling made the military law banning gays from service unconstitutional

no further trialing needed

unconstitutionality = happened

it was done

it was a thing that had occurred

here in the world of have-happened things

Then the 9th circuit stayed the opinion, un-unconstitutionalizing the law.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Hey Noncon stop being a complete asshole. You are actually right but you are the biggest, jerkiest kind of right there is.

This entire thread has been you shitting all over people because you're gay and special and we get it, you're gay and special, but be more civil. It almost sickens me that I agree with you because you somehow stand next to fifthfiend and make him seem like the friendliest conversationalist I've ever seen. As a matter of fact my disgust at your recent posts has only been tempered by Fifth taking up your side of the argument the way someone on your side of the argument should do it.

And no, just because someone else said something mean doesn't mean you can say something mean. You picked out one line of Blues but it was after you fucking vomited your angst all over him. I almost never see eye to eye with Blues but you deserved to be told to fuck off.

Sorry if this upsets the mods but jesus christ, NonCon used to be a minififthfiend and now he's progressively turned into more and more of a vitrolic narcissist to the point where you can't even sift through his actual good points behind the thick, blubbered layer of venom.

Whoa shit Mesden posted.

EDIT: lol, this post.

2X EDIT COMBO:

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Not here you aren't, because you will not hurl personal insults at people who don't agree with you on this forum.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...mmediate_Stay/

Welp, gays no longer have to live in terror of the somewhat applicable legal loopholes in their ability to openly serve in the military, they're back to no longer having it at all.

Thank you President Obama for saving gays from having their rights imperfectly expanded, by ensuring that they are instead not expanded at all.

Yeah, I mean, I really don't know what I can say about this. I knew it was coming, and it still pisses me off. Of course, this sort of thing isn't anything new for Obama. At some point in the future I really ought to post that timeline where you can see him go from "gays deserve marriage rights" to "civil marriage is good enough for gay people." The saddest part about the latter being that he doesn't even seem to fight for that. What good he manages to accomplish always falls to pieces in my eyes when I see the myriad ways that the man is a lying sack of shit.

If I remember correctly, the only decent thing he did for the gay community was extend visitation rights for their partners. That's a great thing and all, but the more I see of this bullshit the more I feel that it's just a token offering so that when election time comes around he can bring it up and say he'll do even more for us even though he failed to do so given the opportunity this term.