True- to an extent. But while the military is allowed to discriminate based on gender (Womans' roles in combat, for example), they are NOT allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation or race.
Your commander in Chief & a court order.
This whole battle was to REMOVE the discrimination.
It has been removed.
False: Because the military allowed straights to be open about their sexuality & disallowed homosexuals from being open about theirs (by kicking them out if they were ***), this caused an issue in regards to equal rights.
Uhhhh.... that translates into "that's not fair". Besides, I've already mentioned that heterosexuals aren't free to talk about their sexual preferences, encounters and/or desires. So you're wrong on both accounts.
It is a fact that a heterosexual, before DADT repeal, could talk about their "sexual preferences, encounters and/or desires" without fear of being kicked out of the military while a homosexual could not. Not only is it unfair, but it's wrong considering our country was founded on the notion that "all men are created equal".
False: The concept of DADT is beyond sexuality. You're not allowed to do "x", we're not going to ask or pursue you about doing "x", but if we find out about it, then we will take actions. That doesn't mean it's "ok" to do "x". an "obvious *******" isn't a "*******". This was nothing more than a compromise. If you were "ALLOWED" to be homosexual, then you wouldn't discharged for it.
Close: In reality, it's similar to what Christian Church's believe in regards to homosexuality. It's ok to be "***", it's not ok to act upon it. Sodomy was/is against the military code of conduct, "being ***" was not. Furthermore, since at least 1999, active duty National Guardsman & Reservists were allowed to be homosexual & serve (In fact, this was allowed to stop straight men from pretending to be *** in order to not get deployed!)
I'm not sure if you fail to see the compromise or if you just don't want to accept it. In any case, you're still just saying "it's not fair".
I understand that DADT was a compromise & believe it was unfair to homosexuals. If DADT banned everyone from discussing sexual orientation (it didn't, it banned asking about it), then it would have been a fair compromise. Unreasonable? Sure, but more fair since it didn't single out one sexual orientation as acceptable & another as not.
[quote-Alma]You're such a hypocrite it's ridiculous. Just above, I'm telling you how homosexuals have ALWAYS been discriminated against and you're saying "well that's just not right". Here we're talking about segregation of men and women and how that's not right and you're saying "well it's ALWAYS been that way".[/quote]
Homosexuals have been discriminated against since 1942, in the military. It has never been "right". The separation of men & woman in situations where their naughty bits could show isn't "wrong" because it doesn't disenfranchise either group. Heck, segregated schools would have been upheld in Brown vs The Board of Education
if those schools were equal. Since men's & women's showers are equal, it does not violate the constitution, unlike the racially segregated schools. It HAS always been this way.
Is long lasting previous practices a foundation to continue the said practices? If so, then DADT should remain based on previous practices. If not, then provide a logical reason on why men and women are separated other than "because it's always been that way".
It is logical to segregate restrooms by *** because men's rooms have urinals to accommodate a man's needs & woman's rooms have sit down toilets & tampon machines to accommodate women's needs. Gender segregated restrooms are a tradition that disenfranchises neither ***, while DADT singles out a single sexual orientation & disenfranchises that group.
The bottom line is that Joe can room with his boyfriend John, but Jack can't room with his girlfriend Sarah (for the most part, not always).
Cite? Evidence? First hand experience? Do you have anything at all to support this? lolgaxe says you're wrong & since he is both military & able to convey his thoughts by using the written word effectively I'm going to have to agree with him, that you're ******* lying, until such a time that you can PROVE otherwise.
If you're all about ending discrimination, then it might be nice not to create additional discrimination. Obviously you're not about ending discrimination, just allowing homosexuals to freely express themselves. There's nothing wrong with that, but just say so. Stop pretending that you're about "discrimination" when you don't care.
Until such time that you can prove that the military now allows homosexual couples to bunk up together & disallows heterosexual couples from doing the same, I'm going to have to say there is NO discrimination against heterosexuals in the military resulting from DADT repeal. Prove otherwise & that argument may hold some weight.
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?
What does the US military realize? (Use a complete sentence). Homosexuals are still discriminated against because of the DOMA, which is why they don't get the federal benefits that heterosexual married couples get. This is also wrong.
I mean unless you support SSM with no benefits being the same as heterosexual marriages with benefits, then there's a difference.
There is a difference & it's wrong, but this is a separate subject.
So, since DADT was repealed last month, what's changed Alma? How has it effected you, personally? How do you feel about those changes? And, just what are your overall thoughts on homosexuals, in general?
Also, do you love the ****, hate the ****, or fear the ****?