You are truly ignorant. What's being argued is concept. Concepts are universal. You either support sexual modesty as an excuse for segregation or you don't. If you believe that there is a difference in situations, then you must state the difference. So far, you have failed to do that.
I believe that if you'd like to reinstate DADT due to sexual modesty, you're going to need to get the majority of the armed forces to overwhelmingly decide that they need separate facilities for ****** JUST LIKE you'd need the opposite to happen to desegregate by gender.
Good luck with that.
You are full of crap because your counter is that "people are comfortable with homosexuals, so therefore it's no longer ok", but you already argued that there isn't any logical discrimination against sexuality. So which one is it? If another poll said that people were uncomfortable, would you accept that as an argument? If not, then why are you pretending that it matters?
If the polling went another way I may have accepted extending DADT, but it didn't, so I don't have too. "Comfort" mattered when the majority was opposed to DADT repeal, it matters much less so now. Unless your name is Alma.
It doesn't matter if 100% of the people polled said that they are comfortable working with homosexuals, that has nothing to do with sexual modesty. You're only pretending that it does to support your argument. Unless you're denying the fact that women are separated due to sexual modesty, along with potential sexual harassment and sexual assault then you're wrong. Unless, you can provide other reasons on why they are segregated.
I believe I mentioned plumbing earlier. Segregation by gender & sexual orientation are two very different things, & not only because of modesty.
Do you believe women are comfortable working with men? Does that have anything to do with where they sleep and shower? No. It doesn't. You're the one making false equivalences.
Quote where I made them equivalent.
This is about concept, so unless you can argue against the concept, then you have nothing.
It'd help if you told me what concept you've now decided to argue for/against.
There is no need to be prejudiced in order to discriminate. We're talking strictly about discrimination. I can discriminate against someone's skin color and not prejudge them. So, there is no need to bring up "prejudice" as a criterion.
You do not need to be prejudiced to choose between two or more things. You DO need to be prejudice to just plain old not hire blacks. If you have a logical reason to discriminate (Example: You must be this tall to use this ride): it's (usually) NOT prejudice. What this entire god **** thread amounts to is you running around screaming "it's not prejudice to discriminate due to sexual orientation" while giving zero reasons to justify said discrimination.
Which means you're a homophobe in denial. We all know this, we just want you to admit it & be done with it. Varrus can, so I can't understand why you can't except for cowardice.
Did you even read my post? affirmative action is a lazy fix me up that doesn't solve the problem. It's like school vouchers. It actually makes the situation worse.
Tell that to anyone who's received a minority scholarship.
There's a ton of solutions that heavily outweigh affirmative action. One goes back to the question I asked Jophiel. Why do you think Tyler Perry is so successful?
It's cool that you think the best way to fight discrimination is with discrimination, but don't deny that it's still discrimination.
If it makes you feel better, I'm for slavery reparations too. As I said previously, you aren't ever going to convince me that affirmative action is discrimination. Perhaps if you knew how to make a coherent argument, you'd have a better shot at it. But I have a better chance of being an astronaut that that happening.
Then you should reread the definition. It is not necessary and since we were not talking about prejudging anyone, then guess what? It isn't part of the conversation.
Remove prejudice from the definition of discrimination & it literally becomes a synonym for "choose" & "distinguish", which is "Alma's" definition of discrimination, which is not the definition ANYONE else in this thread is using besides Alma.
So have fun arguing with yourself I guess.
How can you tell? What's the difference? So, if it's legal, like how slavery was at one point, then you support it?
It's certainly more socially acceptable if it's legal. Doesn't mean I have to like or support it, but it means I'm not a complete tool for doing so. You wouldn't come off as a homophobe if you had a logical reason to discriminate against homosexuals, but ya don't, so you do in this and every SSM thread on this forum, ever.
You do realize by hiring a less qualified person because s/he's black/white/hispanic/asian to fulfill a position, you're also denying a person because s/he is black/white/hispanic/asian? Surely you realize this?
And you do realize it's only discriminatory if prejudice is involved, right?
So, you do realize that not every woman is comfortable being naked in front of men and it's not because they think men are "icky".
It's also because they're self conscious & embarrassed. Kind of like how you'd feel in a communal shower with any other man, whether they were *** or not.