You appear to be emotional. Settle down.
I assume this was an attempt to be ironic.
People often mistake their personal perspectives as a definition for the general belief. Utopia has been the goal since the Greeks. The Declaration of Independence is very much a prescription fo utopia. Making mistakes and trying to do the "right thing" ever since has been about realizing the purity of utopian society.
Nah. Utopia is an impossible idea. Best we can make it is reachable and not Utopian. It's also not some negative.
And notice that nowhere did I write that it had to. I'm not talking about legal marriage within the military. I am talking about legal spousal preference and SGLI benefits in a nation where courts laugh at their requests to get married. In other words, civilians want the military to pretend that they have the same rights so that they can continue to deny them rights.
If SSM is not recognized, what spousal benefits are you talking about in the absence of a spouse? The rest is pure hogwash. You cannot change everything at once. SSM is the last area of inequity for gays, and it is also a separate issue. AS best I can tell your argument it's that since the civilian world does not treat gays perfectly, it's somehow acceptable for the military to not allow gays to serve openly. Maybe you can clarify your argument, cuz I know you are smarter than that.
Are you being argumentative on purpose? I wasn't talking about jokes. I am talking about malicious behavior. In your civilian world you "may" see discipline and it will probably be in the form of a letter or a class. In the military there will be pay loss, rank loss, and career loss. I would certainly describe that as being far more intolerable than your last job. And in this fashion, just like in blacks and women, the military will lead the way.
The point I was making is that the in the military and the civilian world, the same standards as far as harassment are held. You can make jokes in both and you wil face discipline if you cross the line. In the civilian world, we would not get 60/60, we would get fired. It's career loss, strait up.
Well, first of all, the world has moved past nothing. Gays are ostricized, beaten up, and murdered everywhere. Second, I am quite aware that integrating blacks and women were in the past and that today's issues are about homosexuals. Your attempt to insult my intelligence was sophomoric. I was very clear about how all three social changes were and are similar. And third, you covered what you thought was my mistake for the sake of your pro-homosexual stage. I have been quite clear on my absolute indifference on whether gays serve or not. But being able to serve openly means special considerations in regards to spousal (dependent) preference, especially during conflict. These considerations will not reflect the civilian's prescription for gays in the civilian courts.
Yes, people do things they should not in both the civilian and military world. But there is not systematic discrimination and double standards in relation to this issue in the civilian world, but it has existed in the military. You may have led once, but you are not leading now. And you have still not shown any evidence of any spousal issues.
Long after gays serve openly and have other men as their dependents, civilians will still refuse them legal marriage proving that you have moved past nothing. You will be proven as wrong as all those leftist dreamers that tried to paint the military as being behind in regards to women and blacks decades ago.
I could make some one of the same sex my dependent now. It's not the same thing as marriage. I have no clue what your hangup on that concept is, but iy's way overblown. The "spousal" laws for gays is not going to change in the military because of this.
.....so? Remember, the biggest traitor in the Iraq War was also gay. Are these things supposed to mean something?
Yes, they mean that gays are just like every one else, with the same ability to be heroic or cowardly.