Nilatai wrote:
Yes, but why? Could you not tell who was gay before? Smiley: dubious
As it was stated before, everyone doesn't flaunt their sexuality. Butch lesbians do it more often because they are socially more accepted. Besides, it doesn't matter if it were known or not.
Nilatai wrote:
Well FSM is a satirical movement for a start. If it were a recognised religion in which the tenets require one to not cut their hair, I'm sure it would be different.
1. From an atheist point of view, the only difference between FSM and Christianity is popularity.
2. Protestant/Catholic Christianity, Muslim and the Jewish religion all focus around the same God. The primary difference is interpretation which is the primary difference among denominations within one primary religion. With that being said, it is not unrealistic to be a protestant Christian who has Muslim interpretations of the Bible.
3. Why would it matter that it's satirical? If you're all about equality, then you must accept religion x and cult y. You can't pick and choose based on what you think makes more sense or what the government supports.
Nilatai wrote:
Everyone is treated the same. They're allowed to serve in the military. It is removing an obstacle that would otherwise prevent that group of people from serving.
Now, you're being in denial. Everyone isn't being treated the same because some have different grooming standards. Removing that obstacle to allow a certain group to serve doesn't prevent you from altering that standard for everyone else. By keeping that standard for one group, but not another, you're discriminating.
Nilatai wrote:
So you think Sikhs shouldn't be able to join the army if they are practising? Okay.
I believe that everyone should have the same hair standards. If you decide to make the standards restrictive to the point where it prevents Sikhs from joining, then that isn't my call.