Your problem is that you're basing "logic" from popularity. It doesn't matter what the majority or minority believes. It's either logical or it's not. Just because the rest of society believes the world is flat, that doesn't make it logical.
I'm basing my logic on the justification behind the policy. If you need to be this tall to ride the roller coaster, the logic behind the policy isn't "***** short people" (Despite whether or not short folks feel discriminated against because of the policy) it's safety. That policy isn't going to change unless it's found out that the safety of the short folks isn't compromised.
Comfort can & was used as a justification for DADT, restrictions on woman in combat, & racial segregation in the military. It is/was thought that if a straight/white/male isn't comfortable with a homosexual/ethnic minority/woman to do the same job he can do it'll hurt combat effectiveness, morale, & ability. I can understand the justification when the majority of soldiers feel that way, even if I disagree with why these people are "uncomfortable" with woman, gays, & minorities (Sexism, bigotry & ignorance), but it STOPS being justified when the majority is comfortable with the minority in those roles.
A consensus has been reached & that is that allowing homosexuals to come out isn't going to hurt the abilities of the armed forces in most situations. Without that reasoning to justify DADT, you've either got to find other reasoning to justify DADT or repeal it. It was repealed. If you want to re-instate it, then you Alma, need to provide some sort of logic to justify it.
I can't stress the fact that actions are louder than words. You're wanting to believe something that simply isn't reality. Why do you think the majority of open homosexuals in the military are women?
Just yesterday my Commander was referencing an article of how society is growing further and further away from the military where you have civilians in charge of things that they don't understand. He followed with the change of DADT alone was evident of that and said "well, at least the Chaplain can hate it" and everyone laughed.
If you want to dispute the evidence, provide some yourself. The less partisan the source, the more weight & merit said evidence will carry.
We're talking about reasoning and logic for the discrimination, not for the change of anything.
If DADT actually prevented homosexuals from sharing living facilities with heterosexuals, you might have actually been able to use it as reasoning & logic for DADT.
Explain their relationship.
prejudging, present participle of pre·judge
Form a judgment on (an issue or person) prematurely and without adequate information.
(of an idea or opinion) Formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness.
I believe their relationship to be consensual.
RAWR! Casting is discrimination!!!
Race may be a part of the casting process, but it isn't the only reason someone is cast for a part. I also understand that you don't want "prejudice" to be a part of the definition of discrimination, but the fact is except for when you use "discrimination" as a synonym for "to choose or distinguish" discrimination is, literally, the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.
Casting CAN be discriminatory, but only if prejudice is involved instead of "type" & acting ability.
YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MENTIONED REPARATIONS.
Which is an example of how my views on race tend to be even more progressive than most. If you'd like to continue that discussion, you can start a thread on it.
Logic has nothing to do in whether if it's discrimination or not. Logic has everything to do with whether we should accept the discrimination or not.
Why should we accept discrimination due to one's sexual orientation then?
Well tell me first that you have no idea what possible discrimination against homosexuals that I might support in a DADT thread debating DADT.
You would support homosexual segregation because *** guys might look at your junk & that would make you feel hypothetically uncomfortable. Other than that, fuck if I know.
Like I said.. How do you know me from Tom or Harry? You admitted that it wasn't about being "icky" and all you have said was "not in your case". Give me a reason that you would accept as not "icky" or "homophobia" supporting DADT that has nothing to do with the popularity of the nation.
I believe you're uncomfortable with even the thought of having to be around homosexuals & you've done nothing to dispel that. I'll accept a logical argument for the disenfranchisement of homosexuals in the military if you can provide one.
Example: It is logical to disenfranchise woman by not allowing them to serve in certain combat roles as, traditionally, women tend not to be as strong as their male counterparts & having them in those roles would diminish the military's combat effectiveness.