Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/22/10 10:29 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: By your reasoning, anyone who has knowingly broken any law and gotten punished for doing so are idiots and can blame nobody but themselves, regardless of how evil or unfair the law was to begin with. Take the underground railroad from 19th century America, anyone caught sheltering runaway slaves would probably have been hanged. Should they not have done that, Lawful Neutral? Were they idiots for breaking the law?

Well, yea. I mean, there are a lot of shitty laws on the books. But no one forces the average citizen to sign on the dotted line that they will obey XYZ. In the military, you acknowledge that being gay ain't ok and you will get discharged for it. So, if you agree to that...then come out as a flamer, yea you're a tard.

Or how about in 1940's Nazi Germany, when people would hide Jews in their homes from the Nazis? Would they not be punished severely for breaking that law? Have they no one to blame but themselves?

Are the gays who are discharged being killed?

No, they're being HONORABLY discharged? Shut up then.

According to the law, she should be executed for impersonating a man and joining the army, but the General decides to spare her life instead.

A harsher example. However, Mulan understood, going in, that was the penalty. And she excepted it. She was only spared because she saved China. Kinda hard to execute a national hero for having a uterus.

My point being, that it is sometimes heroic to break an unjust law, and the risk of punishment makes it even more so.

It's not heroic to agree to something, than to break it. Ever.

Here is the entire issue as I see it from both sides.

Reasons for repealing DADT:

-Anyone willing and able to fight and die for their country should be allowed to do so.

-It's not fair that heterosexuals can speak freely about sexual issues but homosexuals have to watch what they say.

-Kicking someone out of the military for their sexuality is exactly the same as kicking someone out of the military for their political ideals, religion, etc...

-Homosexuals are not intrinsically better or worse in combat applications or any other tasks.

-There were homosexuals in armed forces all over the world before, during and after DADT and it has never in human history caused any problems in military operations. If anything, DADT harmed the US military by discharging people that were perfectly capable of fulfilling their duties.

Reasons against repealing DADT:

-Strait people, particularly religious types, think gayness is yucky and/or amoral.

Did I cover everything? I might have to make slight revisions later.

At 12/23/10 06:02 AM, Yorik wrote: Here is the entire issue as I see it from both sides.

Did I cover everything? I might have to make slight revisions later.

You basically summarized the entire debate we have going here, and honestly the pro-DADT crowd can't seem to find any good supportive arguments, as there is no evidence that DADT was beneficial nor is there any evidence that its repeal would be detrimental to our military's combat capability.

At 12/23/10 06:02 AM, Yorik wrote: Reasons for repealing DADT:
-Anyone willing and able to fight and die for their country should be allowed to do so.

And are allowed to, under current law.

-It's not fair that heterosexuals can speak freely about sexual issues but homosexuals have to watch what they say.

Both persuasions are under the same rules.

-There were homosexuals in armed forces all over the world before, during and after DADT and it has never in human history caused any problems in military operations. If anything, DADT harmed the US military by discharging people that were perfectly capable of fulfilling their duties.

Well, now we have an issue. There's a pretty big news story right now of a gay soldier who leaked military documents because he was gay. Does this reflect poorly on all homosexuals? Ofp course not. But does it mean that your blanket statement is wrong? Well...yes.

Reasons against repealing DADT:

-Strait people, particularly religious types, think gayness is yucky and/or amoral.

Wowza! That's it? Straight people think gays are gross? What about the fact that the vast majority of gays in the military don't want DADT revoked? Yup, all homophobia. No valid reasons. Which is why even gays agree it should stand. Hmmm.

At 12/23/10 06:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
Wowza! That's it? Straight people think gays are gross? What about the fact that the vast majority of gays in the military don't want DADT revoked? Yup, all homophobia. No valid reasons. Which is why even gays agree it should stand. Hmmm.

If it's not too much trouble, would you provide a link to a reputable study to verify this?

At 12/22/10 11:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

Nobody had to die over this, nobody's life needed to be ruined over this.

Well gays have been banned from the military forever basically and Clinton tried a repeal in 1993 but it was Republiblocked. So it's been tried for a while now and it's been blocked. I don't think anyone can really tell, but I'm guessing having those 13k servicemen discharged from the military over the last 17 years sort of helped in showing how dumb that policy was.

Plus the army recruits kids at a pretty young age so imagine you're sort of confused, get into the military at 18, then find out you're gay at 23 or whatever and now... should you have to quit your career for that?
Or just choose to try and be straight? Or just never get with anyone?

At 12/22/10 11:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/22/10 06:46 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: How?

Because in the end, it accomplishes nothing. This person now suffers a fate worse than death because he's essentially been stripped of all his civil liberties and is seen as a criminal in the eyes of the law, and that's the way he'll have to spend the rest of his days. Good luck getting a decent job, good luck getting a visa to travel outside the country with, you'll never be able to own a firearm (even though you're probably more qualified than anyone else to own or operate one), you'll never get to run for an elected office, and you'll never get to vote ever again... which is the cruelest bit of irony there ever was.

A fate worse than death? Not for nothing, but I think you're being a bit hyperbolic. Anyway, you're missing the point AGAIN. How do I need to spell it out for you? IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY, IT'S ABOUT THE GOOD THAT YOU DO.

You keep talking about PERSONAL gain, when I'm talking about doing good for OTHER PEOPLE. Why would someone sign up for the army? You seem to think it's all about advancing yourself, but some people, get this, sign up for the military to PROTECT someone other than themselves. Many go to war to protect other people, willing to give up their life. Why can't you acknowledge that?

And stop ignoring my points about giving shelter to Jews and slaves. I'd love to hear an answer on my Mulan point as well.

At 12/22/10 11:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: "You know you're gay, so just accept your lower status. If you try to achieve like us normal people it's only YOUR fault for attempting to be better than you are."

How about this;

"You know you're gay, but you want to join an organization with a 200+ year track record of being against homosexuals when you know you will be fucked over in the worst way when they find out what you are. You will have no one else to blame but yourself when you sign on the dotted line if you do it, no one should feel sorry for your idiocy."

your ilk

Fuck off.

Sorry, but it took evidence of how the removal of 13,000 hurt the army

13,000? Out of a standing workforce of 549,015? By way of comparison, that would be like firing 3 people out of a workforce of 100 people in a factory setting, the company isn't going to hurt that much over losing them. And that number goes way down if you count in all the Reservists.

At 12/23/10 08:48 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: A fate worse than death? Not for nothing, but I think you're being a bit hyperbolic.

Would you want to spend the rest of your life like that? I wouldn't. Hell, I wonder how many of those 13,000 gay soldiers are on the street homeless, have serious substance abuse problems, or have committed suicide by now.

IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY, IT'S ABOUT THE GOOD THAT YOU DO.

And the good you do will forever be overshadowed and diminished if you are dishonorably discharged.

Why can't you acknowledge that?

Maybe it has to do with the fact that it's been beat into my head so many times before on this forum that the United States Military is nothing but an extension of the bullies in my government who view themselves as the police force of the world, and as such, I can't reasonably take anybody seriously when they talk up how "honorable" it would be to flout the law and try to serve in the military despite being gay.

And stop ignoring my points about giving shelter to Jews and slaves. I'd love to hear an answer on my Mulan point as well.

I'm not addressing the issue of the jews and slaves being sheltered because the situation does not apply here, as was previously pointed out. Mulan is a cartoon based on a fantasy story, and in real life, you and I both know she would have been executed on sight; that general would have taken his wakizashi out and ran her through and all mention of her works for the empire would have been erased from the record books like MOSES, and her body would have been dumped in a mass grave to hide who she was. Her fate would have been the same as the real Hua Mulan if she had actually existed.

At 12/23/10 11:25 AM, Proteas wrote::

At 12/23/10 08:48 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: A fate worse than death? Not for nothing, but I think you're being a bit hyperbolic.

Would you want to spend the rest of your life like that? I wouldn't. Hell, I wonder how many of those 13,000 gay soldiers are on the street homeless, have serious substance abuse problems, or have committed suicide by now.

First off, I think you're exaggerating, but even IF you were right, and getting discharged from the military is a fate worse than death (lol), that only proves my point further, that someone willing to risk a fate WORSE THAN DEATH in order to defend his country is someone worthy of admiration. This has been my point throughout this entire thread.

IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY, IT'S ABOUT THE GOOD THAT YOU DO.

And the good you do will forever be overshadowed and diminished if you are dishonorably discharged.

No, it won't. The good that you've done for others will never go away, even if the good you could've done will never come to pass, thanks to the idiotic law that discharges good people for no good reason.

Why can't you acknowledge that?

Maybe it has to do with the fact that it's been beat into my head so many times before on this forum that the United States Military is nothing but an extension of the bullies in my government who view themselves as the police force of the world, and as such, I can't reasonably take anybody seriously when they talk up how "honorable" it would be to flout the law and try to serve in the military despite being gay.

Say what you want about the motives of the US government and the leadership of the armed forces. I've questioned them to no end myself, but I have nothing but respect for the men and women who are willing to put themselves in harms way for their country.

And stop ignoring my points about giving shelter to Jews and slaves. I'd love to hear an answer on my Mulan point as well.

I'm not addressing the issue of the jews and slaves being sheltered because the situation does not apply here, as was previously pointed out.

And as I pointed out, it absolutely DOES apply. Providing shelter to these fugitives was EXPRESSLY prohibited by law, just like being gay in the millitary was expressly prohibited by law. If the Law found out that you were sheltering fugitives, you'd be punished severely, just like if the Law found out that you were gay in the military, you'd be punished with a fate worse than death, according to you.

You say that outed gays cannot blame anyone but themselves for "setting themselves up" for the punishment by knowingly breaking the law. According to you, they're "idiots". They shouldn't have broken the law.

So my question to you is this: if the people who'd provide shelter for fugitives were caught and punished for doing so, do they have nobody to blame but themselves for "setting themselves up" for the punishment by knowingly breaking the law? Are they idiots? Should they not have broken the law?

Mulan is a cartoon based on a fantasy story, and in real life, you and I both know she would have been executed on sight; that general would have taken his wakizashi out and ran her through and all mention of her works for the empire would have been erased from the record books like MOSES, and her body would have been dumped in a mass grave to hide who she was. Her fate would have been the same as the real Hua Mulan if she had actually existed.

Exactly. How would this have served the interests of the Empire? If the General had chosen to follow the law and killed her, the Huns would have won, and the emperor would have been killed. A single grain of rice tipping the scale. One soldier whose heroism was the difference between victory and defeat. Is it your contention that she is an idiot for risking her life by breaking the law? Do you think that she shouldn't have bothered?

At 12/23/10 11:25 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/22/10 11:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: "You know you're gay, so just accept your lower status. If you try to achieve like us normal people it's only YOUR fault for attempting to be better than you are."

How about this;

Potayto, potahto.

13,000? Out of a standing workforce of 549,015? By way of comparison, that would be like firing 3 people out of a workforce of 100 people in a factory setting, the company isn't going to hurt that much over losing them. And that number goes way down if you count in all the Reservists.

So as long as the percentage is low, injustice is cool with you. Got it.

Would you want to spend the rest of your life like that? I wouldn't. Hell, I wonder how many of those 13,000 gay soldiers are on the street homeless, have serious substance abuse problems, or have committed suicide by now.

...wow. Just wow.

And the good you do will forever be overshadowed and diminished if you are dishonorably discharged.

Apparently not.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that it's been beat into my head so many times before on this forum that the United States Military is nothing but an extension of the bullies in my government who view themselves as the police force of the world, and as such, I can't reasonably take anybody seriously when they talk up how "honorable" it would be to flout the law and try to serve in the military despite being gay.

Oh you pussy, how about you think for yourself, instead of pawning your idiotic views onto other idiotic forum posters as a way to sidestep the fact that your noble posturing isn't quite so noble as you would like to believe.

I'm not addressing the issue of the jews and slaves being sheltered because the situation does not apply here, as was previously pointed out.

So choosing to violate what you view as an unjust law, that works for the greater good, and puts your own livelyhood and even life at risk is not the same as choosing to viola... eh, screw it, you get the picture. But hey, keep dodging the question if it means you can keep denying that you're in the wrong.

Proteas's point hinges entirely on the idea that going against an unjust law in this case is just "not worth it".

Like if you go against the Nazis, then it's worth it. But in this case, nah, fuck it.

Which isn't that bad an argument really. I mean, I wouldn't risk my life it they made eating carrots illegal tomorrow. I don't give a fuck about carrots.

But this is a pretty big deal to a lot of people.

At 12/23/10 01:54 PM, poxpower wrote: Like if you go against the Nazis, then it's worth it. But in this case, nah, fuck it.

Which isn't that bad an argument really. I mean, I wouldn't risk my life it they made eating carrots illegal tomorrow. I don't give a fuck about carrots.

Except eating carrots have no moral implications for other people. You eating carrots or not has no impact on the well being of other people. The feeling I get from Proteas is that he doesn't think joining the united states army does anyone any good anyway, like eating carrots or not eating carrots, so what's the point of anyone joining up, gay or straight?

Oh, and I have yet to hear Proteas admit that going against the Nazis was "worth it" for the people who ended up dying for doing so, and I wouldn't want to presuppose his answer.

At 12/23/10 06:28 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 12/23/10 06:02 AM, Yorik wrote: Reasons for repealing DADT:
-Anyone willing and able to fight and die for their country should be allowed to do so.

And are allowed to, under current law.

Homosexuals were allowed to be in the military, sure, but if they said anything about it they were kicked out. Do you see how this isn't fair?

-It's not fair that heterosexuals can speak freely about sexual issues but homosexuals have to watch what they say.

Both persuasions are under the same rules.

No, they really aren't. Strait people in the military can talk with fellows about their home life, their families, their boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife, or how sex starved they feel from being away so long, etc... A gay person saying anything about any of that could possibly get them removed from the ranks.

-There were homosexuals in armed forces all over the world before, during and after DADT and it has never in human history caused any problems in military operations. If anything, DADT harmed the US military by discharging people that were perfectly capable of fulfilling their duties.

Well, now we have an issue. There's a pretty big news story right now of a gay soldier who leaked military documents because he was gay. Does this reflect poorly on all homosexuals? Ofp course not. But does it mean that your blanket statement is wrong? Well...yes.

Here's the real question; did he leak that material JUST because he is gay? Are there lots of other reasons he would want to do this?(there are, by the way.) And if that is really the main reason he did this, would he have done this if homosexuals were treated with more dignity in the military? Your argument of "He leaked documents besause he was gay" frankly doesn't make sense on its own because that behavior is not characteristic of gayness.

Reasons against repealing DADT:

-Strait people, particularly religious types, think gayness is yucky and/or amoral.

Wowza! That's it? Straight people think gays are gross? What about the fact that the vast majority of gays in the military don't want DADT revoked? Yup, all homophobia. No valid reasons. Which is why even gays agree it should stand. Hmmm.

I honestly doubt everything you typed here.

Is the main point of Proteas that you don't deserve any sympathy when you break a rule you agreed to follow? Amidst all the chatter in this thread, I'd really like to pull SOMETHING out of this discussion.

At 12/24/10 02:24 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Is the main point of Proteas that you don't deserve any sympathy when you break a rule you agreed to follow? Amidst all the chatter in this thread, I'd really like to pull SOMETHING out of this discussion.

That is the main point. However, he assumes that evry situation is created equal. This isn't someone joining hte Military an then carrying an M-16 into a courthouse. DADT was about nothing more than intentional persecution. We are poking a hole in his theory that just simply following the rules you choose to adhere to does not make the rules right, and make you bad if you break them should they be unjust and completely uselessly wrong.

At 12/24/10 10:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/24/10 02:24 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Is the main point of Proteas that you don't deserve any sympathy when you break a rule you agreed to follow? Amidst all the chatter in this thread, I'd really like to pull SOMETHING out of this discussion.

That is the main point. However, he assumes that evry situation is created equal. This isn't someone joining hte Military an then carrying an M-16 into a courthouse. DADT was about nothing more than intentional persecution. We are poking a hole in his theory that just simply following the rules you choose to adhere to does not make the rules right, and make you bad if you break them should they be unjust and completely uselessly wrong.

I think he'd argue that he knows that the law wasn't just or fair towards gays, but given the fact that it was so obviously unfair, nobody willing to abide by the law by signing their name on the dotted line and joining the army has any justfied reason to complain when the law comes back to bite them.

At 12/19/10 06:12 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/19/10 05:14 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: They think it'll harm military cohesion and readiness in any role for the most part.

I'm guessing this is the same argument they could have used/ have used for:
- keeping women out
- keeping black people out
- keeping atheists out

I'm a little late on the discussion, but a quick question - when and why the hell would being an atheist matter to anyone when it comes to military service? I have the same question about the whole 'gay' and 'colored' thing, too (women actually do provide a bit of a problem for men on the battlefield due to overprotective action toward them... but that's beside the point), but I absolutely cannot see why religious preference should affect military personal in a country that's supposed to be religiously neutral.

Well, gays can now serve. I personally don't see why they should've been restricted, at all - more people willing to serve the country's military? Sounds good to me.

At 12/24/10 04:52 PM, Gario wrote: I'm a little late on the discussion, but a quick question - when and why the hell would being an atheist matter to anyone when it comes to military service?

It's the same argument used for banning gays: "unit cohesion". I've heard stories about ahteist service members being pressured into partaking in prayer sessions, lest they be bullied and ostracized by the rest of the group. Trust me, there are people out there who'd favor banning atheists from serving in the military because of this prejudice against non-believers.

I'm just gathering what people are saying, here. So far I gather that some people think it's totally uncool that DADT was in place because it discriminated against gays, even though it was actually a compromise in their favor, in the first place (before that, you'd be blocked out of the army after officers and such asked about your preferences). I agree that it isn't necessary anymore, but I find it strange that people consider it such a nasty, evil, discriminating piece of legislation when it was anything but, at the time. It's just dated, now.

I also caught that gays... against the repeal? First, link sources, 'cause I think that was a bullshit claim. Second, if they are against it, why in the hell would they be? If they liked the whole DADT thing then they can personally keep practicing it, themselves - there's no need for them to go shouting their sexual preferences if they feel it'll affect them negatively. Repealing the law would affect them in no way, shape or form, if they didn't want it to affect them. If homosexuals are forced to reveal their sexual preference to anyone that asks due to the repeal then we'd have some problems, but to my understanding that this is not the case.

Then there's the argument that the gays that broke DADT deserved the punishment for breaking the law (or that their actions were somehow honorable, in some weird fashion). What was there to gain by being open about your homosexuality in a profession that told you not to be? I can understand why they'd want to repeal the law in time (as has been done), but how does that make homosexuals revealing their sexual preference when they signed a contract that they wouldn't honorable, at all? If they cared about being in the military and serving their country more than anything else, then they were given the opportunity. If they blew it by openly practicing while in the army then that implies that they really didn't prioritize their country above all other things, after all. Why are people arguing that their actions were at all honorable, post hoc?

But after all this, yeah, I see no reason why DADT should exist, right now. Homosexuality is becoming less controversial to people in this country, so why keep the dated law in place?

At 12/24/10 05:14 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 12/24/10 04:52 PM, Gario wrote: I'm a little late on the discussion, but a quick question - when and why the hell would being an atheist matter to anyone when it comes to military service?

It's the same argument used for banning gays: "unit cohesion". I've heard stories about ahteist service members being pressured into partaking in prayer sessions, lest they be bullied and ostracized by the rest of the group. Trust me, there are people out there who'd favor banning atheists from serving in the military because of this prejudice against non-believers.

I'll take your word on it, but it's still hard for me to believe. I can't see those stories in particular being true (considering that such pressuring is not allowed in most federally funded organizations, like public schools, for example), but I can see people fighting to ban atheists. It's not how the law is or ever was set up, though - it just sounded like it was at one point in time, the way Poxpower presented it.

At 12/24/10 05:35 PM, Gario wrote: I'm just gathering what people are saying, here. So far I gather that some people think it's totally uncool that DADT was in place because it discriminated against gays, even though it was actually a compromise in their favor, in the first place (before that, you'd be blocked out of the army after officers and such asked about your preferences).

How could either system ever be considered fair to gays? They are exactly the same shit, you are still being excluded from the military for being gay, you just get kicked out at different times and they aren't doggedly LOOKING for you.

That's like saying "DADT is fair because it applies to EVERYONE and nobody needs to be talking about their sexuality with others whether gay or strait." This is fucking retarded and the reason should be obvious but I am going to spell it out anyway; they are still obviously discriminating against gays because gays are the only ones getting kicked out for their sexuality. That's like saying an organization is open to and respects all religions but you can only work with them if you don't tell them you are not jewish.

Sorry for the double post, but I JUST found the PERFECT comic for this thread.

At 12/23/10 01:09 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: that someone willing to risk a fate WORSE THAN DEATH in order to defend his country is someone worthy of admiration.

Defend it from what?

The issues that are being brought up as a refutation of what I am saying have nothing in common with what I'm actually saying. Mulan's country was being invaded. Nazis were destroying whole countries and subjugating it's citizens and killing people off by the millions. Slavery was government sanctioned human trafficking. DADT was an issue of Civil Rights... it was a matter of some words on paper saying what you can and can't do, a matter that could have been easily solved year's ago with one legal challenge. Not shots fired, no blood shed, no lives ruined.

You guys can sit back twist and warp my every last word and talk shit about me to your hearts content, I don't care. At the end of the day, DADT was ultimately your fault. Yours, all the other proponents of it, and all the people who (like me) complicitly stood off to the side and didn't because we never had the gall to stand up and actually say it was a bad policy and take up the cause against it while it was still on the books. 13,000 people have us all to thank for being branded criminals by our government.

Merry Christmas.

At 12/24/10 10:07 PM, Proteas wrote: Merry Christmas.

Happy Hannukah.

DADT was put on the books by conservatives in response to Clinton trying to get rid of it entirely. It was better than the policy before which was that the Military could pursue whoever it thought was gay and kick them out. But it was still ultimately bad policy. Which is why people have been moving against it ever since.

At 12/24/10 09:26 PM, Yorik wrote:
How could either system ever be considered fair to gays? They are exactly the same shit, you are still being excluded from the military for being gay, you just get kicked out at different times and they aren't doggedly LOOKING for you.

That's like saying "DADT is fair because it applies to EVERYONE and nobody needs to be talking about their sexuality with others whether gay or strait." This is fucking retarded and the reason should be obvious but I am going to spell it out anyway; they are still obviously discriminating against gays because gays are the only ones getting kicked out for their sexuality. That's like saying an organization is open to and respects all religions but you can only work with them if you don't tell them you are not jewish.

Ah, did I ever say it was fair? You misunderstand me - I said it was a motion made in their favor, at the time. DADT was not great, but it was a step in the right direction, at the time. Of course it was still discrimination, and of course it was not the best solution ever (which is why I agreed with the dissolve of DADT, in the first place). You're looking at it anachronistically, which is skewing the point I was making. At the time, it was either gays simply don't serve in the military at all or gays can serve if they're not open about it (at that time, it was obvious that the military was not going to let them serve openly). Neither option was great, but DADT was the lesser of two evils.

It seems that people are ready to move on, now, so there isn't any real need for the archaic DADT system anymore, and that's a good thing simply because it disposes of the de jure discrimination (obviously the de facto discrimination will still exist, but there's nothing that can be done about that, right now).

:You guys can sit back twist and warp my every last word and talk shit about me to your hearts content, I don't care. At the end of the day, DADT was ultimately your fault. Yours, all the other proponents of it, and all the people who (like me) complicitly stood off to the side and didn't because we never had the gall to stand up and actually say it was a bad policy and take up the cause against it while it was still on the books. 13,000 people have us all to thank for being branded criminals by our government.

I'm not twisting your words (actually, for the most part I agree with your points). However, don't mistake 'bravery' and 'gall' with 'simply not giving a shit'. The only parties concerned were homosexuals and the military (and anti-gay protesters, because they want to limit homosexuals as much as humanly possible). That is why you and I didn't fight for anyone's rights, here - why the hell should I when I don't care about it, and no one that I know cares about it, either (not even the gays I know, since they weren't interested in anything the military was doing)? We'll go as far as to say 'Good job, America!', when it's all said and done, but it ultimately has very little affect on us so why would we fight for it?

At 12/25/10 12:35 AM, Gario wrote: We'll go as far as to say 'Good job, America!', when it's all said and done, but it ultimately has very little affect on us so why would we fight for it?

I'm reminded of a rather famous quote by some nazi... something about "no one left to stand up for me" or some such...

Cute. That doesn't affect my stance, though - why should I actively fight for/against something that doesn't affect my life in the least? Not that it matters right now, considering it's all repealed and such.

At 12/25/10 02:17 AM, Gario wrote: Cute. That doesn't affect my stance, though - why should I actively fight for/against something that doesn't affect my life in the least? Not that it matters right now, considering it's all repealed and such.

Maybe because its the right thing to do, white people stood up for rights for minorities, men stood up for rights for women, heterosexuals stand up for rights for homosexuals. It may not effect them but they still do it because they believe it is the right thing to do.

At 12/25/10 02:17 AM, Gario wrote: Cute. That doesn't affect my stance, though - why should I actively fight for/against something that doesn't affect my life in the least? Not that it matters right now, considering it's all repealed and such.

This same argument could've, and was used by whites in the days of segregation and discrimination. We should actively fight for civil rights, because it affects all of us more than you realize you idiot.

SO happy its a step toward equal rights