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

Why would you choose to be gay? I mean besides the fabulous clothes and food.

Hatred & bigotry have nothing to do with many of the logical reasons the military discriminates because of:

gender (There are physical differences between men & woman)
ethnic background (It is in our country's best interest not to give access to some forms of classified information to some foreign born peoples)
religion (Sorry Scientologists, those auditing "machines" are too expensive. Pray to Xenu as much as you like, though.)
weight (It is in the best interest of the military to have physically fit soldiers)
height (You must be this small to fly a jet)
age (Jumping out of airplanes has an expiration date)

Hatred & Bigotry are illogical arguments, based upon emotion. They'll never be "logical" reasons to discriminate. Is "Comfort" a logical reason to discriminate because of anything? Well, yes & no.

It is illogical to use comfort as a justification to discriminate based upon one's race in the military because, essentially, "all men are created equal". In other words, any man, of any race, has the potential to be able to pass the physical requirements to join the military & once there, should be treated as well as any other man.

It is logical to use comfort to discriminate based upon gender in the military because men & woman are, for the most part, not physically created equal. With the exception of those situations (mostly combat) where those physical differences come into play, men & woman are treated as equals, though. They are segregated by gender, logically, as society has accepted that men & woman should have some separate facilities. Also, the military has decided that many of society's gender roles should, logically, be applied to rules governing clothing & hairstyles.

Recently, the majority of the American people, the President, The Joint Chiefs, & the majority of the Military decided that the policy of DADT should be repealed. Since it was already illogical to discriminate because of sexual orientation, as gay men & woman are more than capable of meeting the physical requirements to serve & have been doing so for years, & due to the fact that most soldiers supported repeal- "comfort" could no longer be used as a logical justification for the discrimination. Thus, it was repealed.

Now, the onus is on you to use facts & logic to refute that. Oh, & #206 doesn't refute any of it, I checked.

I don't either, and as much as I'd rather not read through another dissertation by Alma and gbaji, the biggest reason (besides that it being a federal law that the military can't do anything about) is the complete lack of bathrooms. I know from my days of infantry that there aren't any. You get your orders and a timeline and you get there at or before that time. That's it. You shower using canteens and bottled water and **** where you can, and a lot of times you **** while marching. Just from that, a woman can't just whip it out and go while moving, and I know from tankers that most of the time you're pissing in bottles and such. So there's at least a health and hygiene issue towards it.

Vageta,

oh, So I found the post. it's 693.. You didn't ignore the post, just all of my counters to your "justifications" to discrimination.

So, from now, if you want a response how every other form of justification in the world is somehow magically justified except for homosexuality, just look on post 693.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 9:18pm by Almalieque

Give me ONE counter made. Simply responding isn't categorized as "solidly countered".

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 9:20pm by Almalieque

You made the point about gay relationships being treated differently then straight relationships, and that there would be a double standard. This is false. They would be covered under the same rules.

Remember, you're not allowed to refer to old posts. I don't care if you think you countered this and I missed it.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 2:23pm by Xsarus

considering that it has nothing to do with what you were arguing, it is irrelevant. You made the claim that ****'s were going to be treated specially because they could bunk with other ****'s, while straight person could not bunk with the opposite sex.

Considering that bunking and sexual relations are completely seperate from each other and that such relations are frowned on throughout the entire military, ****'s are not being treated specially and there is no discrimination between them and straight people. Both are protected/punished under the same rules and regulations.

So that being said, the above has nothing to do with your original argument. While it is correct that current traditional marriage laws do discriminate against ****'s, I don't get the connection. Although I am sure in your @#%^ed up land of logic it makes perfect sense.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 3:35pm by rdmcandie

Meaning, I've heard women say that "there aren't any good men left" and decided to start dating women. I've never heard of a man say "there aren't any good women left" and started dating men.

no I don't support it. Every one is covered under the same rules, and the same rules are discriminatory, as they don't treat gay relationships and straight relationships the same. Why can't I say it's irrelevant? It is of course, but I never stopped you from making an argument, I just said that if you wanted a discussion we needed to have one moving forward.

This is not the case with the military, specifically with your criticism. Gay couples would be under the same restriction re: living together as straight couples.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 3:15pm by Xsarus

What's the change?

I did, I didn't notice any change though.

It's either been like this for a while, or I'm missing out because I'm an admin.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 4:48pm by Xsarus

probably the admin thing. I like to troll Alma from time to time, it is great fun to get him spinning in circles, so I am also missing out (kind of).