DADT repeal: Question for Republicans/Conservatives.

[Texanmike]

there is no right to serve in the military.

but there is a right to not be discriminated against if you do.

or do you think those mean liberal judges shouldn't have forced the military to desegregate either?

Apple, Orange? Meet one another. Now lets compare.

Mike

not apple/orange except to people who want it to be.

thanks anyway, mike.

Gay, straight /= black, white.

Or do I get to define myself as a minority too? I'm over 6ft tall. No question that is genetic. I'm over 6ft tall AND have black hair. And yes, I've heard disparaging comments as I walk though Korea Town (I speak korean... really). Holy shit. 3/4 of the states ratified an amendment to make race a protected class. How many states have done the same for sexual preference?

And the second part "except to people who want it to be." is very telling. VERY telling. You will use/alter/amend/twist ANYTHING to get what you want. Your principles last only as long as your desire.

Mike

 

[jillian]

you think gay/straight aren't equal because YOU don't want them to be. before you can discuss rights, etc., you have to understand that.

i'm sorry for your bias. i hope you get beyond it at some point.

no amendment made race a protected class. race became a protected class because of court decisions. anti-discrimination laws were passed later. the reality is, however, if the equal protection clause of the constitution were properly enforced, anti-discrimination laws would be made extraneous.

i grew up as a minority, too. i'm 5' tall. oh yeah... and jewish.

does that mean i need a constitutional amendment to be entitled to equal protection under the law?

 

[Lokiate]

I'm for the repeal, because it's stupid to discharge a good Service Member based on their sexuality. Nothing else changes, except for the sodomy, and "carnal knowledge" portion of UCMJ, which was rarely, if ever, enforced. Due to DOMA, however, same-sex marriages will not be honored by the military.

That's a topic I'm divided on. I don't believe DOMA should exist, since it limits the liberties of gay Americans, but if gay couples were allowed to have on, or off post housing, there wouldn't be much to stop two straight Soldiers from getting a marriage certificate, and scamming the Army for a "party house". I know, because I'm not the only Soldier that thought about doing that once I heard about the repeal, lol. But seriously, that's a lot of money the Military would be spending on grifters. We already spend a ton on "contract marriages".

 

[Warrior102]

I could care less.
I retired 13 years ago.
Time for the next generation to do as they please.
My biggest concern is what's on HBO tonight - not this DADT thing.

 

[Baron]

Gays should not be allowed in the Military.

 

[JenT]

It's so simple.

If your idea of a mate is a perversion and misuse of body and nature, don't show it off.

Sexual preferences should not be an issue. Killing the enemy is. The rest is just social agenda being inflicted on men and women that shouldn't have to put up with all this nonsense.

Everyone can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own closets, please leave it there. Our troops have better things to worry about, like defending our country.

 

[Seawytch]

It's so simple.

If your idea of a mate is a perversion and misuse of body and nature, don't show it off.

Sexual preferences should not be an issue. Killing the enemy is. The rest is just social agenda being inflicted on men and women that shouldn't have to put up with all this nonsense.

Everyone can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own closets, please leave it there. Our troops have better things to worry about, like defending our country.

Now that DADT is repealed, sexual orientation isn't an issue. Now all service members serve under the same rules and the gay ones don't have to live in fear of discharge if THEIRS is discovered.

 

[Texanmike]

you think gay/straight aren't equal because YOU don't want them to be. before you can discuss rights, etc., you have to understand that.

i'm sorry for your bias. i hope you get beyond it at some point.

no amendment made race a protected class. race became a protected class because of court decisions. anti-discrimination laws were passed later. the reality is, however, if the equal protection clause of the constitution were properly enforced, anti-discrimination laws would be made extraneous.

i grew up as a minority, too. i'm 5' tall. oh yeah... and jewish.

does that mean i need a constitutional amendment to be entitled to equal protection under the law?

I love the "anti-discrimination laws". I wish we would end them all. Just for the record. If we want to practice a discrimination free life we need to carry around dice or coins and flip or roll for every decision we make in life. Separate discussion but EVERY discrimination law is unconstitutional if it is applied to a private entity. And where did you get that I had a bias?

Jewish? Really? You sacrifice christian babies? I'm kidding of course. I have a very close friend who is an OJ (as opposed to an OG). She drinks the blood of christian babies and I am a polytheist (a christian... the trinity... 3 *ods and whatnot).

If we're going to be brutally honest though, while I agree that you don't want race/sex based discrimination in a government agency there are certain life choices you make that make you unfit for certain jobs. Being openly gay is one of them in the military. It doesn't mean I hate gays, which doesn't mean I condone the behavior. I have been clear about my personal stance almost since I got here (in the middle of the raging 14th amendment/gay marriage thread). I just don't care where you put your member as long as you keep it the hell away from me. I don't think that flamboyantly gay works, I don't think that openly gay works. I don't think that we should be talking about sex in the military anyway. I think that the lifestyle choice you make is unacceptable. Guess what, cheating on your spouse can get you kicked out too.

Here's the problem. We have non military members making military decisions. Why not have civilians tell us what maneuvers and tactics they want us to use too? Do you think there isn't going to be repercussions from this decision? Serving is not a right. Joining is not a right. There are people with no arms and no legs that are barred from military service. Hell there are people with a waist size of over 37.5 inches that aren't allowed to join. Why is noone screaming about anti-fat discrimination? Are you telling me someone with a 38 inch waist cannot "do their job"? There are standards to be in the military. We are not civilians. We do not have the same requirements and we don't have the same rights as everyone else in life. Don't like it? DON'T JOIN. I am telling you right now. This WILL cause a morale problem in the US military. We will lose good men and women, straight and gay, in combat as a result of this. Don't you dare tell me "it may happen occasionally but its worth it." This is going to impact unit cohesion and anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Did you ever notice how they didn't ask the military what worked? Pentagon officials are now saying "We will make it work." Prior to receiving the mandate, nobody was saying "I think we should.....". Do you know why? Because it is problematic. Nobody cares though. We are to worried about someone's rights. The sickest thing of all? Someone who signed up to defend this country and give their life in defense of this country is going to wind up giving their life, not in defense of the nation but so that someone can exercise a right that does not exist.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

It's so simple.

If your idea of a mate is a perversion and misuse of body and nature, don't show it off.

Sexual preferences should not be an issue. Killing the enemy is. The rest is just social agenda being inflicted on men and women that shouldn't have to put up with all this nonsense.

Everyone can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own closets, please leave it there. Our troops have better things to worry about, like defending our country.

Now that DADT is repealed, sexual orientation isn't an issue. Now all service members serve under the same rules and the gay ones don't have to live in fear of discharge if THEIRS is discovered.

You know what's funny? There was all of this talk about "END DADT". How come nobody who was championing that was also championing "Let people who disagree with that out of the military"?

Look, I wouldn't have gotten out anyway but I will tell you this. I know damn well there are people that hate gays with a passion in the military. You don't think for a minute that if people get deployed a that a significant portion of the people they're serving with aren't going to have a prejudice that runs as deep as religion... serving next to a guy who is openly gay? You don't think that puts all three of them in jeopardy? Why was that not thought through? Someone who came into the service under the impression that they would not be asked to shower next to someone who is gay (I don't give a damn... I view it much like showering next to a girl-- it makes me uncomfortable) in a battle zone? There was ZERO consideration given to anyone but the people who are gay. Why? This was a fucking political crusade. That is ALL it was. Nobody said "If we're going to do this, we're going to do this right!". If people get deployed and they're stuck in a unit with a guy who "Hates dem fags" and an openly gay guy... if that costs them their life... will anyone morn that? You going to explain to their son why they died? No. You will pretend it didn't fucking happen. Easy to sit there and throw stones... To hell with every last one of you who is willing to sacrifice their life for some stupid ideology.


Mike

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's so simple.

If your idea of a mate is a perversion and misuse of body and nature, don't show it off.

Sexual preferences should not be an issue. Killing the enemy is. The rest is just social agenda being inflicted on men and women that shouldn't have to put up with all this nonsense.

Everyone can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own closets, please leave it there. Our troops have better things to worry about, like defending our country.

Now that DADT is repealed, sexual orientation isn't an issue. Now all service members serve under the same rules and the gay ones don't have to live in fear of discharge if THEIRS is discovered.

But now its the 'poor' transgender freaks that are living in fear of being kicked out, lol.

The homosexuals are all about politics and advancing their 'community' interests. They could not give a flip less what happens to this nation as long as they get what they want.

 

[Richard-H]

Do I support the repeal of DADT?

I ain't saying.

And I think that you should have never asked.

 

[jillian]

Sexual preferences should not be an issue. Killing the enemy is. The rest is just social agenda being inflicted on men and women that shouldn't have to put up with all this nonsense.

Everyone can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own closets, please leave it there. Our troops have better things to worry about, like defending our country.

Now that DADT is repealed, sexual orientation isn't an issue. Now all service members serve under the same rules and the gay ones don't have to live in fear of discharge if THEIRS is discovered.

You know what's funny? There was all of this talk about "END DADT". How come nobody who was championing that was also championing "Let people who disagree with that out of the military"?

Look, I wouldn't have gotten out anyway but I will tell you this. I know damn well there are people that hate gays with a passion in the military. You don't think for a minute that if people get deployed a that a significant portion of the people they're serving with aren't going to have a prejudice that runs as deep as religion... serving next to a guy who is openly gay? You don't think that puts all three of them in jeopardy? Why was that not thought through? Someone who came into the service under the impression that they would not be asked to shower next to someone who is gay (I don't give a damn... I view it much like showering next to a girl-- it makes me uncomfortable) in a battle zone? There was ZERO consideration given to anyone but the people who are gay. Why? This was a fucking political crusade. That is ALL it was. Nobody said "If we're going to do this, we're going to do this right!". If people get deployed and they're stuck in a unit with a guy who "Hates dem fags" and an openly gay guy... if that costs them their life... will anyone morn that? You going to explain to their son why they died? No. You will pretend it didn't fucking happen. Easy to sit there and throw stones... To hell with every last one of you who is willing to sacrifice their life for some stupid ideology.


Mike

they didn't let racists out when they desegregated the military either. gay soldiers who risk their lives deserve to have their famiies acknowledged same as any heterosexual.

it's really that simple.

 

[Immanuel]

I think what is funny is that DADT was Clinton policy and now liberals think it was a terrible law after they championed it under Clinton. It was just the first step to an "integrated" military.

As for the poll, I can't select either one of the answers because I don't care. If homosexuals serve in our military and do not break military codes (and I don't think they do) then I simply have no problem with them serving. As long as they are willing to follow the same rules as everyone else, then so what? Let them have the same honor of serving their country that the rest of us have.

Immie

 

[Texanmike]

Now that DADT is repealed, sexual orientation isn't an issue. Now all service members serve under the same rules and the gay ones don't have to live in fear of discharge if THEIRS is discovered.

You know what's funny? There was all of this talk about "END DADT". How come nobody who was championing that was also championing "Let people who disagree with that out of the military"?

Look, I wouldn't have gotten out anyway but I will tell you this. I know damn well there are people that hate gays with a passion in the military. You don't think for a minute that if people get deployed a that a significant portion of the people they're serving with aren't going to have a prejudice that runs as deep as religion... serving next to a guy who is openly gay? You don't think that puts all three of them in jeopardy? Why was that not thought through? Someone who came into the service under the impression that they would not be asked to shower next to someone who is gay (I don't give a damn... I view it much like showering next to a girl-- it makes me uncomfortable) in a battle zone? There was ZERO consideration given to anyone but the people who are gay. Why? This was a fucking political crusade. That is ALL it was. Nobody said "If we're going to do this, we're going to do this right!". If people get deployed and they're stuck in a unit with a guy who "Hates dem fags" and an openly gay guy... if that costs them their life... will anyone morn that? You going to explain to their son why they died? No. You will pretend it didn't fucking happen. Easy to sit there and throw stones... To hell with every last one of you who is willing to sacrifice their life for some stupid ideology.


Mike

they didn't let racists out when they desegregated the military either. gay soldiers who risk their lives deserve to have their famiies acknowledged same as any heterosexual.

it's really that simple.

Nevermind.

Mike

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think what is funny is that DADT was Clinton policy and now liberals think it was a terrible law after they championed it under Clinton. It was just the first step to an "integrated" military.

IIRC, prior to that time the ban on homosexual in the military was contained in a DOD Directive, something as C-n-C Clinton could order reversed. He campaigned on the issue and stated that if elected he would reverse the DOD policy. To prevent his ability to do that, Congress lead by Social Conservatives (not Republican's - Social Conservatives) put the same language from the DOD Directive into the United States Code (10 USC 654) as part of the National Defense Authorization Act which is what funds the ENTIRE military. If Clinton had vetoed the legislation, it would have defunded the military for the next fiscal year. The President cannot repeal Law by Executive Order.

That resulted in the compromise, Congress got the ban on homosexuals enacted into the United States Code but the military remained funded and Clinton issued an Executive Order requiring DOD not to ask people if they were homosexual.

Due to sloppy language that something that most people don't understand, "DADT" was not part of the law, DADT was simply an Executive Order. The law still existed where homosexuality was a disqualifying condition for service.

As for the poll, I can't select either one of the answers because I don't care. If homosexuals serve in our military and do not break military codes (and I don't think they do) then I simply have no problem with them serving. As long as they are willing to follow the same rules as everyone else, then so what? Let them have the same honor of serving their country that the rest of us have.

Immie

Fair enough.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

You know what's funny? There was all of this talk about "END DADT". How come nobody who was championing that was also championing "Let people who disagree with that out of the military"?

Each person that enlisted and each Officer that incurs obligated service knows in advance that Congress can change the rules and it is part of the original contract.

Officers serve at the pleasure of the President, and as long as they don't have obligated service (for ROTC, advanced school, promotion, etc...) they can resign their commission at any time. So far I haven't hear of mass resignations in the Officer ranks.



>>>>

 

[daveman]

The repeal of the DADT was a sad day for America.

It's sickening that we now depend on faggots to defend our nation.

Even faggots, as you so hatefully term them, would kill Islamofascists.

Just sayin'. Have a nice day.

 

[Immanuel]

I think what is funny is that DADT was Clinton policy and now liberals think it was a terrible law after they championed it under Clinton. It was just the first step to an "integrated" military.

IIRC, prior to that time the ban on homosexual in the military was contained in a DOD Directive, something as C-n-C Clinton could order reversed. He campaigned on the issue and stated that if elected he would reverse the DOD policy. To prevent his ability to do that, Congress lead by Social Conservatives (not Republican's - Social Conservatives) put the same language from the DOD Directive into the United States Code (10 USC 654) as part of the National Defense Authorization Act which is what funds the ENTIRE military. If Clinton had vetoed the legislation, it would have defunded the military for the next fiscal year. The President cannot repeal Law by Executive Order.

That resulted in the compromise, Congress got the ban on homosexuals enacted into the United States Code but the military remained funded and Clinton issued an Executive Order requiring DOD not to ask people if they were homosexual.

Due to sloppy language that something that most people don't understand, "DADT" was not part of the law, DADT was simply an Executive Order. The law still existed where homosexuality was a disqualifying condition for service.

As for the poll, I can't select either one of the answers because I don't care. If homosexuals serve in our military and do not break military codes (and I don't think they do) then I simply have no problem with them serving. As long as they are willing to follow the same rules as everyone else, then so what? Let them have the same honor of serving their country that the rest of us have.

Immie

Fair enough.



>>>>

I'm sorry, you are right, I should have said executive order rather than law. I simply didn't feel it was necessary to type it out.

Immie

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think what is funny is that DADT was Clinton policy and now liberals think it was a terrible law after they championed it under Clinton. It was just the first step to an "integrated" military.

IIRC, prior to that time the ban on homosexual in the military was contained in a DOD Directive, something as C-n-C Clinton could order reversed. He campaigned on the issue and stated that if elected he would reverse the DOD policy. To prevent his ability to do that, Congress lead by Social Conservatives (not Republican's - Social Conservatives) put the same language from the DOD Directive into the United States Code (10 USC 654) as part of the National Defense Authorization Act which is what funds the ENTIRE military. If Clinton had vetoed the legislation, it would have defunded the military for the next fiscal year. The President cannot repeal Law by Executive Order.

That resulted in the compromise, Congress got the ban on homosexuals enacted into the United States Code but the military remained funded and Clinton issued an Executive Order requiring DOD not to ask people if they were homosexual.

Due to sloppy language that something that most people don't understand, "DADT" was not part of the law, DADT was simply an Executive Order. The law still existed where homosexuality was a disqualifying condition for service.

As for the poll, I can't select either one of the answers because I don't care. If homosexuals serve in our military and do not break military codes (and I don't think they do) then I simply have no problem with them serving. As long as they are willing to follow the same rules as everyone else, then so what? Let them have the same honor of serving their country that the rest of us have.

Immie

Fair enough.



>>>>

I'm sorry, you are right, I should have said executive order rather than law. I simply didn't feel it was necessary to type it out.

Immie

Law v. EO wasn't that important. The thought was more about, as I remember it, that Clinton had campaigned that he would end the DOD Directive (which as C-n-C he could do). However it was Social Conservatives (not to be confused with Republicans as at the time there were Democratic supporters also) that essentially took the power of allowing homosexuals to serve on the same terms as heterosexuals away from the Office of the President by passing a bill that changed the United States Code. The provisions were putting it into the National Defense Authorization Bill the choice was (a) veto the bill and defund the military, or (b) accept the bill, issue the EO, & fund the military. DADT was not the original intent, DADT was a compromise.


Don't blame me though, I voted for Bush I.


>>>>

 

[Texanmike]

You know what's funny? There was all of this talk about "END DADT". How come nobody who was championing that was also championing "Let people who disagree with that out of the military"?

Each person that enlisted and each Officer that incurs obligated service knows in advance that Congress can change the rules and it is part of the original contract.

LOL. This is funny at best. Like I said. This is bow down to a minority for political purposes. Screw anyone who doesn't like it. Glad people like yourself who aren't affected by this are good with it.

Officers serve at the pleasure of the President, and as long as they don't have obligated service (for ROTC, advanced school, promotion, etc...) they can resign their commission at any time. So far I haven't hear of mass resignations in the Officer ranks.

>>>>

Of course you haven't. Do you think people who can end it at any time are going to say "I'm doing it because I don't like gay people?"

Mike