Vageta wrote:
Legally, marriage in many states & at the Federal level are the only ones I can think of, because
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.
Vageta wrote:
I think if Chyna wants to be cannon fodder, she is probably just as capable as most men & would be able to do the job. Stinks that she can't though, but I understand that many woman won't be able too hence the justification for the discrimination. I imagine at some point this may change for exceptions to be made on a case by case basis, but still don't imagine too many woman getting into front line combat roles.
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?
Vageta wrote:
My argument is that now that society, which includes the military, is now overwhelmingly comfortable around homosexuals that it was logical to end the practice of DADT. Refute it.
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.
Vageta wrote:
I don't believe sexual orientation, like race, is something that can be logically discriminated against. If you do, feel free to tell me when you think it's ok & why.
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.
Vageta wrote:
Small steps, Captain ******. One change leads to the next.
Almalieque wrote:
If you want it[DADT] changed, fine, but if your goal is to reduce discrimination, that has to be done after reevaluating everything. It doesn't necessarily have to happen all at once, but there should at least be a plan in place.
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.
Vageta wrote:
Nah, this is smart people making a good decision now that the time is right. Only ignorant folks are resisting the change, since there's no logic behind it.
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!!!!!!!