DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Law School Team to Fight U.S. Ban on Women in Combat, Draft

**GuitarLoverBe** · 12-07-2011, 08:39 PM

Well the military has discriminated based on the fact there is no right to serve. Look how long it took to get homosexuals able to serve openly. Look how long it was segregated by race and gender. Is it "right" for them to do that? No it's not right - but they've done it and they were able to because the military is supposed to take the best of the recruiting pool. I never said servicemembers have no rights - what I said is that serving in the military is a privilege -not a right. Just like there's no "right" to have a driver's license. There's no "right" for a lot of things we have in this country. But we have them.

The prohibitions against gays and blacks...and women are not "based on the fact there is no right to serve". There were based on the belief that there was an overriding national security interest. In fact, one of the DADT cases (Witt v. USAF) was decided in favor of Witt in part because the govt. failed to prove the overriding govt. interest.

In today's military, what men are "non vol'd" to join the infantry? I never said that anyone would ruin the infantry. This was my original comment: My point on the forcing is that some people have commented in the past that if it is opened up, then you're going to get women that don't want to be infantry at infantry AIT and "ruining" it or some weird shit.
Is the infantry all-volunteers? Can't say I'm that familar with the Army...I know in the AF we have some people come in "Open General" and get jobs they didn't really want...or get non-vol crosstrained into something they don't want.

So, if men aren't non-vol'd into the infantry...why would women be? Why would women "ruin" it?

There have been people who "think" it will "ruin the infantry" if women are allowed to serve. I say you recruit only those who can meet the same standards that are already in place. That's it. The only thing that's going to change is that if a female wants to be infantry, she would have the choice as a MOS. That's not saying she has to do it. Now she just has more options when determining which service to join. Right...so you agree with the lawsuit?

I know women are already in combat and that's the point some people are getting at. But let's see how many women they can get to support their student law case. Okay.

12-07-2011, 08:39 PM	#15
GuitarLoverBe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 426 Senior Member	Well the military has discriminated based on the fact there is no right to serve. Look how long it took to get homosexuals able to serve openly. Look how long it was segregated by race and gender. Is it "right" for them to do that? No it's not right - but they've done it and they were able to because the military is supposed to take the best of the recruiting pool. I never said servicemembers have no rights - what I said is that serving in the military is a privilege -not a right. Just like there's no "right" to have a driver's license. There's no "right" for a lot of things we have in this country. But we have them. The prohibitions against gays and blacks...and women are not "based on the fact there is no right to serve". There were based on the belief that there was an overriding national security interest. In fact, one of the DADT cases (Witt v. USAF) was decided in favor of Witt in part because the govt. failed to prove the overriding govt. interest. In today's military, what men are "non vol'd" to join the infantry? I never said that anyone would ruin the infantry. This was my original comment: My point on the forcing is that some people have commented in the past that if it is opened up, then you're going to get women that don't want to be infantry at infantry AIT and "ruining" it or some weird shit. Is the infantry all-volunteers? Can't say I'm that familar with the Army...I know in the AF we have some people come in "Open General" and get jobs they didn't really want...or get non-vol crosstrained into something they don't want. So, if men aren't non-vol'd into the infantry...why would women be? Why would women "ruin" it? There have been people who "think" it will "ruin the infantry" if women are allowed to serve. I say you recruit only those who can meet the same standards that are already in place. That's it. The only thing that's going to change is that if a female wants to be infantry, she would have the choice as a MOS. That's not saying she has to do it. Now she just has more options when determining which service to join. Right...so you agree with the lawsuit? I know women are already in combat and that's the point some people are getting at. But let's see how many women they can get to support their student law case. Okay.
	Quote