Vageta wrote:
It is different, Captain ******, as the logic behind the discrimination is different
Another example of your ignorance. The logic behind the discrimination is irrelevant in terms of the argument being used. You can't say "All races should be treated equally" but then say "Oh, not the Japanese, because they're different, I was only referencing to the African slaves in the U.S."
Vageta wrote:
And don't talk to me about "invalid" arguments as you can't even give me one logical reason why it's ok to discriminate due to sexual orientation.
I have, on post 206. You just choose not to acknowledge them, just like you chose not to acknowledge my arguments on discrimination on post 693. The reason why you refuse to do so is because you don't believe that there should be any scenario to discriminate against sexual orientation. As a result, no matter what I say will be seen as "invalid" due to your biased beliefs.
If I'm wrong, then please provide me scenarios where you believe discrimination against sexual orientation is justified. While you're at it, please provide me current discrimination in the U.S. military that you don't believe is justified outside of sexual orientation.
Vageta wrote:
What inclusive argument am I using? Hasn't this entire thread been about DADT repeal?
You used the argument of "traditional gender roles". Gender roles extend beyond hair grooming. So, if you argue that's ok to discriminate based on traditional gender roles, then that means you support discrimination based on anything that supports traditional gender roles, to include women being housewives as opposed to working. If that isn't the case, then you need to build up more on your argument, because that alone INCLUDES all traditional gender roles.
Vageta wrote:
Since I posted those handy facts above about the majority of military personnel being comfortable with homosexual squad mates, isn't it logical to repeal it since the high standards of morale, good order, discipline, & unit cohesion are no longer adversely effected by out homosexuals?
Isn't that logical, since it certainly isn't in the best interest of the armed forces as they're now mostly comfortable around gays?
Because most of the military doesn't. In the last DADT thread, the actual PDF of results was posted, in that PDF, they admit to not having a fair representation of the units who highly disagree with the repeal. Not only that, I say again, the option included both "no problem" with "unsure". So, if you marked "unsure", you also voted for the repeal.
Furthermore, if the military REALLY wanted to end the repeal, they wouldn't have been forced to do so. SSM couples would have the same benefits as heterosexual couples. There is nothing to support otherwise.
Vageta wrote:
as they're now mostly comfortable around gays?
I'm assuming you have never served in the service. The word "comfortable" can have many definitions, but from the stuff I hear on a daily basis, there is a distinct difference between accepting a person as who they are and ridicule of the same person.
In other words, if the military really wanted homosexuals to serve openly, then the military would have produced a more friendly environment for homosexuals to serve in. This is why a percentage of people will remain in the closet, hence my argument on a difference of priority. Just because you value sexual freedom more than something else, doesn't mean others do.