Cool story, but we weren't talking about the act of **** while being in the military, we were talking about discussing **** while in the military. Pretty big difference, eh? Try as you might, I will not be discussing the act of **** while in the military with you as this is about your thoughts on DADT. Mine are pretty clear, yours are all over the place. Please stay on topic, thanks.
I was referencing both. You're purposely trying to make a non existing difference. If you want to deny the fact that people can't openly talk about **** without repercussions, then so be it. Just don't project your ignorance unto others.
Besides a woman's role in combat & the physical requirement needed to join the armed forces (neither of which are the equivalent of discrimination solely based upon ones sexual orientation), how does the military blatantly & openly discriminate? Be specific.
Easy, I'll break it down by categories.
1. A woman is not authorized to participate in every role as a man can. I don't know of any action which has a **** requirement. If a man can't meet the standard, then he is either recycled, re-classed or kicked out. So, if a woman can meet those standards, then why is she not allowed to participate?
2. A woman is authorized to have longer hair along with other aesthetic and uniform rules and regulations that is not applicable for a man.
3. In certain environments, sexual encounters are only authorized to married couples. So, if you're single, no **** for you.
4. Married servicemen or people with dependents get paid more money
5. #4 doesn't apply to homosexual couples (except for children)
6. Just the other day, our local translators were moved from one unit to another unit for being too attractive and being a "distraction".
1. People of certain faith can be authorized to have facial hair.
2. People of certain faith can be authorized to wear different head gear, i.e. Turbans, Kippas.
3. Previously in some of my training environments, Jews were given alternate choices of food (Kosher). If you weren't Jewish (had to have had "Jewish" on your dog tags), then you didn't have that option.
4. Previously in some of my training environments, time was made on Sundays for people to attend Church. If you chose not to go to Church or worshiped on another day (Wednesday/Friday)then you didn't have that time off.
5. The military only acknowledges certain religions, therefore there are not Chaplain representation or practices for those religions not acknowledged.
C. "Fat" People
1. The Army has height and weight standards that if you don't make it, you must get tapped for body fat percentage. If you don't make tape, then you can get chaptered. It doesn't matter if you meet every physical requirement (which many do) and the best at your job, you can get kicked out. Just like LolGaxe said with vaginal sex, this is typically only used on "dirt bags" that we want out anyway, but it's still a rule. Even if you meet the body fat percentage, you will more than likely be treated like trash, openly in your face.
2. Along that note, from my PERSONAL OBSERVATION, women seem to be affected the most. Unless you're a skinny track star, you will be taped. If she has a J-Lo booty, Beyonce thighs and/or Shakira hips, then she probably wont make height and weight. Now, she isn't treated the same way as the dude that's a fatty-fat-fat-fat, but she's sweating during weigh in.
D. Nationality/skin color/ethnicity/family background
1. Your nationality and/or family relatives might prevent you from obtaining a clearance which is important for positions/jobs.
2. Foreign born citizens can't be the Commander-in-Chief
3. People of certain nationalities will be more desired to do any foreign local activities/positions.
I'm sure there's much more than I'm not thinking about, these are just what came to mind.
What is "incorrect"? That it was never ok to be **** while in the military? That Guardsman & Reservist could be openly **** since 1999? Wouldn't one presume that under DADT provided one wasn't openly gay, that it was ok to be **** while in the military? Wasn't that the compromise?
No. The compromise was that no one was going to ask or pursue your sexuality, not that it was ok to be gay. Once again, if it were "ok", then you wouldn't be kicked out. There's a difference between being "openly gay" and gay. If SGT Smith was caught kissing another woman on the sly, that isn't the same as being "openly gay".
So if they found out you were straight you were kicked out too? I thought it was only if you were openly **** you were kicked out...
False equivalency, thy name is Alma. Know what is the equivalent in regards to SSM & separate but equal? That outside of the full legal recognition of marriage between same-sex partners "civil unions" remain separate & unequal!
No where did I mention "civil unions". I'm talking about marriages. A heterosexual man is bound to the same marriage laws as a homosexual man. They are the same exact argument. I'm saying exactly what you're saying.According to your logic, the repeal of DADT is equal because it affects both sexes equally. That's the same argument that I've used for SSM. The difference is that I acknowledge the difference between equality and fairness. They are equal, but not fair.
You agree with me.
How is that logical? Are you separated in the work office because of plumbing? What's the difference? How is sitting on a chair different from sitting on a chair?
Homo's have the same plumbing as hetero's, so it's cool if they shower together, provided their the same gender. If you're uncomfortable showering with homo's, that's on you. Do feel free to explain why, though.
Read above. That is not a logical explanation. Our plumbing doesn't change outside the shower. So why are we segregated in the showers but not outside the shower?