Discharged for being gay, veterans face problems in re-enlisting

• Con_Alma

  isadore;1031441 wrote:...
  Your argument has the effect of dismissing the importance of government sanctioned marriage for gays.
  ...
  

  
  There's no doubt I am dismissing the importance of State sanctioned marriage. I am dismissing it's importance for all people including gays and heterosexuals. That's my whole point. I only wish it had the "effect" like you state it does.
  
  I have never argued that gays should "wait for the abolition of the institution". There's no need to exaggerate my points. It creates the potential for inaccuracies while the actual opinions and statements are already available for all to see.
• I Wear Pants

  dwccrew;1030458 wrote:Who says murder is wrong?

  Really, you're seriously going to equate two dudes consenting to getting married to murder?
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1031441 wrote:...
  Thank you with your suggestions on my use of the language. But there are so few pro-gay bigots out there.
  

  What suggestion? I asked for clarification.
  
  What does the number of pro-gay bigots have to do with being against gay bigots?
• isadore

  No, you are misquoting me. Did I write that you argued for them to wait? I wrote “You also provide cover for some of their opponents who endorse your statement as a way hinder them. They can argue that gays should give up their fight for marriage and just wait for the abolition of the institution.”
  No you just dismissed their fervent hope. . You wrote, “It's laughable that you thingk (sic)gaining the ability to marriage is aquiring a human right. Getting married isn't a right.” Which dismisses the significance of their efforts.
• Con_Alma

  I agree. I do dismiss their effort. It's the nature of my point. I thought that's been clear. I don't believe that there should be State sanctioedn marriage.
  
  I disagree that I have dismissed their "fervent hope". I have no control over their "fervent hope". That is self determined and I have no doubt that it exists.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1031484 wrote:... Did I write that you argued for them to wait? ...

  No you did not...nor did state that you did. I simply made it very clear that I did not claim as much and in addition, asked that my points not be exaggerated .
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1031484 wrote:... “You also provide cover for some of their opponents who endorse your statement as a way hinder them. ...

  I have no control over other individuals choosing to use my, recognized as well intended by you, position in a mal-intended manner.
  
  It would be a sign of weakness in my conviction if I simply throttled it for fear that others may use it inappropriately.
  
  Do you believe my fervent hope of ending State sanctioned marriage should be dismissed? ...even after you recognized it as well intended?
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1031493 wrote:No you did not...nor did state that you did. I simply made it very clear that I did not claim as much and in addition, asked that my points not be exaggerated .

  your points cannot be exaggerated in their potential detrimental effects.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1031488 wrote:I agree. I do dismiss their effort. It's the nature of my point. I thought that's been clear. I don't believe that there should be State sanctioedn marriage.
  
  I disagree that I have dismissed their "fervent hope". I have no control over their "fervent hope". That is self determined and I have no doubt that it exists.

  The first paragraph is proof that you are in opposition to the efforts of the gay community to win to what is held by the large majority of american people to be a basic right.
  the second paragraph is an exercise in sophistry.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1031500 wrote:I have no control over other individuals choosing to use my, recognized as well intended by you, position in a mal-intended manner.
  
  It would be a sign of weakness in my conviction if I simply throttled it for fear that others may use it inappropriately.
  
  Do you believe my fervent hope of ending State sanctioned marriage should be dismissed? ...even after you recognized it as well intended?

  history is replete with well intended efforts that caused disaster and pain. You are accomplishing that on a small scale. An argument that would be best discussed on a thread of its own, is used to dilute and divert a discussion on basic rights for gays.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1031549 wrote:your points cannot be exaggerated in their potential detrimental effects.

  I have never diminished their potential effect nor will I.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1031556 wrote:The first paragraph is proof that you are in opposition to the efforts of the gay community to win to what is held by the large majority of american people to be a basic right.
  the second paragraph is an exercise in sophistry.

  I am indeed in opposition to any effort to further validate the merits of State sanctioned marriage requirements. I have never hid that nor denied it.
  
  Sophistry does not reduce accuracy but your clarification is noted.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1031562 wrote:history is replete with well intended efforts that caused disaster and pain. You are accomplishing that on a small scale. An argument that would be best discussed on a thread of its own, is used to dilute and divert a discussion on basic rights for gays.

  Disaster and pain t may indeed cause. Supporting further validation of State sanction marriage is a clear mistake and something I will opposes as much as another may fight for. That's the beauty of our opportunities in the United States...have that unalienable right.
• isadore

  You do have the unalienable right to advance an argument that undermines the effort for legalization of government sanctioned gay marriage.
  Your effort to dilute support for gay marriage should be given due approbation by Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman, Family Research Council and the rest of the movement to deny the basic right of marriage to gay couples.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1031659 wrote:I have never diminished their potential effect nor will I.

  how can exaggerate the potential effect of your false flag operation.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1031675 wrote:You do have the unalienable right to advance an argument that undermines the effort for legalization of government sanctioned gay marriage.
  Your effort to dilute support for gay marriage should be given due approbation by Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman, Family Research Council and the rest of the movement to deny the basic right of marriage to gay couples.

  That's up to them. I couldn't care any less about their interest in such a view
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1031676 wrote:how can exaggerate the potential effect of your false flag operation.

  I apologize but I don't understand your comment or maybe question posted here.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1032043 wrote:That's up to them. I couldn't care any less about their interest in such a view

  Of course to admit it on a public forum would undermine your efforts on their behalf.
• Con_Alma

  What efforts would it undermine? You're assuming that efforts exist. If you believe that I have efforts on behalf of those candidates listed you are delusional.
  
  I can't even vote in their primary! Lol.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1032045 wrote:I apologize but I don't understand your comment or maybe question posted here.

  False Flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.
• isadore

  An old political tactic is to divide the opposition by introducing an unwinnable candidate or proposition into a campaign to syphon off support. The idea of doing away with government sanctioned marriage is such an a tool for the opponents of gay marriage. It appeals to some of the less grounded in reality gay advocates and draw them draws them away from the campaign to win a basic right.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1032186 wrote:What efforts would it undermine? You're assuming that efforts exist. If you believe that I have efforts on behalf of those candidates listed you are delusional.
  
  I can't even vote in their primary! Lol.

  Again it is often impossible to judge intent but it is easy to see effect. Guessing on your intent, you are probably just a dupe in the effort to stop gay marriage.
  
  Hopefully you are registered and do vote, Americans should.
• Con_Alma

  Yes that repeated statement doesn't change the prior repsonses to such statement. I don't deny the effect of my position and don't appologize for it. If we are being true regarding the effect, it is nothing. My position has had and will have zero impact. I donot believe we should have STate sanction marriage requirements.
  
  Of course I am registered to vote. May statement related to being eligible to vote in in a party's primary, of which I am not.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1032197 wrote:An old political tactic is to divide the opposition by introducing an unwinnable candidate or proposition into a campaign to syphon off support. The idea of doing away with government sanctioned marriage is such an a tool for the opponents of gay marriage. It appeals to some of the less grounded in reality gay advocates and draw them draws them away from the campaign to win a basic right.

  If you believe I have ever drawn someone away from their position or efforts you are blind to reality.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1032194 wrote:False Flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.

  There's nothing covert about my efforts in any manner. I am very upfront and try to be very clear about the my position.