Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

post 206 obviously.

Rooms are separated by sex not sexuality. There are exceptions, i.e. with married couples depending on the situation. I even had an open bay with women before, but that just isn't the norm.

You keep bringing up lolGaxe as if he is contradicting me. You all are grasping at straws. I made a mistake and I CORRECTED it. Instead of accepting that, you all are pretending that what I'm saying is different than what lolgaxe is saying. It only takes like a day of service to know that men and women are separated in living arrangements.

Depending on the scenario, sex is not forbidden in your room. In many cases, if someone of the OPPOSITE sex visits you, your door has to be open to some degree.

Correction on my part, when I said "justified", I meant to you that you accept as being justified. I'm not referencing to a law that you disagree with. Please name a scenario where YOU think it is OK to discriminate against sexual orientation.



But they already are. What do you mean "many women wont be able to"? What possibly can prevent a majority of women from being a tanker, besides simply not allowing them?

You started off saying "it's wrong", but then agree to it at the end as being logical. So which one is it? Is it a logical discrimination or not?



Action speaks louder than words. You're simply making stuff up. If the overwhelming population supported homosexuality, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I use this example again. Let there be a law in place that says women can't vote and see how long that will last.

You live in a world of denial. Just because homosexuality is "popular" in the media, doesn't mean the overwhelming people accept it.




And that's your problem. I can think of numerous logical reasons to discriminate on any human aspect, to include skin clolr. If you somehow believe that sexuality is special, then once again, you are living in a world of denial.





Nice try, but if there isn't even a plan to do so, then you're not planning to do so. You're basically say "eh, let them deal with it" and by doing so, you're creating the problems listed in the remainder of post 206.



You mean like the logic on post 206, which was mentioned in the repeal of DADT? As a result prevents homosexuals from gaining any benefits... Yea homosexuals, you can marry now, you just don't get any benefits!!!!!!!

I don't think there're any logical reasons to discriminate do to sexual orientation or skin color. You do though, so how about some examples & the logic behind it?



In my scenario, I think it's logical. In yours, it appears to be illogical. I don't know enough about tankering & why woman aren't allowed to do it to give you my opinion on the subject, though.

Regardless, gender & sexual orientation discrimination are different beasts so one isn't necessarily equivalent to the other.




According to a December 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll 77 percent of Americans say gays and lesbians who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be able to serve in the military.

The support also cuts across partisan and ideological lines, with majorities of Democrats (86%), Republicans (74%), independents (74%), liberals (92%), conservatives (67%), white evangelical Protestants (70%) and non-religious (84%) in favor of homosexuals' serving openly.

A November 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 58 percent of the American public favors permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military, while less than half that number (27 percent) are opposed.[86] According to a November 2010 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll 72% of adult Americans favor permitting people who are openly gay or lesbian to serve in the military, while 23 % oppose it.[87] "The main difference between the CNN poll and the Pew poll is in the number of respondents who told pollsters that they didn't have an opinion on this topic – 16 percent in the Pew poll compared to only five percent in the CNN survey," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The two polls report virtually the same number who say they oppose gays serving openly in the military, which suggests that there are some people who favor that change in policy but for some reason were reluctant to admit that to the Pew interviewers. That happens occasionally on topics where moral issues and equal-treatment issues intersect."[88]

A February 2010 Quinnipiac University national poll shows 57% of American voters favor gays serving openly, compared to 36% opposed, and 66% say the current policy of not allowing openly gay personnel to serve is discrimination, opposed to 31% who see no discrimination.[89] A CBS News/New York Times national poll done at the same time shows 58% of Americans favor gays serving openly, compared to 28% opposed.[90]


Refute that, **********



I solved that with your "no-****" shorts pages ago.



I don't know what this means, on multiple levels.

I know that.. I'm just debunking the silly belief that majority of the U.S. supports everything in reference to homosexuality just because it's popular in the media. Rather something is a "right" or not, is a completely different issue.

Lubriderm was right, of course, and it has no bearing on the issue, but did you actually think that you debunked it by saying:



Because that would be pretty fucking stupid.

Actually I wasn't. I guess that clears that up.

It certainly does. I wasn't previously sure if you had a disorder that causes you to have a disconnect between what you write and what it means, but now I am.

That, or you become a compulsive liar when forced to confront the stupidity of the **** that you write. Either or.

Or your failure at comprehension?! I think I will go with that since you completely ignored sentences and only singled out one sentence. If that sole sentence was my "argument", then I wouldn't have written the other sentences surrounding that. Not only that, that wasn't my first reference. Since I don't like repeating myself a million times, hence post 206 references, I simply shortened my argument.

Might as well ***** that Yao Ming is discriminated against because he can't get the role of one of the seven dwarves.

I agree 100%, sadly, that reduces Alma's argument to little more than a proclamation by him that "**** ain't Amuricans"!

That's what it boils down to. If I'm choosing between "gay couple might have sex when a heterosexual couple could not" and "straight person can openly be straight where a gay person would lose his service and career", I'm going to vote for the buttsex every time. If someone wants to take it from that point and develop a fair solution which doesn't endanger the gay guy for daring to be gay and letting anyone know it, knock yourself out and let me know when you've come up with something.