Panetta: So far, DADT A "Non-Event"

[JollyRoger]

If we are going to go with a fixed definition, let's not be misleading about its narrowness and give some clues to its true potential -

Marriage - a relationship between one man and potentially a series of his female first cousins.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Thats 'cause of two things. One I get to have an opinion, and two, I dont see it as a problem that changing the definition of marriage will fix.

But that's just it. As others continue to point out, your "opinion" is based on vilifying homosexuals over a medical condition which is actually quite rare and is really none of the government's business to try to stop a handful of homosexuals from engaging in "risky" behavior. And it supports and defends blatant discrimination.

It also revealing that you don't even "see it as a problem".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Last sentence is way of the mark.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

But that's just it. As others continue to point out, your "opinion" is based on vilifying homosexuals over a medical condition which is actually quite rare and is really none of the government's business to try to stop a handful of homosexuals from engaging in "risky" behavior. And it supports and defends blatant discrimination.

It also speaks volumes that you don't even "see it as a problem".

Form, you know I don't like MobBoss. So I'm sure you won't see this as irrationally defending him, but pointing out an inconsistency. With that said...

He never said he "doesn't see it as a problem". He said that he doesn't "see it as a problem that marriage will fix". Feel free to disagree with that, I do, but let's get what he said right.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That's a very valid point. I did take that out of context.

But does Mobby "see it as a problem" that homosexuals are blatantly discriminated against? That homophobia is something that does need to be fixed? That evangelical Christians in particular need to start minding their own business in this regard? That personally being opposed to homosexuality is their right, but that it is the right of every homosexual to have exactly the same rights as everybody else has?

Or does he continue to look for absurd "secular" excuses to continue to discriminate against them? He claims that the HIV infection rate is sufficient reason to not allow homosexuals to not get married because their supposed penchant for "open relationships" will further cause the spread of AIDs. I think that is patently absurd and shows that he doesn't "see it as a problem" at all that homosexuals continue to be discriminated against and vilified at all.

 

[JollyRoger]

We should perhaps consider banning same-sects marriage in order to slow down the spread of narrow-mindedness.

 

[Formaldehyde]

At least some "religious inbreeding" does seem to be particularly dangerous because it appears to cause the spread of hate.