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

I never argued "true equivalence". That's just something you made up. Discriminating based on sex vs skin color isn't "true equivalence" either. What exactly is your point? You enter the military, you give up rights, people are discriminated against. You haven't provided any reason other than "it's not fair" for why DADT shouldn't ever exist. That alone, is an argument against ALL discrimination.



You have yet provided any logical reason why there ever was or currently is any separation of any bathroom facilities. All you have provided is "it's separated because it's separated", but why?

I wasn't saying that open homosexuals demands a change in our bathrooms, that's stupid. I'm pointing out that the reason why men and women are separated in the first place is the very same reason why some men don't want to shower with homosexuals. Just because it was practiced hundreds of years ago, doesn't change that fact. If anything, it only proves my point given that our history was much more modest than today.



How so?



Let's take the living conditions. By allowing homosexuals to freely express themselves, you've created a discrimination in couples. Homosexuals are now authorized to live together in the barracks, but not heterosexual couples. Furthermore, a heterosexual male shouldn't have to live with a homosexual male for the same exact reasons why a woman shouldn't have to live with a heterosexual man. I know many are saying "suck it up, you're in the military", but the same thing can be said in any situation, i.e. to the woman living with the man. What makes your scenario so special and unique?

Next, the infamous showers. There still exist open bays and open showers, but for argument's sake, lets assume that ALL shower facilities are curtained off. Does that make a difference? Would curtains be good enough to convince society to have co-ed showers? Where I'm at, not only do the women use different showers, there's a combination on the lock that only the women know.


Lastly, but not all, the government realizes the previous statement. That is why homosexual couples (at least from my last thread) would not get any additional benefits that a heterosexual couple would receive. Doing this creates yet another discrimination between the couples. Only this time, it's against the homosexuals. Are you willing to say "suck it up" now? Or is that only when it's against heterosexuals?

True- to an extent. But while the military is allowed to discriminate based on gender (Womans' roles in combat, for example), they are NOT allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation or race.



False: Because the military allowed straights to be open about their sexuality & disallowed homosexuals from being open about theirs (by kicking them out if they were gay), this caused an issue in regards to equal rights. For you see, it wasn't actually against the military code of conduct, at the time of DADT repeal, to be gay while in the military. It was ONLY against the military code of conduct to be OPEN about one's homosexuality. Since it was well known that there were already gay folks serving in the military, this was a clear example of discrimination based solely upon one's sexual orientation. Since the Government of the USA does not & cannot discriminate solely because of one's sexual orientation, the logical result of this was the repeal of DADT.



Homosexual men are allowed to room with other homosexual men in the barracks, this is true & has ALWAYS been true, as barracks have always been divided by gender. However, I'm sure if two homosexual men became a couple & lived in the same barracks this wouldn't be allowed for the same reasons that a straight couple within the same unit probably wouldn't be allowed to stay in the same unit for long. Are you somehow implying that just because two people in the same barracks are gay that they'll be a couple? The fact of the matter is, allowing gays to be open in the military doesn't make them "special" at all, it simply makes their sexuality equivalent to a heterosexual person's. DADT repeal in no way shape or form discriminates against heterosexual couples in any way.



Cool story, too bad it doesn't apply to DADT repeal.



How are homosexuals discriminated against by DADT repeal?



I've accepted the truth: You are an enormous ******.

Once you've established that people have a right to something, the question should never be "Why do you deserve to have your rights" but "Why is it justified to take my rights?"

I shouldn't have to explain why I don't want my boring-*** phone calls listened in on; you need to explain why it's worth invading my privacy to listen to them.

I shouldn't have to justify why I should be allowed to marry whoever; you need to justify why my basic rights being violated is better than the alternative.

I shouldn't have to justify why I want to build a house of worship on properly zoned property; you need to explain why my First Amendment rights no longer apply when you demand that I not do so.

I shouldn't have to justify why I should be allowed to casually discuss a same-sex partner as a soldier the same way another might talk about his wife or fiancee; you need to justify why this is forbidden to me.

The default should never be to force someone into defending their rights at the threat of having them taken away and it's more than a little unsettling that people tasked with defending those rights demand exactly this. At least Gbaji's hypocrisy on the subject is on an amateur basis; Alma is getting paid for this.

Considering that he's a Signal Officer, his lack of communication skills is somewhat worrisome, and amusing at the same time.

I have never known when to use who versus whom. I'll have to take your word for it.

I'm a product of TN schools. The word "whom" never even came up in English class.

ETA: Thank you, Grammar Girl:



And thank you, Spoonless, for forcing me to learn something!

Edited, Oct 9th 2011 12:16pm by Belkira

And this is why we can't have co-ed communal showers.

You understand there is a difference between saying 'hey, i'm gay' and wearing assless chaps while getting spanked by another man on a parade float, don't you?

Worst fucking analogy ever.

It's the military. WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.

So everyone who says 'hey, i'm gay' is perceived as wearing assless chaps etc on a parade float?

If the people in power are ignorant, bigoted fools, then it's time for them to retire.