so I was googling random 3 letter combinations, and look what i found for sss

This certainly says more about you than it does about me.

While I have difficulty understanding how any thinking person can reason that engaging in name calling resolves an argument, I have even more difficulty understanding how any decent person is so intent on devolving an argument that they repeatedly resort to slurs such as, "cunt." As you well know you do this with regularity.

Perhaps your despicable hatred of women has become a detriment to your debate skills.
 
You are retarded. Women aren't allowed to serve in corabat roles per the law. The article I posted says that they do get into corabat, but that doesn't change the fact that they are barred from corabat roles by law. The law regarding that hasn't changed significantly since 1981. (I believe women are now allowed to serve on subs... but they still aren't allowed to serve in corabat roles) They are not allowed to serve in corabat units. Their units are not allowed to storm enemy lines like men-only units are allowed to. If you think that the military is violated the Civil Rights Act then you should be focussing on THAT and not on the fact that the military doesn't draft women/make them register with the Selective Service. But I'll remind you that the Civil Rights Act is only a federal law and not a Constitutional amendment so even that discrimination isn't "unlawful".

Now, let's go back to your original assertion that the draft violates the Civil Rights Act. For the fifth time: What part of the Civil Rights Act do you think that drafting only men violates?
 
...which does not change the fact that discrimination based upon gender is unlawful.

I do not argue your point that men are fitter for military service than women; but I do assert that since there is conscription and since there are laws in place which forbid discrimination based upon gender, either women should be sent the same SSS document as men or the law(s) against unlawful discrimination should be modified.
 
That isn't true at all. 18 year olRAB are not kiRAB. Plus it would take an act of Congress and the president to institute a draft which is hardly being able to do it "whenever it pleases them". The only real difference with having the SSS and trying to setup something after a draft was instituted is we'd be able to more quickly raise conscript people and it would be more fair*.

*Well, less people would slip through the cracks due to flaws in figuring out who could be drafted due to shit being thrown together at the last second.
 
Since the FEDERAL law requires that there must NOT be discrimination on the basis of gender, (or race,) the FEDERAL law requiring only males to register for Selective Service is illegal. This is the logical outcome. Whether or not this has been challenged to date, the facts remain the same. FEDERAL law requires that there must be no discrimination based upon certain status...one of them being gender, another being race. Perhaps we should accept the premise that the Federal Government can make a law, but then accept that it only applies to black people...because, after all, it was really meant to only apply to black people.

The LAW of the land is that there will not be discrimination based upon gender. Much as I abhor the notion, this is the law. You cannot deny.
 
I keep seeing this thread and keep thinking that this guy never heard of or knew about the SSS until today, and it cracks me the fuck up
 
Deceiver, didn't you grow up outside the United States? For some reason, I thought you did.

If so, perhaps that's why he's never heard of the SSS
 
It isn't unlawful.

The state has to demonstrate that there is a valid state interest to discriminate and then it can usually do so. In this case, the state interest is that men make better soldiers or whatever so they can discriminate and only draft men into the armed forces if they want to.

Maybe you mean "immoral" or "unfair" or "stupid" or something instead of "unlawful". Because, pretty much anything that is written out to be allowed in the law isn't "unlawful"... ya know what I mean?
 
But think two moves into the game. The Federal Government has already passed laws which make selective discrimination illegal.

The Federal Government, under Title VII made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion.

The Fair Housing Act made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of marital status. It took a long while for FNMA/FHLMC to catch up with the reality of the Fair Housing Act. But they eventually changed their underwriting rules to comply with the Fair Housing Act, so that they conferred upon couples who lived together the same benefits as those who were married.

So, it is inevitable that since there is in place a Federal law, Title VII, which mandates non-discrimination based upon gender, that someone will bring a suit to insure that girls will also be required to register for the Selective Service.

While mine is a logical conclusion, I am not arguing that what is in the law is correct or welcome.
 
I had never heard of "registering" for the selective service system until my son got a notice in the mail, almost the second he turned 18. I thought the draft was over in this country and our service men and women are all volunteers. So it was a bit disconcerting that the government, which requires you to have a SSN for you KID the second they're born, suddenly senRAB you a requirement to register your KID for the Selective Service. Thread starter has reasonable questions as to the validity of such an intrusion.
 
Back
Top