And The Favored Status Begins

[ChezC3]

Meaning what, exactly?

Meaning if you feel the need to be compensated that demonstrates you feel you're lacking in someway..

 

[ChezC3]

I don't see this as a tit-for-tat. I see it as the military providing some flexibility to offset the ... position ... of a number of state governments. It's not like it's an award that was handed out in a lawsuit, that would have bugged me.

That's not the military's mission. I know first hand that when you join the military you far too often don't get to enjoy the rights which you offer your life up to protect.

 

[ChezC3]

I have a feeling homosexuals had nothing to do with this policy taking effect. Most likely it was decided upon by a group of straight people.

Me personally I dont like this policy. All it does is put this idea into peoples heads that gay people want special privileges when that isnt what the vast majority of gay people want at all. Of course I also think its kind of dumb to get worked up over this policy knowing the entire reason it was put into effect is to compensate for the fact that heterosexuals get special privileges in many states.

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think there is some gay mafia running the Joint Chief's office if that's what you mean...

Where do you come up with the notion that heterosexuals are getting "special" privileges. That right there is what I'm talking about because some group isn't getting to engage in something that others do doesn't mean that those who do are enjoying anything "special".

 

[ChezC3]

Umm...how exactly are you being oppressed?

But you're right, you shouldn't have to feel that. And neither should they have either. But they did, and still do. It's just hard for some people to feel sorry for you when you've been granted full freedom to express who you are all along and then complain others are now finally earning that right after decades of discrimination.

I wasn't aware I claimed to? I was speaking in a general sense but haven't made any point of showing that this affects me.

Getting special privilege isn't earning anything.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Meaning if you feel the need to be compensated that demonstrates you feel you're lacking in someway..

I don't feel the need to be compensated in any way. I'm not in any service, I'm married and have a lovely family. I've got what I want.

I just want other people to get it too, and while 37 state governments have backwards views of what constitutes equality, I'll welcome this middle-ground -- which could've been 7 days or 2 days or allowing gay couples to get legally married on the base, it's all the same to me.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

That's not the military's mission. I know first hand that when you join the military you far too often don't get to enjoy the rights which you offer your life up to protect.

The military is making up for the backwards mentality of 37 state governments, which certainly isn't against the military's mission.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

some group isn't getting to engage in something that others do doesn't mean that those who do are enjoying anything "special".

By your logic, that means the servicemembers who are getting 7 additional days of paid leave to get married out-of-state aren't enjoying anything "special."

Either heterosexual couples enjoy special privileges because they can marry whereas homosexual couples can't, which makes this policy an offset to the existing special privilege, thus making both groups equal (or at least as equal as they can be) -- or heterosexual couples do not enjoy special privileges, in which case neither do homosexual couples under this policy.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[CriticalThought]

and that's what you're not getting...I shouldn't have to feel that. Because you did doesn't mean that I have to. Whatever transgressions that occurred need to be remedied not heaped onto another.

What you're doing is taking one group and pulling them down, to be like another, an oppressed group. That's slave morality. I'll have no part.

You do realize that nothing was taken from any heterosexual in the military...right? Nothing changed as far as heterosexuals in the military. Yeah...it is positive discrimination, but trying to sell it as negative discrimination is just making you look kind of clueless. This is like trying to argue that affirmative action is equivalent to segregation and slavery. You might be able to push that pitch on your social conservative friends, but I don't think it will fly with most people.

 

[Omgitsme]

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think there is some gay mafia running the Joint Chief's office if that's what you mean...

Where do you come up with the notion that heterosexuals are getting "special" privileges. That right there is what I'm talking about because some group isn't getting to engage in something that others do doesn't mean that those who do are enjoying anything "special".

Wouldnt that apply to this policy as well?

But anyways I was refering to the rights and privileges heterosexuals get from marriage that homosexual couples cant get. I used the word special because thats how you were describing the extra week of leave homosexuals get off. If thats a special privilage for homosexuals then in those states where gay marriage isnt legal marriage is a special privilage heterosexuals get.

 

[CriticalThought]

...because some group isn't getting to engage in something that others do doesn't mean that those who do are enjoying anything "special".

Homosexuals want to be treated as equals but then want favored status and special accommodations. You don't assimilate by being treated special.

I felt I needed to post these quotes together just so people could appreciate your logic on this topic.

What is your problem with gays?

 

[Thrilla]

damn , I wish they had this extra leave for SSM when I was a junior Marine... I would have gotten married ( and divorced) every year to a buddy.... 7 more days of leave would have been a huge deal.

 

[ChezC3]

By your logic, that means the servicemembers who are getting 7 additional days of paid leave to get married out-of-state aren't enjoying anything "special."

Either heterosexual couples enjoy special privileges because they can marry whereas homosexual couples can't, which makes this policy an offset to the existing special privilege, thus making both groups equal (or at least as equal as they can be) -- or heterosexual couples do not enjoy special privileges, in which case neither do homosexual couples under this policy.

Can't have it both ways.

No, you are mistaken. Gay service members are recieving additional time based on the fact that they are gay. You can run it through whatever semantic gauntlet of your choosing, do a complete rationalization gymnastic floor show, but that is the reason. This is more than what has been allotted for service members to be married that are heterosexual.

The difference is that marriage, up until recently was a heterosexual institution. Homosexuals wanted to partake in this institution. It wasn't an institution which existed for homosexuals. Societal norms are changing which have created an atmosphere whereby homosexuals too now can participate in the institution. By allowing them to participate doesn't mean that those who have been participating have had any special right. Giving homosexuals who wish to participate in this institution more time than what is allotted, for whatever reason, is a special privilege which gives their participation in this institution a unique and special status. How? Because their participation in this institution is being rewarded with additional compensation not originally offered to the institution itself as previously defined.

 

[CriticalThought]

Hey, I just figured out how we could rewrite this policy so there is no problem. It should be worded as such...

"Any person in the military who cannot legally get married in the state they are residing can have 7 paid days off to get married in another state."

See! Now it includes every person. I mean...yeah heterosexuals can get married in all 50 states, but that is irrelevant because the rewritten policy now applies equally to everyone and the heterosexuals just don't have to use it. No special accommodation. If any state ever bans heterosexual marriage, then the policy is there to accommodate them as surely as it is there to accommodate gays who are banned form marrying. Easy fix.

 

[CriticalThought]

damn , I wish they had this extra leave for SSM when I was a junior Marine... I would have gotten married ( and divorced) every year to a buddy.... 7 more days of leave would have been a huge deal.

Wow, and they say that the gays devalue the meaning of marriage.

 

[ChezC3]

You do realize that nothing was taken from any heterosexual in the military...right? Nothing changed as far as heterosexuals in the military. Yeah...it is positive discrimination, but trying to sell it as negative discrimination is just making you look kind of clueless. This is like trying to argue that affirmative action is equivalent to segregation and slavery. You might be able to push that pitch on your social conservative friends, but I don't think it will fly with most people.

Oh, it's positive discrimination so that means it's hunky dory. got it!

I'm presenting it for what it is, privilege not equally afforded. Seems discrimination is A OK for you so long as you're enjoying its benefits or agree that others should enjoy them.

 

[ChezC3]

I felt I needed to post these quotes together just so people could appreciate your logic on this topic.

What is your problem with gays?

Oh, yes out of context quotes always are illuminating.

Don't have a "problem" with gays, had you been paying attention I'm all for you to get married, enjoy life, and participate and be treated equally.

 

[CriticalThought]

Oh, it's positive discrimination so that means it's hunky dory. got it!

I'm presenting it for what it is, privilege not equally afforded. Seems discrimination is A OK for you so long as you're enjoying its benefits or agree that others should enjoy them.

That seems to be your position...so yeah. You don't treat your special benefits as anything special so why should anyone else treat theirs as if they are special?

 

[ChezC3]

Hey, I just figured out how we could rewrite this policy so there is no problem. It should be worded as such...

"Any person in the military who cannot legally get married in the state they are residing can have 7 paid days off to get married in another state."

See! Now it includes every person. I mean...yeah heterosexuals can get married in all 50 states, but that is irrelevant because the rewritten policy now applies equally to everyone and the heterosexuals just don't have to use it. No special accommodation. If any state ever bans heterosexual marriage, then the policy is there to accommodate them as surely as it is there to accommodate gays who are banned form marrying. Easy fix.

and that is a wonderful way to strip the rights away from people in those states of their self determination.

WOO HOO!!! You're a freedom fighter, aren't ya! :rock

 

[ChezC3]

That seems to be your position...so yeah. You don't treat your special benefits as anything special so why should anyone else treat theirs as if they are special?

But those that have been established aren't special. As explained in post 87

 

[CriticalThought]

and that is a wonderful way to strip the rights away from people in those states of their self determination.

WOO HOO!!! You're a freedom fighter, aren't ya! :rock

I got the idea from social conservatives who passed laws denying adoption rights to same sex couples in states where same sex marriage is banned. They worded those laws as "only lawfully married couples can adopt".

Except, in my case, no rights are "stripped". That is your intellectual dishonesty. The 7 day policy is an additional accommodation to those who can't legally marry in a state, not something that was ever taken away from heterosexuals. Please learn the difference between positive discrimination (giving additional benefits) and negative discrimination (taking rights away).

You do realize that I am having fun with you at this point, right? Your argument is ludicrous to the point of being laughable and I'm am just poking fun at it.

 

[CriticalThought]

But those that have been established aren't special. As explained in post 87

That premise is even false. The whole "marriage has always been a heterosexual union" is historically false. Same sex marriages occurred in the Christian church until the 13th century. In fact, if you go back far enough you will find that two different Roman emperors had same sex marriages. In a sense, gays are taking back rights that were stripped from them centuries ago.

But thank you for abandoning your bullcrap, "everyone is free to marry anyone" stance for your real stance. I knew eventually someone would draw it out of you. Less and less the "independent" that you claim to be and more and more the social conservative.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

No, you are mistaken. Gay service members are recieving additional time based on the fact that they are gay.

Incorrect. They are receiving additional time based upon their inability to get married within 100 miles of where they are stationed. In other words, if they have to travel further than the DoD feels is appropriate to overcome that discrimination, then they get extra time. It's not about the fact that they're gay, it's about the idiocy of the state government where they are stationed.

By allowing them to participate doesn't mean that those who have been participating have had any special right.

Up until they're allowed the same rights and privileges as everyone else, everyone else is indeed benefiting from special rights and privileges -- or this leave isn't a special privilege. Pick your poison, you can't have it both ways.

 

[ChezC3]

You do realize that I am having fun with you at this point, right? Your argument is ludicrous to the point of being laughable and I'm am just poking fun at it.

I've not been taking you seriously for quite some time.

 

[ChezC3]

Incorrect. They are receiving additional time based upon their inability to get married within 100 miles of where they are stationed. In other words, if they have to travel further than the DoD feels is appropriate to overcome that discrimination, then they get extra time. It's not about the fact that they're gay, it's about the idiocy of the state government where they are stationed.

No, that's you're rationalizing on the uneven bars. They aren't able to marry within a 100 miles, why? Because they are gay.

Up until they're allowed the same rights and privileges as everyone else, everyone else is indeed benefiting from special rights and privileges -- or this leave isn't a special privilege. Pick your poison, you can't have it both ways.

No. Societal norms were and are such which didn't see homosexual marriage as a right. It had to be recognized as such. Your thinking stems from the faulty logic that society must conform to outlier rather than the outlier conforming with society.

 

[Thrilla]

Wow, and they say that the gays devalue the meaning of marriage.

you haven't met many young Marines have you?