Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

I'm basing my logic on the justification behind the policy. If you need to be this tall to ride the roller coaster, the logic behind the policy isn't "***** short people" (Despite whether or not short folks feel discriminated against because of the policy) it's safety. That policy isn't going to change unless it's found out that the safety of the short folks isn't compromised.

Comfort can & was used as a justification for DADT, restrictions on woman in combat, & racial segregation in the military. It is/was thought that if a straight/white/male isn't comfortable with a homosexual/ethnic minority/woman to do the same job he can do it'll hurt combat effectiveness, morale, & ability. I can understand the justification when the majority of soldiers feel that way, even if I disagree with why these people are "uncomfortable" with woman, gays, & minorities (Sexism, bigotry & ignorance), but it STOPS being justified when the majority is comfortable with the minority in those roles.

A consensus has been reached & that is that allowing homosexuals to come out isn't going to hurt the abilities of the armed forces in most situations. Without that reasoning to justify DADT, you've either got to find other reasoning to justify DADT or repeal it. It was repealed. If you want to re-instate it, then you Alma, need to provide some sort of logic to justify it.



If you want to dispute the evidence, provide some yourself. The less partisan the source, the more weight & merit said evidence will carry.



If DADT actually prevented homosexuals from sharing living facilities with heterosexuals, you might have actually been able to use it as reasoning & logic for DADT.



prejudging, present participle of pre·judge

Verb:
Form a judgment on (an issue or person) prematurely and without adequate information.

preconceived/ˌprēkənˈsēvd/

Adjective:
(of an idea or opinion) Formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness.

I believe their relationship to be consensual.



Race may be a part of the casting process, but it isn't the only reason someone is cast for a part. I also understand that you don't want "prejudice" to be a part of the definition of discrimination, but the fact is except for when you use "discrimination" as a synonym for "to choose or distinguish" discrimination is, literally, the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.

Casting CAN be discriminatory, but only if prejudice is involved instead of "type" & acting ability.



Which is an example of how my views on race tend to be even more progressive than most. If you'd like to continue that discussion, you can start a thread on it.



Why should we accept discrimination due to one's sexual orientation then?



You would support homosexual segregation because gay guys might look at your junk & that would make you feel hypothetically uncomfortable. Other than that, fuck if I know.



I believe you're uncomfortable with even the thought of having to be around homosexuals & you've done nothing to dispel that. I'll accept a logical argument for the disenfranchisement of homosexuals in the military if you can provide one.

Example: It is logical to disenfranchise woman by not allowing them to serve in certain combat roles as, traditionally, women tend not to be as strong as their male counterparts & having them in those roles would diminish the military's combat effectiveness.

http://www.frc.org/infocus/congress-should-be-skeptical-of-pentagons-biased-and-incomplete-surveys-on-homosexuality-in-the-military

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Pentagon-DADT-study-was-biased-867276.php

http://www.militaryculturecoalition.com/content/Congress/24037/Military.com%20-%20New%20Poll%20Finds%20Most%20Oppose%20DADT%20Repeal

Even a source for the repeal even mentions that DADT was never mentioned.
http://www.newser.com/story/95301/pentagon-blew-44m-on-useless-gaydar-survey.html

Just a tidbit about Bachman on her opinon
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/08/14/295534/bachmann-i-probably-would-reinstate-dadt-because-it-has-worked-very-well/

I'm laughing that for "less partisan" sources, we get the Family Research Council, an opinion column and the Military Culture Coalition

RAWRR...You Soulless Tiger.

It will only be to your benefit to have Alma bringing down the curve in other threads.

Under DADT, it certainly had more instances of Alma being hypothetically comfortable living with homosexuals since he didn't have to know if they were gay if they felt like telling him.

I bet he still wore shorts though, just in case.

There is no benefit that outweighs the cost.

You really want Bachmann's opinion to be representative of the average republican?

I have a friend who was an MP and they were specially trained on how to locate and attack pressure points that leave people pretty much incapacitated. The idea being, you're going to come up against some beefed up, highly trained people as an MP and strength isn't going to cut it in stopping them. I'm not sure strength is really a requirement in any way at all as an MP. At least not in the Canadian Forces.

I haven't been able to watch much of the debates now, but in the previous debates, DEMS traditionally support the repeal and Republicans didn't. DEMs tend to favor SSM, REPs dont'. It's kind of the whole reason why most homosexuals tend to vote DEM.



Well, I can't speak from the Enlisted side. This is my first time working with tankers and I assure you that they are not lifting 40 lb ammo. They might have as a PL, but now you're looking at one or two positions out of a 20 year career.

I was talking with a 2LT tanker today and he looks like a high school/middle school kid.

This is all about gender roles. That's why women are not mandated to sign up for selective service.



I'm sorry if you believe that a poll of less than 1/2 of 1 percent of a population is always accurate on a highly divided issue.

Do you even watch the news? Fox News (who claims to be "fair and balance") is obviously more conservative than liberal. CNN is more liberal than conservative. Their polls often do not match. Approval ratings for DEM presidents tend to be higher on CNN than FOX and vice versa with REP presidents.

Unless you're denying that, then you're wrong.

When has he ever?

You are though



What don't you grasp?

Actions speak louder than words. It doesn't matter what poll you may provide, the actions of the people are more accurate to what the people believe in than any poll (for or against) any subject.

I'm not going to devalue your random poll and then pretend that some other random poll has more merit. That would be fatuous. The bottom line is that survey that was conducted was considered biased by both sides of the argument. Given that, how can you conclude to anything?

Sure you are......