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

I don't think you have.

The bottom line is just like with SSM, the military is very discriminative.

If your goal is to exclusively end discrimination against homosexuals, then fine. I honestly have no problem with that if it is well thought out and addresses all of the issues in post 206. Simply ending DADT because "it's ok to discriminate against everyone for everything except for sexuality" doesn't cut it.

Unfortunately, in our society, logic doesn't matter if you have certain people in offices. People are set in their ways and they will support or not support something in any circumstance. In any situation, that's wrong. When people like you think the military CAN be 24/7 as opposed to being held to the same standard on and "off" duty because you're a Soldier, Marine, Airman and Seaman 24/7 and any NCO can correct anyone in the club just like they can at the office, then you obviously have no idea on how the military functions.

Because of that, you can't say that you have thought it through, because you don't even understand the scenario.

I quoted the wrong thing, it makes no sense, @#%^.


nvm it makes perfect sense. I am smoking less weed after today.

This has nothing to do with my fictional "icky feelings", but more of you denying the fact that everything you once supported in sexuality was proven wrong. You have nothing else to say but to project stupid arguments unto me. If you truly and honestly believe that sexuality is the ONLY form of discrimination in life that CAN NOT be EVER justified in ANY scenario, then you are truly and sadly mistaken. Even people who were against DADT don't necessarily support that nonsense.

The reason why my post did not have details the way you wanted is because it was a conceptual argument. I was asked what I thought of it and I expressed my opinion. What I realized after finishing this post was that you all expected a different type of response. I responded to the question of how I feel with the conceptual argument of allowing overall ignorance making changes does more harm than good. My post wasn't intended to point fingers at any one thing, but to go over the conceptual errors. The concept of the "big picture" is two fold.

Just as with SSM, you either accept discrimination or you don't. Just like current discrimination practices don't justify other forms of justification, neither does being affected by a form of discrimination justifies its removal.

People act like there doesn't exist a scenario in life to justify discrimination against homosexuality. At the same time, TODAY in our society, we have laws, rules and regulations that openly and blatantly discriminate against sex, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background, religious preference, etc. and yet you all somehow believe that it's IMPOSSIBLE for sexuality to be part of that list? What makes sexuality so special that the aforesaid can be discriminated against in the "Land of the Free", but not sexuality?

As I stated, when you join the military, you forfeit many rights that a normal citizen has. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, but the foundation of the military.

This brings up the other half of the concept. People that are ignorant of scenarios should not be making decisions on something that they don't understand. From the statements made on this forum, it is blatantly obvious that most of you all do not have the slightest clue of how the military operates. Your entire vision is derived from the media.

The U.S. military is "successful" because it operates off the concept of discipline. This is noticeably done by uniformity. When I look to my left, I see my Logistical Officer, not CPT Jorge Gonzalez, the Mexican Muslim. When everyone is treated relatively the same, you see a Soldier, regardless of sex, nationality, age, etc. This mentality enhances respect, comradery, esprit de corp and overall teamwork. When you start giving people special treatment, that all changes. When that all changes, people are looked at differently with different expectations and that bond of "Soldiers" is gone. We're no longer both Soldiers but PFC Shnuffy and SPC Smith.

Now, I'm the first person to fight against conformity. I have and will in the future be "That Guy" to stand up against something "protocol" that isn't right. So, don't get me wrong about "individualism", but if your intent is to be able to freely express yourself, then the military isn't for you. The list goes on for the rules and unwritten rules of expression while being in the military.

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.

Next, basic housing allowances. Most junior enlisted live on post except in cases of dependents. Do you realize how many Soldiers would marry each other for the sake of extra money, nice houses and extra freedom? While there are sham marriages between men and women, it's much more likely to occur with people of the same sex, especially if they are already living together. Totally allowing this to occur with no restrictions would be costly.

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?

I gave you some examples, just to satisfy your hunger, but the overall issue is that you are either discriminating or you are not. If you want to end a form of discrimination, then you need to evaluate the entire scenario before making changes. If you're saying stuff like "not a real Soldier" and "middle management", then you obviously have no clue what you're saying and are not knowledgeable enough to be part of the process.

When you evaluate how the military operates, i.e. less rights and freedoms of expression, it's much cheaper and easier just to go with DADTDP. I know that same mentality was used for other forms of discrimination, but just as I said earlier in this thread, if you're accepting discrimination (just as with SSM), one doesn't automatically justify the other. You have to exclusively argue for your argument. If you argue against ALL forms of discrimination, then it does include ALL forms of discrimination, rather you specifically mention them or not.

These examples are not necessarily points to argue against DADTDP, but to demonstrate that there can exist logical reasoning against open homosexuality in an organization that restricts freedom other than fear or hatred. You may not accept it, but you can't deny that they exist. Therefore, something like this shouldn't be changed all willy~nilly, just because you think it should.

If you want it changed, fine, but if your goal is to reduce discrimination, that has to be done after reevaluating everything. It doesn't necessarily have to happen all at once, but there should at least be a plan in place. Else, you're just ADDING more discrimination. If that doesn't bother you, then you can't use "discrimination" or "fairness" in your argument to repeal DADT.

all i saw was blah blah blah im a huge poof.

I didn't read it either, just re-posted it since he keeps referencing it.