Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Like a fire hazard or something?
Yes, that was exactly what I meant.
Quote:
That's your solution?
Nope. I already pointed out several allied, first world and advanced militaries that have solved the issue.
They solved the issue of having women in their militaries without having to provide separate facilities for them? Really? Which ones?
You're playing bait and switch games Joph. The "solution" to the problem with women not wanting to have to share facilities with men, but still be able to serve has been to provide separate facilities for them. Thus, if we are to treat these two problems similarly, we should provide separate facilities for gays in the military.
Assuming you believe that men and women should both be treated equally, of course? Now, if you're an advocate for having sexist double standards than by all means insist that men should be able to handle what women can't. Sexist!
Quote:
Or else still clinging to your little proxy argument to avoid actually discussing homosexuals in the military.
It's not a proxy argument at all. I know you want to pretend it is, but I'll clue you in on something. I don't really care what other countries do. In this country, we're supposed to have principles involving equality. We're supposed to have a 14th amendment which specifically says you can't discriminate on the basis of gender. If you support a policy which requires men to have to endure something which we spend insane amounts of money to protect women from then I'm going to oppose that policy.
If we are to argue that heterosexual men will just have to live with the fact that they'll have to shower and dress in front of men who might view them as sexual objects, then we must argue that women will have to live with it as well. To do any less would be a double standard and violates the equal rights of men. And no. I'm not actually being tongue in cheek here. This whole thing is about rights and equality, so how about for just one time we actually apply the principles of rights and
equality instead of replacing them with special treatment for protected victim groups like we usually do?
This is yet another case in which the left pretends to care about principles, but really is just playing more identity politics. It's so predictable.
Edited, Aug 26th 2010 7:59pm by gbaji