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.
Why? DADT repeal has very, very little to do with fornication while on the job in the military. Talking about one's sexual orientation & getting kicked out for it is VASTLY different than getting kicked out for ******* on the job.
Can you talk about *** without repercussions in any & all situations while in the military? Probably not. But you can come out of the closet, if you're ***, & not get kicked out for it. Isn't progress swell?
So, if a woman can meet those standards, then why is she not allowed to participate?
Good question. I don't know the answer, do you?
2. Men have one standard for hair length & woman have another. Is it discrimination? Sure, but on a very small level that has more to do with traditional gender roles in our society than it does with keeping a minority down.
3. Comes with the territory (pun intended).
4 & 5. It's certainly discrimination against married homosexual couples, but should be rectified when DOMA is repealed. The military is an extension of the federal government, the fed doesn't recognize SSM, so until it does they can continue this practice. I don't like it, but it is what it is.
B- We have freedom of religion in this country & the US military does try & allow for it. Too bad for the atheists, scientoligists, & discordians. Presumably, you'd know this before signing up.
C- There are physical requirements to join the military. Does that discriminate against fat people? Sure, but it's a necessary requirement for military service. "Being straight" isn't a physical requirement, so that doesn't equate.
D- Who you are & where you come from is a deciding factor on what level of clearance you can get? Good.
Now please, focus, & tell me how heterosexual couples are openly discriminated against by DADT repeal.
No. The compromise was that no one was going to ask or pursue your sexuality, not that it was ok to be ***. Once again, if it were "ok", then you wouldn't be kicked out. There's a difference between being "openly ***" and ***. If SGT Smith was caught kissing another woman on the sly, that isn't the same as being "openly ***".
We're dancing in circles here. Let's look at this, logically; When DADT was implemented, it was a compromise to allow gays to serve provided they weren't open about it & their sexual orientation would not be investigated. Literally, this translates to, "If we don't ask you if you're *** & you don't tell us, then you can serve."
Ipso facto, it is a fact the *** folks COULD serve provided DADT was followed.
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.
It's true that in the states that allow full on SSM (Mass. may be the only one, while the others have "Civil Unions") the marriage laws & benefits apply to both hetero & **** couples equally. In every other state, at the federal level, & in the military heterosexual couples get their marriage recognized & more benefits than homosexual couples. THIS IS A FACT.
I do not know what you mean by "they are the same argument", please clarify. You're NOT saying what I'm saying as until such a time that DOMA is overturned, hetero-marriages & *** marriages are SEPARATE & UNEQUAL. Sure, DOMA doesn't discriminate by gender, but it discriminates by sexual orientation.
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?
Another false equivalency, really?
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?
Are you really
king dense? Modesty is CERTAINLY one of the reasons bathrooms are separated by gender, it is NOT & NEVER WILL BE the only reason. The plumbing in the separate facilities is CERTAINLY one of the other reasons bathrooms are still segregated by gender. Just because we're segregated by gender in the showers doesn't mean we HAVE to be separated outside of them. That's another false equivalency, you dumb fu
Because of DADT. How does anyone know that you're a couple? Many barracks forbid people of the opposite *** in there without being signed in and/or door being opened. If you're a ****, you can do whatever you want in your own privacy. A **** can request to change out roommates with his "battle buddy" and it CAN get approved. If his "battle buddy" is a female that is highly unlikely to happen.
That's how that's discrimination. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
This would NOT be discrimination against hetero couples, like DADT WAS discrimination against homosexuals. The above scenario would be a *** man working the system. I'm sorry if you can't see that.