You keep saying "On the job". What is that supposed to mean?
While you're working. I understand that sometimes the military can be a 24/7 job. Like my job, you'd get in trouble for fu
cking someone while "working".
Because the military discriminates in more ways than just against homosexuals.
Agreed, but this doesn't answer the question as to why in the specific case of "if a woman can meet those standards, then why is she not allowed to participate?" There has to be a specific reason for this discrimination, the answer to the question is not "because the military discriminates". I don't know the answer, nor do you apparently. I'm ok with that, as it doesn';t apply to the topic of DADT.
Small role? Once again, you can't down play everything just to meet your criteria. You may have a closeted homosexual with long hair, ear rings, certain tattoos,etc. who has absolutely no intentions of coming out of the closet. How is this guy more discriminated against? What will more than likely prevent him from joining the military?
What's not a big deal to you doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.
Gender roles?!?!?!? Really? You do realize that traditional gender roles say that only men and women should "court" each other right? Oh, since you support gender roles, then you must support the reinstatement of DADT, since traditional gender roles don't support homosexuality.
Do you know what a false equivalency even is? I kinda thought you did, but the more you post the more false
equivalencies you make. While it is TRUE that the military discriminates against men who want to have long hair by allowing woman to have their hair longer than men, the reasoning
behind why they allow woman to have longer hair isn't simply to disenfranchise men. Like in the professional world, the military has specific grooming standards for men & specific grooming standards for woman. Like in the professional world, a closeted homosexual would need to conform to the grooming standards of the job they apply for & would have to do the same to join the military.
Now, just because I'm ok with separate grooming standards for men & woman (which are based off of traditional gender roles) DOES NOT MEAN & WILL NEVER MEAN I'M OK WITH DISCRIMINATION DUE TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION. These are two very different things & insisting that if I support one thing I HAVE to support another is ludicrous. You, sir, are ludicrous for implying it.
What territory? Name me some jobs where a boss can say "Only married couples are authorized to have ***, any violators will be disciplined and possibly fired."
Clergy, some political positions, the military, camp...
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.
But they don't have to. They are CHOOSING to. It's a choice.
Who is the "they" you are referring too? What are "they choosing to" [do]? What choice are "they" making? Please do try & use complete sentences, when you don't it's really hard to decipher your drivel.
We have freedom of sexuality in this country and the US military does try and allow for it. Too bad for homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders and bisexuals. Presumably, you'd know this before signing up.
Not anymore! Homosexuals, transgenders, and bisexuals are now free to serve openly. Hurray progress!!!
How is it necessary if the "fat" person still meets all physical requirements? I guess you missed that part? I"m not talking about fat tubs of lard who can't run. I'm talking about big guys and women with a little bit of shape. They can meet the physical requirement but can still get treated like crap, even if they're under the fat% limit. Simply LOOKING fat is enough to catch havoc.
If you look fat I'm sure you'll get sh*t from a drill instructor even if you're under the fat % limit, but you can't get kicked out if you meet the requirements, correct?
What's with you and "not equivalent"? The only thing that is equitable to discharging someone for being a homosexual is discharging someone for being a homosexual. Doing the same thing to a heterosexual is not the same. So, you're either arguing over the concept of discrimination or you're arguing specifically about homosexuality. You can't say discrimination against homosexuality is wrong simply because it's discrimination and then claim that every other form of discrimination doesn't "count" because it isn't the same.
If you're only argument is "it's discrimination", then you must also accept other forms of discrimination as equals. Having a ***** isn't a physical requirement for any task, yet you must have one to have certain jobs.
There are essentially, 4 sexual orientations possible: ***, Straight, Bi, or Asexual. I am arguing against discrimination based upon one's sexual orientation, not against "all" discrimination. Whether or not other forms of discrimination by the military is right or wrong DOES NOT equate to just
discriminating by sexual orientation. You bring up good examples as to why woman should be able to serve in full combat roles, but have yet to supply any examples as to why it's ok to discriminate against a particular sexual orientation.
Now please, focus. Stop ignoring everything that I've told you and tell me how discriminating is ok unless it affects a specific group?
One's sexual orientation has nothing to do with their ability to serve in the military, therefore it is wrong to discriminate solely on one's sexual orientation in the military.
They (Homosexuals) are not denied ANYTHING for their sexuality
From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Outside of the full legalization of SSM, homosexuals are not treated as equals & are denied their liberty & pursuit of happiness solely because of the sexual orientation they were born with. This is wrong & goes against everything the United States is supposed to stand for.
And yet you have failed to provide any reason outside of modesty. I'm curious on why you think that I was implying that we SHOULD be segregated outside the shower. I'm just pointing out to the fact that it has nothing to do with the simple fact that we have different plumbing, but modesty.
Plumbing & modesty are both reasons. You said "comfort" was the sole reason. Therefore, you are wrong.
So not allowing SSM IS NOT discrimination then, since that same *** man can "work the system" and get married to a woman and receive benefits? I'm glad that you agree with me.
Another false equivalent & another opportunity you squandered answering the question as to how heterosexual couples are discriminated by DADT repeal.
Any chance I can get you to answer that? How about how DADT has effected you & why it is you seem to oppose *** rights? Varrus, at least, uses the religious excuse. Sure, he's a hypocrite because he thinks being *** is morally wrong because of his bible yet his bible also tells him to not fornicate outside of marriage & he chooses to do that one anyway.
However, to quote one of my favorite shows on TV atm, Boardwalk Empire, "We all have to decide how much sin we can live with."
Listen, I'm done beating around the bush. Here's the deal; when it comes to woman in combat, the military DOES have some justification to discriminate based upon gender (A woman in combat, for example, may not be as strong or as fast as a man). What you have to prove, somehow, is that there IS justification to exclude homosexuals for a the same
reason. That's how they can equate, dumbshi
Because the military discriminates for other reasons IS NOT justification to discriminate based upon one's sexual orientation. Get it now?
SO please, give me some reason that you feel it is ok for the military to discriminate based upon sexual orientation BESIDES "because they discriminate for other things". It can even be your old fallback, "because I'd be uncomfortable around *** men." Granted, that is NOT justification to disenfranchise homosexuals, but it'll at least give me some insight as to why you feel the way you do about ******. Edited, Oct 13th 2011 6:45am by Omegavegeta