2010-03-16, 20:07 | Link #1041 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-03-16, 22:15 | Link #1042 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
If all marriages were perfect, that system would work... for married people. But there are marriages with significant problems where one spouse would NOT want the other to have the legal powers afforded to a spouse. And that would still leave single people where they are now, unable to designate a person to handle their affairs. OF COURSE there would need to be a legal framework in place to give everyone this option. But considering that we already have systems to handle such contracts in marriage, allowing individuals persons to designate such persons for such privileges individually and at will would be pretty easy.
__________________
|
|
2010-03-16, 22:25 | Link #1043 |
Banned
|
The whole issue behind the Terry Schiavo case, was that she *didn't* select anyone. So when she ended up in her state, it was already too late, that's why I asked what you would have done. When no one has selected who will make those decisions, who does it default to? Because there *will* be people who don't make that choice before tragedy strikes.
|
2010-03-16, 22:38 | Link #1044 |
Disabled By Request
Join Date: Jan 2010
|
Oh c'mon. Everyone should have the chance to be happy, by their choice. By their free will. Some don't choose to be like that, and simply live like that. Some overlook this and consider it atrocious.
All I have to say: They can all go to hell. People shouldn't be hated because they live differently or dilvergently. They should be respected for uniqueness. Not brandish them with something that might as well be a caste. "Gay" "Straight" or "Bi" being the caste i'm speaking of. C'mon, people should be happy by choosing how they live or how they cope with living. Gay marriage isn't wrong, in my opinion. They aren't freaks or evil creatures. Just another thing called 'individuality'. Put up with it, everyone is inherently different. But automatically putting the 'gays' into the bad or minority categories doesn't fit right. *Deep breath* 'Kay, Rant done. xD rawr!.. lol |
2010-03-17, 00:58 | Link #1045 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
Now, if in a system that did not require marriage to designate some one to handle such issues (outside of serious legal contracts), if not designate such a person, then I imagine they would do the same thing they do now. These tragedies already happen, and funnily enough it happens to unmarried persons regardless of their sexual orientation or relationship status.
__________________
|
|
2010-03-17, 10:15 | Link #1046 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
But back to Terry, we don't know who was telling the truth: Micheal or Terry's parents. Neither of us knows what Terry really wanted. The parents wanted to keep her on life support in her vegetative state, while her husband claimed she wouldn't want to live that way, since "Terry" was already gone anyway; it was expensive and cruel to keep her on life support. Because Terry didn't have someone selected ahead of time, in her will, to address who could make the decision like this, it defaulted to her husband(and the big question you haven't answered yet, is WHO it should default to if none is selected). If we take your route, that a spouse shouldn't have the say in a situation like this... then who does? You still haven't answered that question. The parents? What if Terry really would have preferred to die if she was like that, and the person who knew her best, her spouse, tried to honor those wishes... and was prevented. That's the whole reason for marriage privileges, because we generally love and trust our spouse more than life itself; that's why we married them in the first place. If that level of trust isn't there, then it's a bad marriage and you probably shouldn't have married that person in the first place. But even if you were 100% right, these privileges are not going away anytime soon. They've been around for thousands of years, and most people do prefer the one they love and trust the most, to make these kinds of decisions as a default. Which means our argument is pretty much moot. The only thing that will change, is that gays will get the same privileges as other married couples. |
|
2010-03-17, 11:13 | Link #1047 | |
Hai... masta...
Artist
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-03-17, 19:58 | Link #1048 | ||||
✖ ǝʇ ɯıqnɾl ☆
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mortuary : D
|
Some protest Signs hilarious at best :
Marriage is as old as Civilization and Society itself . So no one religion can claim stake to it . Though the founding fathers never meant the Country to be Christian . The current crop of politicians are brainwashing scribes to believe otherwise . (Ooh yeah Jefferson got censored in the new Texas Text Books Review) * Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814. Quote:
* Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 Quote:
* George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793 Quote:
* George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789 Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Zu Ra; 2010-03-17 at 20:27. |
||||
2010-03-18, 16:05 | Link #1049 | |
blinded by blood
Author
|
Quote:
That's the reality for gay people serving right here in the US military. And it's beyond fucked-up. Brings a whole new meaning to the tropes Hide Your Lesbians and Bury Your Gays...
__________________
|
|
2010-03-18, 21:14 | Link #1050 | |
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-03-19, 10:17 | Link #1051 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Everyone already has these benefits. You can already designate someone with Power of Attorney to handle things about you and your estate if you're not in a condition to do so yourself; at least in the US. The point I keep hitting at, though, is that not everyone does this. And not everyone is prepared when an accident or something happens. So I bring the same question back to you yet again: Who should the "power of attorney" default to, if *NO ONE* is selected, and a person is unable to so themselves? |
|
2010-03-23, 13:53 | Link #1052 | |
KI NI NARIMASU!
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
Quote:
It's not as if the military actively seeks out these people either. It's a simple "don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, and don't pursue". So keep your things to yourself and you're fine. The military hardly encourages open straight relationships between service people either along the same lines of compromising military discipline. Also, why is euthanasia and the power of attorney coming into this debate? Separate issues, no? IANAL, but thankfully the law is fairly clear in this regard. If there is no will or designated power of attorney signed, then the legally recognized spouse will get it by default. If there is none, then the parents get it. If that person has no one... then I have no idea .
__________________
|
|
2010-03-23, 14:06 | Link #1053 | |
Queen of Tragedy
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Place of rocks and trees, and trees and rocks...and water.
Age: 33
|
Quote:
Most of the people who are opposed are those outside the army who make the policies, or the older generation. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy has been used to discriminate actively as well, although most of the damage comes from the feeling of pressure to stay closeted by gay soldiers. Living a life where you have to edit every word you say, screen out the details about your partner and family and general activities (went to a gay bar, or read an interesting novel that happened to have gay characters, etc) is really hard on an individual. That kind of pressure doesn't just exist in the teenage "coming out process". Closeted adults have to fear about the consequences of coming out too, and in the army under the "don't ask don't tell" policy, they don't even get a choice in taking the consequences of coming out or not.
__________________
|
|
2010-03-23, 14:33 | Link #1054 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
As for the military, "don't ask, don't tell" is a good policy. The military is not everyday life, and I don't want to know about anyone's relationships, gay or otherwise. I'm there to do a job, and I don't want it more complicated than it has to be. That's just a smart idea for a fighting force. I don't want a gay guy crushing on me, in the same way that a female officer doesn't want a straight guy crushing on her, either. Save those kinds of things for the normal world, and just focus on what we're trying to accomplish. Two guys hooking up, can have as much impact on morale as a guy and a girl hooking up. Both can compromise the unit's integrity. |
|
2010-03-23, 15:10 | Link #1055 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
Specifically, a soldier can be kicked out of the army, even when they did not "tell" and no one "asked" but they were still found out, by sheer happenstance, to be homosexual. For example, say a male soldier has a gay porno magazine that they never show anyone, but, do to unforeseen circumstances (maybe another soldier was rummaging through the homosexual soldiers luggage, or something else wholly innocuous), another soldier finds the magazine. The soldier that owns the magazine will be discharged. But, let's make it a little more innocent; say a married soldier (who wears a ring, etc) has one picture of their spouse that they keep in their wallet and never show to their fellow servicemen, but, somehow, another soldier manages to find out (without the consent of the homosexual soldier) that the pictured spouse is the same sex. What follows would be the homosexual married soldiers discharge from the army. And then there are instances like the Timothy R. McVeigh case (in which the navy discharged a soldier based entirely on his AOL username (thankfully, in this case the Navy was proven, in court, to be in the wrong, but they still managed to kick McVeigh out of the military, so even when a person beats the rap, they still lost their career…), in which the army does seek to know your gender identity, and then discharges you based on their findings. So, even when "innocent" of any specific instance of "homosexual behaviour" (which many defenders of the ban like to mention - the phrase is meant to imply one soldier propositioning another or some other "extreme" situation), a homosexual will still be discharged simply because it is discovered, even if by accident, that they are homosexual. Even more broadly that that, though, the problem isn't that the army is trying to turn a blind eye to the individual relationships of the soldiers (okay, that is actually a problem as well), no, the problem is that being a homosexual will get you kicked out of the military, specifically because it is almost impossible to hide. If anyone finds out that you are a homosexual, via any means, then you will be discharged from service, and even if, as with the Timothy R. McVeigh case, you are able to prove you are not homosexual, your discharage will simply become "honorable" rather than "dishonorable". To put it simply, and to get into the issue of individual rights I mentioned earlier, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if properly implemented would penalize all acts of sexuality or gender identity (i.e. no mention of gender identity or sexual preference would be allowed), but since the policy is only used against homosexual soldiers, stripping them of their sexual identity and letting the heterosexual soldiers freely express themselves, the policy is clearly biased and should be repealed. The Army is not sexless or genderless, they are individuals with their own sexual and romantic urges and should be treated equally and fairly. |
|
2010-03-23, 15:34 | Link #1056 | ||
blinded by blood
Author
|
Quote:
Sorry, but your reasoning fails. Even if your reasoning was accurate (which it is not, the rule is borne from hateful discrimination and not common sense), then soldiers who were outed would not be mistreated, but simply given a neutral or even an honorable discharge. What actually happens is much worse. Quote:
The fact that it's considered a dishonorable discharge to begin with pretty much tells you right there that the rule is bound up in hateful discrimination. For those not in the know, a soldier who receives a dishonorable discharge is stripped of all their decorations and awards and loses their pension in its entirety. It's also very shameful; "dishonorable," just like the discharge description says. This is not right and it's not equitable. A straight man dating and marrying a woman while in the service will cause no eyebrows raised and will not receive even the slightest bit of punishment. In fact, he'll probably get moved to larger housing to accommodate the new family. But a gay man or woman is kicked out, stripped of rank and awards and denied a pension. Unfuckingbelievable. At least I never have to worry about getting drafted. Those macho men would probably rather be filled full of 7.62mm holes than have their lives saved by a "fag..."
__________________
Last edited by synaesthetic; 2010-03-23 at 15:46. |
||
2010-03-23, 15:59 | Link #1057 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
^I apologize but I must clarify my point a little. Being a known Homosexual always results in a mandatory general discharge, but that is not an actual dishonorable discharge (nor is it honorable). Rather, I was using the quoted dishonorable to emphasize that because the discharge is mandatory it is not a true honorable discharge (which mean they cannot partake in a GI Bill, or VA disability, etc (things a full honorable discharge can be provided with)) nor is it dishonorable. A dishonorable discharge comes from things like murder, sexual assault, and other serious acts; an honorable discharge comes from being wounded while on duty, or simply retiring after compliting a tour of duty; a general discharge is reserved for those that simply do not cut it in the military (i.e. they are lazy or unproductive);and, a mandatory general discharge is for those individuals that have minor offenses that are deemed harmful to the army (like drug abuse...and homosexuality ).
|
2010-03-23, 17:19 | Link #1058 | |
KI NI NARIMASU!
Join Date: Apr 2007
|
Quote:
37% of the military said they were opposed to serving with openly gay men and women in a 2006 Zogby International poll. 48% of the US service people said they felt that their unit morale would fall if they were made to serve with openly gay men and women in the same poll. These are facts. Am I stretching it to say that a large portion of the US military does not want to see openly gay men or women serve with them? I don't think so. How is my reasoning born from hateful discrimination and not common sense? Soldiers who are outed ARE given a general discharge. The number of these people is approximately 600 or so every year. Yes, they are judged to be disruptive to the army because they are driving home divisions in the psyche of the army as polls suggest. To argue that they deserve an honorable discharge would be a travesty to all those who actually earned that distinction and would be a great example of reverse discrimination. To judge the military and question military morals, ethics, and values with a civilian mindset is simply invalid. To put it in perspective, in our world, murder is a crime something to be prosecuted over. In a soldier's world, if he shoots an enemy combatant, what has he done? It's still murder, but he is doing his duty. He is to be congratulated and he is definitely not going to be prosecuted for it. It stands to reason that their priorities may be just a LITTLE different, trying to judge the military with civilian values is just flat out invalid. Oh and you don't have to worry about the draft, not because you are a homosexual, because the last time I checked, the military was not conscripting and they haven't done so for at least 20 years!
__________________
|
|
2010-03-23, 18:40 | Link #1059 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
|
Quote:
If nothing else, would you be willing to accept experimental units designed to prove whether or not it is possible for gays and lesbians to serve alongside their fellow volunteers? Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry, but the unnecessary (since it is not a significant majority, only the largest minority) infringement of homosexual rights in the military is unjust. |
|||
2010-03-24, 05:40 | Link #1060 | |
✖ ǝʇ ɯıqnɾl ☆
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mortuary : D
|
First an >> Update << The View talk about the fight for Gay Marriage and Proposition 8 . They also talk about the fight for equality for Gay and Lesbians and talk about the comparison of Gay rights to the Civil Rights Movement . The best thing said in the discussion was from Whoopi (2.54 Onwards) i.e. Quote:
__________________
|
|
Tags |
discussion, homosexuality, human rights |
|
|