Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=71199
Printed Date: February 23 2025 at 06:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional
Posted By: JLocke
Subject: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 22:13
|
I'm sure everyone knows about this already, and it has probably even been discussed in some of our political threads, but I couldn't find a specific topic related to it, so yeah . . . http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/10/EDII1FBT5P.DTL - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/10/EDII1FBT5P.DTL What are some of your thoughts? I hope this ruling stands, even when the opposition tries to get it re-evaluated. It's about time someone put their foot down and actually respected our damn constitution for once. Non-Americans are free to chime in with their thoughts too, of course.  |
Replies:
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 22:29
|
Well, I'm old fashioned, but I think military policy should be set by
the military, not judges. I trust they are better able to gauge the
effects of rules on their troops, and I think military effectiveness is more important than the rights of the individual who has agreed to join that group. I think one agrees to the
military's rules of admission when you sign the paper. I'm not against gays and lesbians serving personally, my reaction is more about judges and their power to overturn military authority. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 22:44
|
In the modern world and hopefully more tolerant world, sexual preference should have no bearing on whether military or federal parties agree or disagree. Either soldier I would be proud to stand next to in a line of battle. They deserve medals just for showing up for their country regardless whether they are gay or hetero or where they are going and why? Democarts may not agree on Iraq etc but every soldier has the governments full backing. The army should not decide on sexual preference either, that is wrong, they just need to spend their budget dollars more wisely in managing ' digs"
ps: Non citizen/permanet resident POV  ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 22:58
I pretty much agree with this. As I mentioned elsewhere, it's a conflict of interest having a government-appointed body interpret a document that is meant to restrict the government. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Finnforest wrote:Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 22:59
You would stand next to a gay solider, fine. Would you shower with one? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:01
I would. I'm not afraid of any gay-germs.  Would I get paid? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:03
------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:06
Are we then acknowledging that soldiers are by default homophobic? -------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:07
My fears? I don't fear gay people. Should women and men in the military shower together? Why or why not? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:10
This is all I'm really saying. If the apparent discrimination of homosexuals in the military weren't already apparent, I wouldn't care one way or the other. But when you're fighting to serve your country, you should have the dignity to be seen as exactly who you are, and not hide behind some clownish policy some homophobe dreamed up to muddy the waters. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:11
Whoa, I don't acknowledge anything of the sort. A few will be, sure, but my comments don't say that. To you other comment, I'd have no problem showering with anyone if I signed up for it. I just think the military owns you when you enlist. You can't have an army of individuals whining about their rights if you expect to maintain discipline. YOu can whine once you get out. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:13
Not all men in the shower would be gay, though. It's a different scenario. It's complex. But I would've guessed freedom would be first for you, wouldn't it? What freedom is there if one's forced to hide behind a curtain of secrecy, behind a lie? It'd be better then if there was a requisite to join the army: "be straight". -------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:15
Bullsh*t. The military doesn't enable you to express yourself. The military teaches you to march in step, wear the same clothes as everyone else, and be on a strict schedule. If you sign up, you become a clone when you wear those army greens. And that's an important aspect of being a solider. Did you know religious soldiers aren't allowed to proselytize while they are deployed? Should they be allowed to be who they are in the course of military duty? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:16
|
Showers? Showers? Hell when I was in junior high some dude peed on me every day in the showers. (Water was always cold, I knew when someone was peeing.) I may be confused, but don't gay soldiers kill other people just the same as da others? ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:17
Being forced to hide the deepest part of yourself for fear of being kicked out of the service is a very serious issue for some. To call it 'whining' when someone speaks out about it is unfair. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:17
See my previous post. When you join the military, a good bit of your freedoms go out the window. That's why I'm opposed to the draft. You know what you are getting into. Don't like it? Work elsewhere. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:22
I'm not saying we should let the gays go have gay sex whenever they feel like it while in the service. But to lie about who they are? Surely you can see the difference, here. It's not about expressing yourself, it's about feeling comfortable in your own skin during your service time. I guarantee you that a few closeted gay soldiers had a lot more inner torment going on than their openly straight brothers in arms. You don't think that can affect how you perform or your self-respect? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:22
Bullsh*t. -------------
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:23
So, if an openly gay man or woman always dreamed of being a soldier, that's just tough sh*t? Listen to yourself. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:24
 Except the last line. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:25
You are forcing people to lie. You know what happens when men get together? They talk about "manly stuff". All gays in the army will have to pretend they're something else, and everytime they do, they're lying, to protect themselves. Nobody is asking "free gay sex in the army. Let soldiers f**k each other". But if a soldier wants to say "sorry I'm gay man" that should be his right. Everywhere. -------------
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:25
Well, I can't speak for my fellow libertarians, but I certainly wouldn't belittle someone else's points when they involve subjects as deep as this. At least not intentionally. What sort of libertarians have you been talking to? Pat? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:28
You missed what I just said. An aspect of being in the military- which people voluntarily sign up for- is conformity. If you can't handle that, you don't belong. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:29
|
It's a tendency I notice. Any "liberal" complain is "whining". Every libertarian complain is "in liberty's sake".
We're all the same bullsh*t amateur politicians choosing very carwfully which words to use that best serve our own interests. -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:32
I insist: put the requisite in the army invitations and rules and we'll all be ok. If everybody is required to be hetero, then no gay can enlist or he'll have to lie by his own choice. -------------
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:32
And I say again: if you dream of being something exceptional, you shouldn't have to hide who or what you are to fulfill that dream. The way you present it, the matter is much too simple. What if you had to say you were an Atheist in order to write music or play guitar? Would you be happy with that? I realize there are other factors that make the real issue much more complex than that, but hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from. You talk about this as if it's just as simple as what I presented in my example. ''You know you can't admit to being a believer if you want to be a musician. Don't like that about it? Seek another profession. Screw your passions and ambitions.'' |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:34
Sorry you don't like the word, I think it's right on in this case. The military is about the mission and the team, not the individual. Nor should it start now. Off to bed...later ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:35
 ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:36
T, really? You're kind of making yourself look silly, as though you haven't been paying attention. You go from one extreme to the other. Don't ask means you don't ask. Don't tell means you don't tell. This means when you are serving with someone else, you don't know if they are gay or straight. This is not forcing anyone to lie. It's forcing people to shut up about something. What's wrong with that? How do gay people have to pretend to be something they aren't? In other words, what must they do differently in the course of their duties as soldiers than they would if DADT didn't exist? I asked a question that was conveniently ignored. Here it is again: "Did you know religious soldiers aren't allowed to proselytize while they are deployed? Should they be allowed to be who they are in the course of military duty?" In case you don't know, telling others about Jesus is a very important part of being a Christian. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:37
And you think wrongly. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:38
My god, how can you simplify the issue like this? It's not like we're talking about someone being dishonest about their favorite color, we're talking about people being forced to stay silent about their very nature. How dare you call that 'whining'? You can give your case, and be sensible about it, but I don't see how this is as pointless of a complaint as you seem to think it is. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:40
I know where you are coming from. I disagree with you. Playing guitar and being an atheist have nothing to do with one another. Showering and sleeping with people of the same sex, among other things, have something to do with the military. Another question that was conveniently ignored: In the military, should men and women shower together? Why or why not? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:40
And some people can't have a discussion without raising homophobia, racism, or "intolerance" to get a leg up. Read my first post. I said I'm not against them serving. My issue was about who makes the rules for the military. Soon after, the homophobe word appears. And we just go downhill from there.  By the way Teo, I never said Libertarians don't whine. Everyone whines sometimes  ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:42
That's another thing that gets me: "Their very nature." You define yourself by what gender you have sex with? That's pretty shallow if you ask me. You don't see me having parades about being in the same heterosexual relationship for life, do you? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:46
You know that most soldiers in the military assume you are straight. This means that any down time you may have to chat with your buddies or talk about life, you're going to come at the conversation from a heterosexual point of view. Don't tell me that 'staying silent' is still implemented at times like these. ALl the straight guys can be themselves, but the gays have to either pretend to be straight, shut up and risk arousing suspicion, or simply admit it, and get sent packing. Yeah, real even-handed way of going about things. And I more or less addressed your question with another question. I touched upon the whole christian thing, just used in a different situation. Before I give you my direct answer, let me ask you: what reasons are given for the christian soldiers to not spread the gospel? What do they say is harmed by such an action? |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:48
Well, you never HAD to, did you? Your rights to be straight anywhere you go haven't been limited or threatened by backward laws or public discrimination, have they? Maybe you haven't noticed, but being gay hasn't always been accepted. If I belonged to a long-unjustly-treated minority, I'd sure as hell put some extra importance on the very aspect of myself that caused all the fuss. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:49
|
Robert, army, lots of men, together. Questions about sex and related stuff will happen. Some men have to conceal what they are and even more, lie about what they are.
Not being able to proselytize about religion is not the same as saying "don't ask don't tell" about the same subject. A soldier can ask another about his beliefs and that's it. One thing is just saying who you are, another is proselityzing, which is, in a word, "selling". Telhe equivalent with sexual orientation would be "none is allowed to ask or request sexual favors" which could make sense. I thought believing and doing Jesus' commands was important, more so than trying to sell him. -------------
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:50
 .
Anyway so what if you are showering and there is a gay person next to you. Why feel so threatened, he/she might die for you tomorrow taking a bullet. Priorities please
BTW, I wonder how many religious people are terrified of saying "Allah protect me or JC, pray for my safety out loud, come on, you gonna be highlighting typo's next. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:51
Well in this case, you don't have a problem with Don't Ask Don't Tell- you have a problem with DADT not being followed. As for sharing the Gospel...think about trying to share the Gospel with Muslims in Iraq. The military even burned Bibles send to the Middle East. My thing is this: When you join the military (voluntarily) you give up who you are. You become a piece of a unit, and you remain as such until you are done. Notice that I nowhere said I agree with DADT...I just think, as Finn said, that the military should determine these guidelines, not judges (especially since many of these judges have no military experience). ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:53
You don't hold parades for being heterosexual because that's something that society has never made you be ashamed of. If by some strange event society suddenly started seeing christianism as wrong and abnormal, I'm sure you'll be holding parades to defend your right. -------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:54
Jesus commanded that we share the Gospel, T. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:55
I'm a conservative Christian. Society tries to make me feel ashamed about that all the time. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:55
It's difficult for individuals with privilege and a stake in the hegemonic model to even begin to comprehend the struggle of the marginalized. The reason Epignosis isn't having parades lies in the fact that everything around him already celebrates and supports the model he belong to; parades would be redundant. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:56
You completely skimmed over the point I was trying to make. I already admitted in the same post that my scenario was not an accurate equivalent from the military's perspective. But can we just pretend for a moment that my proposition was real? And somehow, it WAS a detriment for a musician to be religious? How would that make you feel? To know that you had to either never publicly admit to your belief in God, or you wouldn't be able to do something you love, like play music? Even if it could be seen as something completely practical, would you enjoy being forced into such a position? You know you wouldn't. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:56
Actually, Walter (thank you for your post 1989 psychoanalysis), I don't have parades because I f**king hate crowds. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:56
------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:56
-------------
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:58
Say "NO!" to new music and say "NO!" to oppressive privilege. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2010 at 23:58
And you're proud as hell to admit that about yourself, aren't you? Well, so are gays, blacks, etc. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:01
|
There's a real danger here that some are confusing a chosen belief system and a behaviour trait? I'm not even sure if choice is applicable to sexual attraction. The reverse side of the coin for a straights only army would be putting gay men in female prisons. And why is a straights only military considered such a shoo-in - why not a Pink Military? There also must be millions of straight females in the army who work alongside straight males and this doesn't seem to be a problem (though they ain't in the front line granted) ------------- 
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:03
Alright, good. I'm glad you specified on that. Because what I'm talking about is NOTHING THE SAME! You're not kicked out of the military if you simply say ''I'm a Christian,'' you get kicked out if you try and force your beliefs on others during your time in service. You DO get kicked out of the military by simply saying ''I'm gay''. Come on, Robert. You're being silly. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:04
No, we can't pretend that. It doesn't address the question. Gays can be in the military. Being gay in the military doesn't cause problems. Discussing your gayness in the military is apparently the problem. So I could be a Christian and play music. In your analogy, I just couldn't tell people that I'm a Christian. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:06
And, you would be okay with that?  |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:08
|
Ah, there's five of you and one of me. And it's one in the morning here. I know I can't keep up with this. I probably spent more time than I should have listening to folks with zero US military experience criticizing US military policies. If you sign up, you agree to things. If you don't like those things, don't sign up. That's all I'm saying. Otherwise have a parade or something. I'm off to bed. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:10
My actions should express it. They don't always, but they should. However, to express being gay without words, well...how do you do that? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:11
Disagreement in a democratic society? Oh, right; it's the military. They can dictate their own terms, regardless of what civilian officials in the judicial branch decree. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:12
You missed my very first post, apparently. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:13
|
""Did you know
religious soldiers aren't allowed to proselytize while they are
deployed? Should they be allowed to be who they are in the course of
military duty?" No, but the analogy does not work well for me. The question would be, should they be able to say that they are Christian and should others be able to ask if they are? If the issue was about gays not being allowed to sodomize (or better, try to convert people to homosexuality or introduce soldiers to a homosexual lifestyle) during the course of military duty, then I would find it more relevant. As for men and women in the military showering (and sleeping) together, I'm all for it. Make love AND war. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:14
Apparently the military can do what it wants, eh? Let's ask our friends in other countries how this can turn out. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:16
I assume paying attention is a post-1989 skill, hmm? Off to bed now. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:16
|
. . . and just to add a little more fuel to the fire, what Robert said about people with zero military experience making criticisms is a bit like saying a film critic has no right to do what he does because he's never made a film himself, or saying no average American citizen should criticize their politicians when they feel a wrong move is made. In other words: it's a bit like asking a free society to go against itself. Not gonna work. |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:17
I assume its high time you start posting adequate responses, you post-89 deviant. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:21
Now I better duck I can sense some shrapnel coming my way.
AMANDLA! ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:24
 Would Miles approve of military insularity? Would he exclude individuals based on their traits? Tune in tomorrow! |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:27
and a salute to " Nobody's Hero"------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:36
|
Unfortunately, the sophomoric sentiment of "would I want to shower with a gay dude" really is the heart of the matter. There is a culture of masculinity in this country, to the point that "fag" continues to be the popular schoolyard/street insult. Sugarcoat it however you like, absent of the homophobia factor, there is no issue. Courts and politicians require all sorts of things from the military - including sometimes sending them into life-threatening situations for questionable motives - and the question of judicial power is never raised until a gay guy knocks on the clubhouse door. But the armed forces isn't some club-house run by little boys. The battlefield isn't a playground. There is no room for playground b.s., we are a country at war. I find it insulting to the professionalism of our armed forces to insinuate that they cannot function up to par because they know someone is gay in their midst. These soldiers are trained to keep their cool under enemy fire, go days without sleep or food, and survive in the wilderness. I sincerely do not think they would go to pieces because someone who is deployed on the same mission writes home to their boyfriend rather than a wife or girlfriend. If that doesn't convince any naysayers, consider this: If you were showering with a roomful of dudes, wouldn't you find it more unsettling knowing that there were gay guys all around you, but nobody was allowed to reveal who? ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 00:47
I loved your post, man. Thank you for weighing in on the subject. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 04:22
|
Gays?...In the military?...Next thing you know you'll have blacks and whites serving together. Dogs and cats sleeping together. Anarchy. Anarchy. There's only one thing worse than having gays openly serve in the military and that's homophobes. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 04:26
|
Good Dont ask worked well enough I suppose...but I hope that sillyness is indeed done away with and they are just openly allowed to serve. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 04:26
Why not? I would rather shower with female soldiers though - like in the Starship Troopers movie, where they - among other things which I do not agree with - show a fictional human society that has overcome problems regarding nudity. EDIT: Regardless, I'm probably showering with gay people all the time - whenever I'm at the gym or taking a sauna etc. some of the others in the room may be gay. Where's the problem? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 04:30
|
^ Yeah baby! "I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 04:36
|
HA! Not sure why (logically) this is an issue. I know why it is one....but it makes no sense. The US Military is there to defend our country If you are able to do so, what does it matter? If someone wants to join the Military to either defend our country or benefit from it, as long as they meet the physical standards what right is there to deny them? Shouldn't the army be above all else? An entity that molds you into what it needs, regardless of anything? Besides, more troops = good. I think...I'd imagine? The military is by nature a conservative institution so we all understand the hostility but...get with the times. And not wanting to serve with gay people? Probably. But in the 50's I bet a ton didn't want to serve with blacks. But, well isn't that the point of the whole thing? Not about you... Im rambling but yeah, that's all I got. Good news |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 04:37
|
I think we should be more concerned about bisexuals serving openly in the military, I mean there really goes the neighborhood.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 06:10
|
This is all new to me and I'm not sure I understand DADT and whether repealing it as unconstitutional is a good thing or a bad thing, couching it in ambiguous mummy-speak words doesn't help me understand it any better. The real issue is that homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the US military - fix that and it's all pretty irrelevant. DADT implies that the Military are happy with gays serving in the military as long as they don't know about it - the implication is since no one knows how many gays are already in the services then in the final analysis it make no difference.
The UK military lifted the ban on homosexuals ten years ago and it hasn't affected moral of those serving, or those signing-up for duty. The UK military stands alongside the US troops in the middle-east and are as effective as their US counter-parts and just as willing to fight and protect whatever it is they are out there for. Which, as I understand it, is not a holly war, so yes, the arabic bibles sent out as anti-islamic propaganda by self-serving christian groups who have no right jeopardising the military personnel serving out there should have been confiscated and disposed of by whatever means the military saw fit.
So please, move away from this giggling in the shower crap and focus on the real issue - gays want to server and defend their country so let them. ------------- What? |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 08:33
|
The ban on gays serving in the UK military came to a natural end 10 years ago, at which point even the most diehard conservatives in senior ranks were utterly fed up with the endless number of cases being pursued in the courts and media. The end of the ban has not made our country fall apart (or not any more than it was already, anyway). Gays have always served in all forces. It's time for societies to grow up and accept and move on. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 09:09
|
Perhaps some perspective on the policy: Democrat Harry Truman established procedures for discharging homosexuals in the US military (The Uniform Code of Military Justice signed in 1950). Bill Clinton passed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," meaning that the Armed Forces could no longer inquire about a recruit's sexual orientation. Clinton supported this measure due to the harassment and hazing of gay personnel. (Incidentally, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee at the time, the Democrat Sam Nunn, favored the full ban on gays, while his predecessor, Republican Barry Goldwater, favored lifting the ban altogether. And then you have Nunn's successor, Strom Thurmond... )In other words, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a compromise that allowed homosexuals entry into the US military. Just as there are a plethora of questions job interviewers cannot legally ask you, the military could not inquire about a person's sexual preference. The main difference here is the "don't tell" aspect. Like it or not, political change happens incredibly slowly most of the time. Almost nothing happens overnight. Just a few months ago, Obama and Congress were http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052403681.html - considering a new compromise to repealing DADT. The question is, do you http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-los-angeles/in-support-of-don-t-ask-don-t-tell - "laud the measure for its conciliation or vilify it for its shortcomings?" For the record, I don't have a problem with DADT going away- I have a huge problem with how it happened. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 09:32
|
Klinger wouldn't have been nearly as funny in MASH without the DADT rule. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 09:39
 ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 12:12
(I get that this is not a partisan Democrats vs. Republicans thing and that LCR is a pro LGBT Republican organisation)
Do you want DADT to go away so that gays cannot serve in the US military or do you want DADT to go away so they can server in the US military?
The "huge problem with how it happend" ... is that a problem in how Clinton passed the legislation, or in how LCR made it unconstitutional? ------------- What? |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 12:16
That's discrimination, there should be a lwaw against that, I know there's a law against it in Holland.
maybe it would be better to ban homophobes from the army than there wouldn't be a problem also. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 12:29
I think banning gays from serving in the military is outrageous. I see DADT as a stepping stone for allowing gays to serve without fear (for all the measure's flaws- even 6 years after the passing of DADT, Clinton himself said it was a flawed policy). But it was progress, and I don't see DADT as the horrific thing so many here see it as. My problem with how it happened is in my first post on this topic: the judicial system here in the US. We have a Constitution that places limits on the government. Yet unelected, government-appointed judges have the power of interpreting the Constitution. LCR didn't make anything unconstitutional. Something is either unconstitutional or it isn't. DADT has been upheld 5 times in federal courts, and now a federal judge in CA has ruled it as unconstitutional. My problem isn't with this DADT case specifically, but with how unelected judges in this country ultimately hold the trump card and that our checks and balances are an illusion. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 12:53
|
^ Thanks Rob - I get it now. ------------- What? |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 13:03
|
Opinions of judicial power usually align with whether or not people agree with the judge's decisions. For example, with all of the conservative criticisms of judicial power, I have never once heard a conservative complain about when judges handed the presidency over to GW Bush in 2000. And Al Gore clearly won the popular vote - there has been no better example of justices using their power to contradict the will of the people. Where was the conservative backlash when the Supreme Court gave corporations the right to make unlimited campaign contributions? No other decision in history has ever edged our country closer to fascism than this. But there were no complaints about judicial power from the right. But now, corruption and private interests is institutionalized as a result. For some reason this issue of judicial power only reliably surfaces whenever it favors gay rights. Yet, this is precisely the type of scenario that the judicial system is in place for - to defend the rights of those whom the majority would deny... ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 13:16
I'm just one fellow. When Bush got elected over Gore I was 18 and more concerned with about a hundred other things instead of politics. My opinion of judicial power has been taking shape over the past year or so, and has extremely little to do with their making rulings I disagree with. It has even less to do with their rulings regarding gay people. Honestly, I spend very little of my time thinking about gay people. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 13:22
|
I don't mean you personally - I mean conservatives, and then only statistically...
------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 13:28
|
Hmm...it seems like those same unelected judges had something to do with the first 4 years of George W. Bush. Just general stupidity by those that do the electing was the result of the second 4 years. -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 13:30
JPlanet beat me to the punch on that one.  -------------
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 13:31
|
It is sort of funny. It is kind of like the presidential power of Line Item Veto. The Repubs were thrilled to get this rule in while Bush was president. Now that Obama is president, all of a sudden it is kind of a stupid rule that should be thrown out. -------------
|
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 14:47
|
Oh, yeah, the partisan volleying is absurd. Now the GOP says that if Obama is voted out of office, they will do a criminal investigation as to whether this administration acted unlawfully. When dems threatened this in 2008, Obama said he didn't think it was a constructive path to take. I'm sure we will see a supposedly merciful posturing of this sort if Obama is replaced as well...
------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 17:55
Robert, in all your indignation about how the process was handled and how the judicial system has a bearing on what happens in the army... where does your "would you shower with gay soldier" question fit??? And Tuxon, of course I was being sarcastic. I don't want such stupid "only straight men allowed" requirement in the army. But if they will do things this way, they better go 100%...
-------------
|
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 18:00
How do you feel about the ruling that takes limits off of corporate campaign contributions? That was very recent.
All I ask is that what little time you do think of them, is to think of them as equals. . ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 18:06
| Whats the problem with taking a shower with a gay man, I don't get it, is something bad going to happen? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 18:06
Even better: stop even considering you're thinking on gay people as if they were some different kind of people. If you spend time thinking about people, then some of that people can be gay, and that's irrelevant. Otherwise you just don't believe gays and hetero people are the same... -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 18:08
Apparently, gays are unable to control themselves... -------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 18:11
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 18:16
Imagine:Straight soldier: "Damn this guy is gay, let's ask him: 'Hey man look at my thing man!'" Gay soldier: "Sorry man, you're not attractive to me" Morale down, spirit down, army down, war lost. Yes, we better prevent this from happening. -------------
|
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 18:17
Thanks! ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 18:24
And here's another dialogue: Recruiting officer: If you sign on to be a soldier, you're dedicating your life to defending this country. You might be killed in violent combat. You might be crippled or disfigured beyond recognition. You may become completely paralyzed. You may suffer a lifetime of horrifying memories of combat. You might starve in the wilderness, and watch your friends' heads get blown off next to you. Do you still want to join? Potential solder: Yes, sir, I still want to join. Recruiting officer: Good. Oh, by the way, some of the soldiers that will serve with you might be female. But you are forbidden to have sexual relations with them. Potential soldier: No problem, sir. Recruiting officer: Good. And some might be gay or lesbian, and it is permissible for that to be known. Potential solder: Never mind, I can take the part about watching my best friends being brutally killed right in front of me, and possibly being crippled and insane for life, but not that. Sorry! ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 18:29
| Did anyone else see that youtube video of the gay/gay friendly soldiers in Afghanistan doing some lady gaga dance routine in their undies (it can be really hot in Afghanistan mind you) with all kinds of incredible firepower at their feet and stacked near by because they can never be too far from their weapons. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 11 2010 at 19:09
The shower question is a quite relevant. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/what-would-you-do-if-a-gay-or-lesbian-were-in-your-shower-and-other-pentagon-survey-questions.html - The Pentagon asked it, not me. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |