Well if you are going to make a summary of my opinions please get it right rather than twist it to fit your argument. I said being in the military is not a right, I did not say they don't have that right. It has no relavant history in this country, the relavant history is women in the military. Since I do not consider being in the military a "right" I would answer your question this way: I see no reason for blacks to not be admitted into the .mil, and would consider this policy racist. Let me ask you a question: If black people had to use a different bathroom, does this mean they have equal rights?
But non-discrimination by race *is* a right - specified in the Civil Rights Act. No - it means they are being denied equal rights on the basis of their skin color. See how easy that was?
The costs are irrelevant in this scenario - that's true for women but not for gay men. The "social" issues could be used to justify a "no blacks in the military" policy as well, so I'm not sure how that works as a reason in itself. So the question remains - what is the justification for treating gay men differently in the military. It's not that they aren't allowed in - so we've determined that they are perfectly skilled and able to perform their jobs. It's just that they aren't allowed to talk about their relationships - whereas heterosexual men are. You could argue that they are denied their right to pursue happiness (an inalienable right according to our Declaration of Independence) by not being allowed to speak about their relationships for no valid reason. By the way - in the original question, there was no way for you to answer it that would make you a racist. If you answered that they weren't being denied a right in my hypothetical, then it would simply mean you were consistent. If you answered that they were being denied a right in my hypothetical, it would not at all suggest you're racist because you'd be saying they were treated unfairly.
The answer to both questions is that sex also has the same protections under the law, but sex is a discriminationg factor among bathrooms, and military. Thus sex and race really have little to do with each other in this situation. Try making an argument without using race once. Try to think outside the box a bit. Gender based bathrooms are Sep. but equal, which has been shot down when dealing with race.
No there was a way, it is your tactics for arguing. Make the person a racist or make his view racist and thus his argument is shot down. Think about it this way, from the outside a gay man can look and act the same as a straight man. A woman cannot look the same but can do just as good a job. For this reason the only time a gay man can become different is if they talk about their sexuality. This puts similar problems in place as if they were a woman.
Not sure where you are from, but you don't have to get a blood test to get married these days. At least not in Texas.
yeah I know. I didn't get one. Here is the list of states you need one in. http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requirements/index.shtml
Good lord, first they get their own clubs now they get their own brains !? What's next -- gay schools ?
No - the point of the race example was to determine if your views are specifically about homosexuality or if they apply to all forms of discrimination. What problems are those, exactly? The previous time I asked this, you pointed to costs - which are irrelevant in the case of gay men.
Those are not my arguments they are the .mil arguments. The problems to me are social. I don't want my wife in a sub with 200 horny dudes. Why do you need to know my views on discrimination? This is an argument of rights. You just have a need to draw race into it.
I would like to point out that in the military, before Harry Truman signed an executive order desegregating it in 1948, Blacks were treated differently than anyone else who enlisted or was drafted. Early in World War II the Navy relegated blacks to service in the mess halls. The Army and the Air Force--then an Army subdivision-restricted black enlistment to 10 percent. But as the war continued, the Army faced a shortage of ground combat troops. So when black soldiers volunteered, they were permitted to fight alongside white soldiers for the first time in America's history. After the allied victory, three Army generals conducted a study aimed at forming the army's post-war policy on race. Their report concluded the army should "eliminate, at the earliest practical moment, any special consideration based on race." But the report did not specifically question segregation. Meanwhile, outside the military, civil rights leaders pushed for equality for black servicemen. In 1947, President Truman's Committee on Civil Rights issued a report titled "To Secure These Rights", which condemned segregation generally and specifically criticized segregation in the armed forces. Eight months later, in 1948, President Truman officially ended segregation in the armed forces with his executive order. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec98/integration_7-31.html My father served in the Navy during WWII and spoke to me about how Blacks were discriminated against. He never forgot it and made sure my sister and I were taught that discrimination, against anyone, was wrong. Because of him, I took particular notice of the racism around me in Houston during the 1950's. I've mentioned this here before. "Whites only" signs on the doors of the restrooms and the gate at the pool at our local city park. Many bus rides with my grandmother to Foley's downtown, with Blacks crowded in the back. You know, I always wondered why my father would never ride a city bus, and that has to be a reason. He couldn't stand to see it. Dad did more than talk about it, being involved in the hiring of Blacks for the faculty and staff at his college at a major Houston university, in the early days, when it was still very rare. There's no place for discrimination in the military. By treating those who are Gay differently than anyone else, that's exactly what is happening. Someday, this period will be looked back on as backward, and a stain upon American society during this period of our history, in my opinion. Impeach Bush.
what does this have to do with homosexuals today? I must disagree. As already has been pointed out being openly gay changes things. Just as a man cannot use a womans bathroom or locker room our society has cultural issues with sex. Cultures change, and if in the future men and women shower together (like in Starship Troopers) I don't think they will look back at our time and think we were terrible. As I said before both sex and race have equal protection under the law but mens and womens restrooms are legal while black/white/other restrooms are not.
You quoted part of why it is related. If you don't "get it," I certainly won't try any further to change your mind. Impeach Bush.
Too make this discussion more difficult, let's say that my brain is wired to be heterosexual, BUT I DECIDE to be celibate and become a monk. Then what happens to biological determinism? Comparing sexual choices to race does not seem logical to me. Plus, there is the issue of structural plasticity. That is, the human brain is actually capable of changing it's physical structure in response to mental and behavioral processes. Thus, were the differences in the study the cause or result of certain behavior patterns?
It's not identical to race, but both groups have been violently attacked, discriminated against by law, and face bigotry from various media and individuals.
Are furrys biological as well? one wonders what useful biological purpose dressing up in a stuffed animal costume serves.
Very true that it is entirely possible that the physical changes are a result of many things. But just like it is possible for humans to be neither male or female physically I think it is also possible for the mind to be mixed sex or opposite sex programmed. homosexuality has a vast grey area of unknown. That is why even though I think these studies might be helpful I seriously doubt it will ever be possible to make a sweeping generalization that homosexuality is behavorial, or biological, or whatever.
