So are you implying that there isn't (some scenario where discrimination due to sexual orientation is ok)?
I think so, but your internal thoughts are your own. I think it's a bit silly, but perfectly ok, that you're creeped out by *** men. However, as an employee of the US Government it isn't ok for you to discriminate due to sexual orientation while on the job. Off the job? Hit a Klan rally if you feel like it, just make sure your sheet is "solid" enough that they don't notice the color of your skin.
So are you implying that there aren't any (laws, rules and regulations that openly and blatantly discriminate against ***, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background, & religious preference)?
No, but I'd like you to name one that's enforced on any sort of regular basis since you seem to think there are. "Blue Laws" do not count, since they are rarely enforced.
If you knew the difference between gender and *** then you would realize that you're making an unnecessary differentiation, because not only does that make no sense, it doesn't hinder my argument.
How? Sexual orientation has never & will never be a factor in deciding that girls shower with girls & boys shower with boys. ***/Gender are not sexual orientations. This makes perfect sense. How does it support your argument? What is your argument, for that matter?
There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination". Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.
So you agree that there is no discrimination against homosexuals in SSM because it's based on *** not sexual orientation and every man is held by the same rules regardless of sexual orientation. Finally...
I wasn't talking about SSM, we are talking about DADT. But in regards to SSM, I'll grant you that opposite *** marriages were assumed when marriage laws were first written, but since then the US Government has progressed to the point where they've made it illegal to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. Ipso-Facto, not allowing one group (Gays) while allowing another group (straights) to take part in Government sanctioned benefits is the very definition of discrimination.
I believe I gave at least 3 (logical reasons for DADT), maybe you should learn to read.
I can read fine, you simply can't communicate effectively via the written word. It's ok, some people are just better at it than others. What I'd like you to do, using complete sentences, is write what YOU (no hypothetcals) believe are 3 logical reasons DADT shouldn't have be repealed. I'd like you to start this response, for clarity's sake, with, "I, Alma, believe it is logical to repeal DADT because..."
Bonus points if you bullet point the 3 logical reasons you believe DADT should not have been repealed.
Ask yourself this. If you're living with a roommate, and you had a chance to marry him and receive literally hundreds to thousands of extra dollars a month, your own house, more freedom, benefits, etc, that you wouldn't?
No, I wouldn't. Could you please link to any evidence at all that straights are pretending to be *** for the benifits in the military? Can you link to any evidence that this is happening in States where SSM is legal?
Your ignorance is making the best of you...
See what I mean about you not being clear? What does THAT attempt at a diss even fucking mean? What am I even ignorant of (Besides anatomy when I draw using MsPaint)?
This is WHAT YOU SAID:
If a janitor cleans a woman's locker room while women are in there only to later find out that the janitor is really a male, not a female, do you think the women would be like "oh, well, he's been here the whole time, so who cares?" I'm sure that they would be creeped out.
So far, in all of the plethora of craptastic posts you've made on any and all subjects that are "***", the above quote is the closest I've ever seen you come for giving a reason as to why YOU think DADT shouldn't have been repealed. Applying that analogy to yourself, once again, YOU would logically be the girls in the locker room & GAYS would logically be male janitors dressed as girls.
And you would be creeped out by finding out your fellow soldier, was ***.
There's nothing wrong with that; but it isn't a logical or legal reason to make your fellow soldier HAVE to hide their identity from you. The choice should have ALWAYS been theirs & now it is.