Poll: Don't ask don't tell

[fraga]

With this issue at hand...do you agree with it...or want to keep it...or really don't give two shits...

[coyotes_geek]

get rid of it. it serves no purpose.

[LnGrrrR]

It's stupid. I should hope that our military is professional enough to accept gay people serving openly.

[Wild Cobra]

It's stupid. I should hope that our military is professional enough to accept gay people serving openly.
Really?

If we get rid of the policy, they can no longer serve. Am I right?

What policy removed the restriction that they cannot serve?

[SnakeBoy]

If we get rid of the policy, they can no longer serve. Am I right?


I don't know, are you right?

Serious question, I don't follow "gay issues".

[coyotes_geek]

If we get rid of the policy, they can no longer serve. Am I right?

If you were right then gays wouldn't be making a fuss about getting rid of DADT, now would they?

[Mel_13]

Really?

If we get rid of the policy, they can no longer serve. Am I right?

What policy removed the restriction that they cannot serve?

Clearly the presumption is that the policy change that removed "don't ask, don't tell" would include a complete revision of the military's policy regarding homosexuals.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know, are you right?

Serious question, I don't follow "gay issues".

I don't either, but to my knowledge, DADT only allows gays to serve because they cannot be asked if they have that as a secret. The military laws appears to remain in force that gays cannot serve, because if they tell, they are kicked out.

I see those wanting to get rid of DADT as falling into two camps.

The ignorant who don't see it as a means to allow gays to serve, and without it they cannot.

Those wo want it removed so gays cannot serve.

Really, what good is removing the policy without changing the military law regarding homosexuality in the military?

[Wild Cobra]

If you were right then gays wouldn't be making a fuss about getting rid of DADT, now would they?
How many times do liberals look at things in a full circle relationship? They go by emotion rather than seeing the full ramifications of things.

[Spurminator]

Better than going on complete ignorance...

[Wild Cobra]

Clearly the presumption is that the policy change that removed "don't ask, don't tell" would include a complete revision of the military's policy regarding homosexuals.
Just like democrats promising to keep taxes reduced for the lower brackets, letting the taxes resume for the rich, but have no written bill yet?

Until their hands are forced, they are nothing but hot air, keeping the desires of the people in play to keep them in power.

Think about it. If politicians actually delivered the things they promised, who would need them?

[Mel_13]

Just like democrats promising to keep taxes reduced for the lower brackets, letting the taxes resume for the rich, but have no written bill yet?

Until their hands are forced, they are nothing but hot air, keeping the desires of the people in play to keep them in power.

Think about it. If politicians actually delivered the things they promised, who would need them?

I'm sure I have no idea what any of that has to do with subject of this thread or my previous post.

DADT is written into federal law. Changing the policy involves changing the law. Those opposed to DADT want homosexuals to be able to serve openly. If they are successful, the change to federal law abolishing DADT will also change the rules on homosexuals serving in the military.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure I have no idea what any of that has to do with subject of this thread or my previous post.

DADT is written into federal law. Changing the policy involves changing the law. Those opposed to DADT want homosexuals to be able to serve openly. If they are successful, the change to federal law abolishing DADT will also change the rules on homosexuals serving in the military.
That's an assumption. Don't you find it interesting that my point on the topic is never discussed?

[Mel_13]

That's an assumption. Don't you find it interesting that my point on the topic is never discussed?

If this is your point:


Really?

If we get rid of the policy, they can no longer serve. Am I right?

What policy removed the restriction that they cannot serve?

Then I believe that I have answered it. You may label it an assumption, but it is no more of an assumption than your position.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

How many times do liberals look at things in a full circle relationship? They go by emotion rather than seeing the full ramifications of things.


Are you seriously saying every gay out there trying to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" is doing so without knowing what you know, that it will have the opposite effect they intend?

How fucking full of yourself are you? seriously!

[ElNono]

That's an assumption. Don't you find it interesting that my point on the topic is never discussed?

You mean your assumption that the restriction not to serve won't be lifted along with DADT?

[byrontx]

How many times do liberals look at things in a full circle relationship? They go by emotion rather than seeing the full ramifications of things.

That's self-descriptive. It is fucking obvious that the purpose of removing DADT is to allow gays to serve openly. It is the type of logic honed by defending illogical neo-con bullshit for years. For WC truth is a secondary to dogma.

[Sisk]

AFAIK it's not existent anymore. My buddy who's a Marine was telling me a few months back that it doesn't apply anymore and how at their recent drill they were discussing it with their CO.

[ElNono]

I see those wanting to get rid of DADT as falling into two camps.

The ignorant who don't see it as a means to allow gays to serve, and without it they cannot.

Those wo want it removed so gays cannot serve.


You need to get out more.

[Wild Cobra]

You mean your assumption that the restriction not to serve won't be lifted along with DADT?
Until we see the actual policy, it's all assumptions, both ways. Right?

All I hear about is removing the DADT policy. I never hear about changing the underlying law. Do you?

[Wild Cobra]

AFAIK it's not existent anymore. My buddy who's a Marine was telling me a few months back that it doesn't apply anymore and how at their recent drill they were discussing it with their CO.
As far as you know?

[CuckingFunt]

I don't know, are you right?

Serious question, I don't follow "gay issues".

There are no "gay issues," only human/equal rights issues.

[Wild Cobra]

There are no "gay issues," only human/equal rights issues.
We all see this from differing perspectives. Don't we.

[CuckingFunt]

If we get rid of the policy, they can no longer serve. Am I right?

No. You are not.

[Wild Cobra]

No. You are not.
How are you sure?

[ElNono]

Until we see the actual policy, it's all assumptions, both ways. Right?

Right.


All I hear about is removing the DADT policy. I never hear about changing the underlying law. Do you?

What I hear is that the goal is for homosexuals and lesbians to be able to serve without having to hide their sexual preference. That implies that whatever needs to be done in order for them to keep on serving would get done.

[CuckingFunt]

How are you sure?

Because I've actually researched the issue before spouting off at the mouth.

[Wild Cobra]

Because I've actually researched the issue before spouting off at the mouth.
Then you have a link available, right?

[CuckingFunt]

Then you have a link available, right?

Kind of hard to link to articles and essays I've read on actual paper. My interests extend beyond interweb arguments.

[Wild Cobra]

Kind of hard to link to articles and essays I've read on actual paper. My interests extend beyond interweb arguments.You should be able to backup when you say you researched something. You didn't read 10 USC 654. Did you?

you must have read propaganda or bullshit.

From TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html):
(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

If you did any meaningful research, you also found this:

103D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, H. R. 2401 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills&docid=f:h2401eh.txt.pdf)

This is what authorized DADT.

[CuckingFunt]

You should be able to backup when you say you researched something. You didn't read 10 USC 654. Did you?

you must have read propaganda or bullshit.

From TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html):

If you did any meaningful research, you also found this:

103D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, H. R. 2401 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills&docid=f:h2401eh.txt.pdf)

This is what authorized DADT.

I don't have to prove fuck all to you. Sorry.

You asked within your own post if your assumptions were correct and I responded that they weren't. If you're genuinely curious about the ramifications of DADT policy and/or its repeal, you'll do your own legwork. If you'd rather post your noncommittal assumptions for the sake of argument, I'm not going to waste my time looking for links on a subject in which I'm already fairly well versed.

[SnakeBoy]

There are no "gay issues," only human/equal rights issues.

Eh, okay I don't follow human/equal rights issues specific to gays. Better?

[spursncowboys]

I think they should keep someone who practices homosexual acts openly out of the same jobs as they keep women out of-combat arms.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, WC. They're going to declare DADT unconstitutional and then allow them to OPENLY violate the equal protection clause. Or better yet, they're going to pass legislation that repeals it but moves backward instead. Sounds like a completely plausible political scenario you've thought out there.

You know, its really fucking hard not to go off on rants when you're such a blatant fucking retard.

There are assumptions then there is flat out idiocy.

[SnakeBoy]

I think they should keep someone who practices homosexual acts openly out of the same jobs as they keep women out of-combat arms.

What do you think their just going to start sucking each other off in the middle of a fire fight if DADT is repealed.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't have to prove fuck all to you. Sorry.

I just showed you current law, and you don't have the integrity to say you were wrong.

Bye.

[MannyIsGod]

I just showed you current law, and you don't have the integrity to say you were wrong.

Bye.

She's not wrong. You linked the current law which has just been found unconstitutional earlier this month and you think falling back to a harsher stance is actually a possibility?

Fuck integrity, you don't have the intelligence to realize when you're obviously wrong yet again.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, WC. They're going to declare DADT unconstitutional and then allow them to OPENLY violate the equal protection clause. Or better yet, they're going to pass legislation that repeals it but moves backward instead. Sounds like a completely plausible political scenario you've thought out there.

You know, its really fucking hard not to go off on rants when you're such a blatant fucking retard.

There are assumptions then there is flat out idiocy.
Maybe you should read the USC I linked, and understand law a bit better.

Serving is a privileged. Not a right. Equal protection as you imply does not apply.

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe you should read the ruling on Log Cabin Republicans vs United States of America. You're right about one thing - its not the 14th amendment in question but the 1st and the 5th. But the fact that it pretty much slams the door on your epic stupidity in this thread simply confirms your condition as a blind ass squirrel.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao @ you asking anyone to understand shit better in this thread.

[Wild Cobra]

She's not wrong. You linked the current law which has just been found unconstitutional earlier this month and you think falling back to a harsher stance is actually a possibility?

Fuck integrity, you don't have the intelligence to realize when you're obviously wrong yet again.
Which court found it unconstitutional? That would be wrong. it wasn't the SC, was it.

If they found that having standards for acceptance are unconstitutional, then there is no longer any line for anything.


Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

[MannyIsGod]

And you know, if that doesn't satisfy you perhaps you could read the actual language of the amendment to real the law you're linking. You know, the one thats about to be voted on very shortly.

[MannyIsGod]

Which court found it unconstitutional?

HERE'S AN IDEA YOU STUPID FUCK: GO DO SOME RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR AMAZINGLY IGNORANT MOUTH.

[Wild Cobra]

And you know, if that doesn't satisfy you perhaps you could read the actual language of the amendment to real the law you're linking. You know, the one thats about to be voted on very shortly.
How about linking it so we can all see it, or is it as real as the democrats keeping the bush tax cuts for the lower tax brackets?

[Wild Cobra]

Which court found it unconstitutional?

HERE'S AN IDEA YOU STUPID FUCK: GO DO SOME RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR AMAZINGLY IGNORANT MOUTH.
All talk and no backup, and you call me the idiot?

Dog. You are a fool.

Link please.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you incapable of using Google, reading a newspaper, or turning on a fucking TV? This isn't exactly something that is buried on some obscure server that only a few select people can get to.

If I claim the sky is blue do I need to back that up with a link too?

The court ruling is not even two weeks old and has been in the news. The bill to repeal is in the senate RIGHT NOW.

You don't deserve a link after you ran your mouth off without in such a ridiculous manner. I'm almost 100% certain that nearly everyone in this thread but you is aware of all of this and they somehow managed to find these things without a link from anyone else on this site because ITS FRONT PAGE NEWS.

News.google.com

There's your link.

[Trainwreck2100]

There are no "gay issues," only human/equal rights issues.

Except in this case where it's a gay issue

[MannyIsGod]

President Obama on signing the repeal into law:

"This legislation will make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity,"

Quick! Someone tell them that Wild Cobra figured out they were all wrong!

[Wild Cobra]

Are you incapable of using Google, reading a newspaper, or turning on a fucking TV? This isn't exactly something that is buried on some obscure server that only a few select people can get to.

If I claim the sky is blue do I need to back that up with a link too?

The court ruling is not even two weeks old and has been in the news. The bill to repeal is in the senate RIGHT NOW.

You don't deserve a link after you ran your mouth off without in such a ridiculous manner. I'm almost 100% certain that nearly everyone in this thread but you is aware of all of this and they somehow managed to find these things without a link from anyone else on this site because ITS FRONT PAGE NEWS.

News.google.com

There's your link.

Idiot.

Case CV 04-08425-VAP is a joke. A central California court doesn't have the authority. The ruling will never hold up in higher courts that do have the authority.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, WC. Everyone is an idiot but you. You've got it all figured out and the rest of us are just here taking up space in your world.

Bravo.

[Wild Cobra]

President Obama on signing the repeal into law:

"This legislation will make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity,"

Quick! Someone tell them that Wild Cobra figured out they were all wrong!
Put your money where your mouth is dog breath. Show me the legislation.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, WC. Everyone is an idiot but you. You've got it all figured out and the rest of us are just here taking up space in your world.

Bravo.
If that's what you believe Dog, I'll let you.

[MannyIsGod]

How exactly is doing your web searching for you putting my money where my mouth is? How would I stand to lose money? Do you know what that phrase means?

Also, what type of authority does the ruling from above have when the government chooses not to appeal the ruling?

:lol

[MannyIsGod]

Really?

If we get rid of the policy, they can no longer serve. Am I right?

What policy removed the restriction that they cannot serve?

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

President Obama on signing the repeal into law:

"This legislation will make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity,"

Quick! Someone tell them that Wild Cobra figured out they were all wrong!
My God Dog.

You can't even get the quote right.

Statement by the President on Votes to Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-votes-repeal-don-t-ask-don-t-tell)

[MannyIsGod]

I don't either, but to my knowledge, DADT only allows gays to serve because they cannot be asked if they have that as a secret. The military laws appears to remain in force that gays cannot serve, because if they tell, they are kicked out.

I see those wanting to get rid of DADT as falling into two camps.

The ignorant who don't see it as a means to allow gays to serve, and without it they cannot.

Those wo want it removed so gays cannot serve.

Really, what good is removing the policy without changing the military law regarding homosexuality in the military?

Such foresight! :lmao

Where would the world be without WC to guide us?

[MannyIsGod]

My God Dog.

You can't even get the quote right.

Statement by the President on Votes to Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-votes-repeal-don-t-ask-don-t-tell)

Um, how exactly was my quote wrong?

[Wild Cobra]

How exactly is doing your web searching for you putting my money where my mouth is? How would I stand to lose money? Do you know what that phrase means?

Also, what type of authority does the ruling from above have when the government chooses not to appeal the ruling?

:lol
It's a saying, and you know that, or are you more an idiot than I already believe?

I mean show me a legitimate link. The legislation on the topic is stalled. the court had no authority.

Can you show I'm wrong?

Really now. A California court having jurisdiction over the DOD and the US congress?

Are you and Cucking really that ignorant?

[Wild Cobra]

Um, how exactly was my quote wrong?
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

It's a saying, and you know that, or are you more an idiot than I already believe?

I mean show me a legitimate link. The legislation on the topic is stalled. the court had no authority.

Can you show I'm wrong?

Really now. A California court having jurisdiction over the DOD and the US congress?

Are you and Cucking really that ignorant?

.....it was a ruling in a FEDERAL court.

Jesus Christ, why don't you just stop posting?

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Oh you think it was wrong because I didn't include the whole statement. I see you also don't know how quotes work. Why should I expect you to get ANYTHING right in this thread?

[MannyIsGod]

Also whether or not the legislation is stalled is irrelevant. You made the point in this thread that the repeal would not let gays openly serve and that no one had thought this through when the legislation in question is obviously nothing like you would like to think.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh you think it was wrong because I didn't include the whole statement. I see you also don't know how quotes work. Why should I expect you to get ANYTHING right in this thread?
Partially playing with you. You left out the word "help."

[Wild Cobra]

being the Devils Advocate, consider this.

If we assume the ruling is correct, and with why it was deemed unconstitutional, then gays are no longer under the protection of DADT. It violated the equal protection clause because heterosexuals can express their preferences, but homosexuals couldn't. Now I skipped around and didn't read the whole 85 pages of the ruling, but as I read it, it only struck down the DADT provisions. Not the right of the armed forces to keep gays from serving.

Am I right or wrong? can you show me I'm wrong?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

:lmao devils advocate my ass

[fraga]

being the Devils Advocate, consider this.

If we assume the ruling is correct, and with why it was deemed unconstitutional, then gays are no longer under the protection of DADT. It violated the equal protection clause because heterosexuals can express their preferences, but homosexuals couldn't. Now I skipped around and didn't read the whole 85 pages of the ruling, but as I read it, it only struck down the DADT provisions. Not the right of the armed forces to keep gays from serving.

Am I right or wrong? can you show me I'm wrong?

Gays were NEVER under the "protection" of don't ask don't tell...if the Military thinks you're gay...they're gonna find out...one way or the other...numerous soldiers have been kicked out because they were probed on the subject...straight up asked...or assumed...these poor people were/are serving in fear...

[CuckingFunt]

I just showed you current law, and you don't have the integrity to say you were wrong.

Bye.

These are my posts in this thread leading up to your posting the verbiage of DADT policy:

There are no "gay issues," only human/equal rights issues.
No. You are not.
Because I've actually researched the issue before spouting off at the mouth.
Kind of hard to link to articles and essays I've read on actual paper. My interests extend beyond interweb arguments.

Please let me know which one was proven wrong by showing me the current law.

[CuckingFunt]

Except in this case where it's a gay issue

Except that it's not.

Military life is probably super rewarding and enjoyable for heterosexual personnel who are wrongly suspected and/or accused of being homosexual and placed in a position of proving their own sexuality.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol @ Devil's advocate

More like dunces advocate.

[ElNono]

This is what happens when you're out of touch with reality... Heck, I don't even follow this issue and read about the Log Cabin Republicans case.

[MannyIsGod]

This is what happens when you're out of touch with reality... Heck, I don't even follow this issue and read about the Log Cabin Republicans case.

Yeah but according to the devil's advocate over there a federal district court has no authority.

[ElNono]

Yeah but according to the devil's advocate over there a federal district court has no authority.

Fringe radio probably didn't explain to him that federal court has authority to declare federal law unconstitutional...

[CuckingFunt]

Now I skipped around and didn't read the whole 85 pages of the ruling, but as I read it,

In case you're wondering, this is why people don't want to invest a lot of time and energy into researching for you.

[MannyIsGod]

Fringe radio probably didn't explain to him that federal court has authority to declare federal law unconstitutional...

Oh I think the problem here is that he didn't spend four weeks as a contractor at a federal court with a gay judge in the 1800s. If he had he'd be telling us all about the court's authority on DADT.

[MannyIsGod]

For the record, Ive not read the entire ruling and yet I've somehow managed to learn the following:

-Why it was declared unconstitutional
-Which court declared it so
-That this does not mean homosexuals will not be able to serve.

[Stringer_Bell]

It's stupid. I should hope that our military is professional enough to accept gay people serving openly.

I would hope that too, but I don't believe that to be the case. That's why I used to think that for the sake of morale and efficiency, DADT was probably the best option. But after seeing the quality of soldiers being "outed," motivated soldiers ready and willing to serve but victims of smears, it's unfair in its application and to have soldiers living in fear of being outed is not good for morale either. Just because someone is gay does not make them faggots, I'm sure there's plenty of straight faggots openly serving in the military that do MUCH more harm to military.

[Will Hunting]

It's stupid. I should hope that our military is professional enough to accept gay people serving openly.
Given that our military wasn't professional enough to avoid making Iraqi POWs perform homosexual actions on one another that's more of a pipe dream than hope.

[boutons_deux]

O'Dumbell: fags/lesbos have identity disorders
(which means her lesbo sister is mentally ill)

The equally ignorant, hate-filled, gay-baiting Family Research Council approves.

[desflood]

It's stupid. I should hope that our military is professional enough to accept gay people serving openly.


I would hope that too, but I don't believe that to be the case. That's why I used to think that for the sake of morale and efficiency, DADT was probably the best option. But after seeing the quality of soldiers being "outed," motivated soldiers ready and willing to serve but victims of smears, it's unfair in its application and to have soldiers living in fear of being outed is not good for morale either. Just because someone is gay does not make them faggots, I'm sure there's plenty of straight faggots openly serving in the military that do MUCH more harm to military.
From what I saw in my time in, most enlisted (read: grunts) don't have a problem serving with gay people. It often happens that there are a few homophobic higher-ups (NCOs or officers) who use what power they have to push their personal issues - to the point of bullying and threatening straight people beneath them in the chain of command to speak out against the homosexual individual. That's not always how things occur, of course, but that's what I've seen.

[byrontx]

I think they should keep someone who practices homosexual acts openly out of the same jobs as they keep women out of-combat arms.

UYUxGwTlshY

[Trainwreck2100]

Except that it's not.

Military life is probably super rewarding and enjoyable for heterosexual personnel who are wrongly suspected and/or accused of being homosexual and placed in a position of proving their own sexuality.

link?

[BlairForceDejuan]

If a man/woman is going to put their life on the line for you, their sexual reference should not even be a care.

Spartans diddled with one another between battles and are looked up to by every generation of macho warrior for the last 2500 years.

[LnGrrrR]

Given that our military wasn't professional enough to avoid making Iraqi POWs perform homosexual actions on one another that's more of a pipe dream than hope.

Oh, I'm sure there will be incidents; but that can't be avoided, civilian or military life. I said we SHOULD be professional enough, and we should hold our military to professional standards.

The Abu Ghrabi thing was not only a failure of professionalism, but a failure of leadership. There's no way that stuff goes on without an implicit wink and nod from up high.

[Crookshanks]

Democrats couldn't get the support they needed to move the legislation forward - sooo, for all intents and purposes, it's dead. The Senate probably won't bring it up again before November 2nd, and if the dems lose several seats, they won't be able to do anything about it later. Supporters of the legislation felt this was their best shot - and it failed.

It didn't help that the man Obama picked to head up the Marines was against repealing DADT.

The gays will just have to stay in the closet.

[Winehole23]

The gays will just have to stay in the closet..com

[fraga]

Those poor fruity bastards...

[Wild Cobra]

If a man/woman is going to put their life on the line for you, their sexual reference should not even be a care.

You're right. However, in many people's mind, there is no difference in having to share a common barracks and common shower with homosexuals, as with the opposite sex. When the showers become coed, then sexual preference truly doesn't matter.

If those of you wanting gays to be able to openly serve, but cannot acknowledge this simple truth, then you are lost in your agenda.

[ChumpDumper]

WC, gay soldiers do not want to look at you in the shower.

[MannyIsGod]

Democrats couldn't get the support they needed to move the legislation forward - sooo, for all intents and purposes, it's dead. The Senate probably won't bring it up again before November 2nd, and if the dems lose several seats, they won't be able to do anything about it later. Supporters of the legislation felt this was their best shot - and it failed.

It didn't help that the man Obama picked to head up the Marines was against repealing DADT.

The gays will just have to stay in the closet.

Except that you seemed to have missed that the law was deemed unconstitutional. Whether your like it or not, this country will be held to the standards of equality set forth by its highest law.

Isn't that a bitch?

[MannyIsGod]

WC, gay soldiers do not want to look at you in the shower.

Or at the bowling alley.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs blocked the defense spending bill to block the DADT repeal

[Winehole23]

Why else do you think the Dems tacked it on, boutons?

[MannyIsGod]

I think they tacked it on to pass the legislation. They had a legit shot at it and its something that is clearly on the agenda to fix on as friendly terms as possible to the military. Should a court ruling come through it could be much uglier for all involved.

Its going to be settled one way or another in favor of repealing this legislation. It was better than the status quo when it was passed but we've definitely progressed as a society on this issue and its time for us to adhere to the principles we allegedly hold so high.

[Stringer_Bell]

Or at the bowling alley.

They might look if the bowling alley is off-base. Or is that a violation too? o.O

[MannyIsGod]

Its a violation no matter where you do it and no matter how they find out. The current case of the female major who is suing for reinstatement is a great example of that. Woman goes out of her way to avoid putting it out in the face of anyone she serves with and keeps it extremely on the downlow. She gets a new GF who's ex husband finds out and rats her out. Career down the drain.

[jack sommerset]

Only 2.2 percent of the military are gay, bi sexual or lesbian. This is really much to do about nothing. So I don't give two shits about it.

[MannyIsGod]

Much to do about nothing except that 2.2 percent. Its probably higher than that, though.

[ElNono]

Actually, some Republicans favored getting rid of DADT. The entire bill didn't pass because of political bickering about adding new amendments.

[ElNono]

Only 2.2 percent of the military are gay, bi sexual or lesbian. This is really much to do about nothing. So I don't give two shits about it.

How do you know how many if you can't ask and they can't tell?

[Spurminator]

Actually, some Republicans favored getting rid of DADT. The entire bill didn't pass because of political bickering about adding new amendments.

Well, it's a valid gripe, though one I would have preferred come up when an amendment to a defense spending bill banned online gambling...

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, its likely the immigration stuff was were the amendments that really killed it. They really need to do something about non germane amendments but considering how much stupid shit is passed that way I doubt they ever will.

[jack sommerset]

Much to do about nothing except that 2.2 percent. Its probably higher than that, though.

I think it's less. You really can't count lesbian or bisexual women as gay. Most eventually get in line and got back to the other side.

[jack sommerset]

How do you know how many if you can't ask and they can't tell?

I'll find the link I got it from.

[MannyIsGod]

I think it's less. You really can't count lesbian or bisexual women as gay. Most eventually get in line and got back to the other side.

:lmao

Why? Because you'd like to fuck most of them? Please don't let reality get in the way of your sexual fantasies.

[ElNono]

Well, it's a valid gripe, though one I would have preferred come up when an amendment to a defense spending bill banned online gambling...

Sure it is. Dems and Republicans are both guilty of not getting shit done at least in this case.

[ElNono]

I'll find the link I got it from.

How would they know? They can't ask and soldiers can't tell...

[jack sommerset]

:lmao

Why? Because you'd like to fuck most of them? Please don't let reality get in the way of your sexual fantasies.

LoL

Here is the link. The study was done by Williams Institute in Jan of this year.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/f/HowManyGaysinMilitary.htm

[Winehole23]

I think they tacked it on to pass the legislation.Ok. That opposition would mean voting no on a defense bill was just gravy, then?


They had a legit shot at it and its something that is clearly on the agenda to fix on as friendly terms as possible to the military. Should a court ruling come through it could be much uglier for all involved.True. Things could always be much uglier than they are.


Its going to be settled one way or another in favor of repealing this legislation.DADT is doomed to fail anyway, so we should hasten its demise? Something like that?


It was better than the status quo when it was passed It was a patronizing half-measure. It sucked.

And there were unanticipated consequences, such as DADT becoming the bureaucratic criterion for turning homosexuals out of language specialties at a crucial juncture of the war on terr-uh.


but we've definitely progressed as a society on this issue and its time for us to adhere to the principles we allegedly hold so high.I'm less sanguine than you about us having any incrementally achieved ethical relationship to our own ideals. I see us more as having a deceptive/self-serving one that tells us pleasing lies. Back-sliding is always possible.

[boutons_deux]

Dems added it to make the Repugs look bad with same sex crowd, which includes of course lots of closeted Repugs.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think it was a poison pill at all. I think there was a legit desire to pass the legislation.

[LnGrrrR]

You're right. However, in many people's mind, there is no difference in having to share a common barracks and common shower with homosexuals, as with the opposite sex. When the showers become coed, then sexual preference truly doesn't matter.

If those of you wanting gays to be able to openly serve, but cannot acknowledge this simple truth, then you are lost in your agenda.

Well, considering that gay people are sharing bathrooms/showers right now, it's not like anything would change if they're out in the open. :lol

[Sisk]

As far as you know?

Right

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I think it's less. You really can't count lesbian or bisexual women as gay. Most eventually get in line and got back to the other side.

Christ! You're like a fucking cartoon!

[Wild Cobra]

Or at the bowling alley.
I personally don't have a problem with gay soldiers serving. However, others do, and it is a problem as if we allowed men to gawk and women in shared shower facilities. You would end up having the same inappropriate behavior of harassment if they are allowed to openly serve. Therefore my standard. My standard is gays can openly serve when men and women share the same shower facilities at the same time.

I think it's a reasonable take on the situation.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, considering that gay people are sharing bathrooms/showers right now, it's not like anything would change if they're out in the open. :lol
No, they can then make remarks they wouldn't otherwise make, making others feel rather uncomfortable.

[Wild Cobra]

I think it's less. You really can't count lesbian or bisexual women as gay. Most eventually get in line and got back to the other side.
I disagree with you there Jack, but it doesn't really matter to me.

[MannyIsGod]

No, they can then make remarks they wouldn't otherwise make, making others feel rather uncomfortable.

Sexual Harassment is allowed in the military?

:lol @ DADT protecting straight people from feeling sexually harassed. Your idiocy knows no bounds.

[Wild Cobra]

Sexual Harassment is allowed in the military?

:lol @ DADT protecting straight people from feeling sexually harassed. Your idiocy knows no bounds.
It still happens.

I tell you, if such an inappropriate thing happened to me, I might beat someone to a pulp. Not the first time, but the second time after reporting an unprovable action happened again.

You see, just a mention or talk doesn't justify sexual harassment. Sexual harassment actually required power of one over another, or continued/repeated overt sexual remarks that are unwelcomed.

In a he-said-she-said situation, how do you prove anything?

It causes bad moral.

Like I said, when the military is ready for men and women sharing billets and showers, then it's ready for gays to openly serve too.

[ChumpDumper]

Does WC think he is really that attractive to teh gheys?

[MannyIsGod]

LOL @ internet thug WC so afraid of someone finding him attractive he's willing to threaten beat downs to prevent it.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL @ internet thug WC so afraid of someone finding him attractive he's willing to threaten beat downs to prevent it.
Dog...

When will you stop making things up?

You don't know squat, and continue to show your utter stupidity.

[MannyIsGod]

In any event, according to that federal court you decided had no authority - it IS time for gays to serve openly due to some document called the constitution.

Even if your bullshit was legit, somehow setting up separate showers is harder than securing equality. Amazing.

[MannyIsGod]

Dog...

When will you stop making things up?

You don't know squat, and continue to show your utter stupidity.

Yes, it is me showing my stupidity in this thread.

[baseline bum]

I personally don't have a problem with gay soldiers serving. However, others do, and it is a problem as if we allowed men to gawk and women in shared shower facilities. You would end up having the same inappropriate behavior of harassment if they are allowed to openly serve. Therefore my standard. My standard is gays can openly serve when men and women share the same shower facilities at the same time.

I think it's a reasonable take on the situation.

Should gay kids be allowed to take 7th grade gym class?

[Jacob1983]

Obama and his minions are pathetic and useless. They can't even get this shit done. They can't make it where gay people can serve openly in the military. Bush started a questionable costly war in Iraq and may have been in on a 9/11 inside job. Bush was a dumbass but at least he got some shit done. And people don't give a shit if all of these problems are because of Bush. That excuse is old and used up. Obama is in charge now. He needs to step up to the plate and at least attempt to fix some of this shit. Obama barely tries to get shit done. If he can't get something done quickly, he gives up and blames it on Bush.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

It still happens.

I tell you, if such an inappropriate thing happened to me, I might beat someone to a pulp. Not the first time, but the second time after reporting an unprovable action happened again.

You see, just a mention or talk doesn't justify sexual harassment. Sexual harassment actually required power of one over another, or continued/repeated overt sexual remarks that are unwelcomed.

In a he-said-she-said situation, how do you prove anything?

It causes bad moral.

Like I said, when the military is ready for men and women sharing billets and showers, then it's ready for gays to openly serve too.

You would beat someone to a pulp for looking at you?

so not only a you complete fucking idiot with regards to everything you spout your mouth off about, you're also a violent piece of shit?

[Blake]

Bush started a questionable costly war in Iraq and may have been in on a 9/11 inside job. Bush was a dumbass but at least he got some shit done.

There have been some dumb posts today, but I think you may have the gotten the dumbest one in just in time.

[Latarian Milton]

There have been some dumb posts today, but I think you may have the gotten the dumbest one in just in time.

:tu:

[Latarian Milton]

Obama and his minions are pathetic and useless. They can't even get this shit done. They can't make it where gay people can serve openly in the military. Bush started a questionable costly war in Iraq and may have been in on a 9/11 inside job. Bush was a dumbass but at least he got some shit done. And people don't give a shit if all of these problems are because of Bush. That excuse is old and used up. Obama is in charge now. He needs to step up to the plate and at least attempt to fix some of this shit. Obama barely tries to get shit done. If he can't get something done quickly, he gives up and blames it on Bush.

everyone should be qualified for the army as long as he/she loves this country. I'd rather see gays/lesbos serving in the army than the army hire mercenaries to wear US soldier uniforms. IMHO joining the army is often considered by most immigrants as a shortcut to acquire the US citizenship, something they've always been drooling over day after night.

[clambake]

Obama and his minions are pathetic and useless. They can't even get this shit done. They can't make it where gay people can serve openly in the military. Bush started a questionable costly war in Iraq and may have been in on a 9/11 inside job. Bush was a dumbass but at least he got some shit done. And people don't give a shit if all of these problems are because of Bush. That excuse is old and used up. Obama is in charge now. He needs to step up to the plate and at least attempt to fix some of this shit. Obama barely tries to get shit done. If he can't get something done quickly, he gives up and blames it on Bush.

don't forget to wash your uniform, mr.birther.

[Latarian Milton]

even for the immigrants who've already acquired citizenships their loyalty to this country should still be highly questionable. an army full of mercenaries will beat no enemy no matter what weapons they're armed with.

[Wild Cobra]

In any event, according to that federal court you decided had no authority - it IS time for gays to serve openly due to some document called the constitution.

Even if your bullshit was legit, somehow setting up separate showers is harder than securing equality. Amazing.
Still, even if that court has the right to rule on military law, which I think they don't, it simply places the law back to gays not being able to serve. the ruling came down to a first amendment issue. Not weather or not the military can decide who can and cannot serve.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, it is me showing my stupidity in this thread.
When you accuse me of things I know better of, then yes. You might fool those who don't know me, but I know better you fucking idiot.

[CuckingFunt]

I think it's less. You really can't count lesbian or bisexual women as gay. Most eventually get in line and got back to the other side.

I refuse to believe you actually think this.

[CuckingFunt]

It still happens.

I tell you, if such an inappropriate thing happened to me, I might beat someone to a pulp. Not the first time, but the second time after reporting an unprovable action happened again.

You see, just a mention or talk doesn't justify sexual harassment. Sexual harassment actually required power of one over another, or continued/repeated overt sexual remarks that are unwelcomed.

In a he-said-she-said situation, how do you prove anything?

It causes bad moral.

Like I said, when the military is ready for men and women sharing billets and showers, then it's ready for gays to openly serve too.

Teh gays is scary!!

[SnakeBoy]

Should gay kids be allowed to take 7th grade gym class?

That's an entirely different situation. 7th grade boys are tough enough to handle a gay guy seeing their weiner. Marines, Navy Seals, Green Berets, etc. are pretty sensitive and may not be able to do there jobs if a gay guy saw their weiner. Which threatens the security of the United States of America!

[Jacob1983]

So if you think Obama sucks as president, you are a birther? Do you have proof that I am birther? If you can do that, I will give you a dollar. Sadly, you will not get that dollar because I have never said that Obama was not born in America. He's shown his birth certificate before and has said that he was born in America so he ain't lying.

And you're honestly going to tell me that Obama is getting stuff done as president? What great things has he accomplished as president? How's the economy doing? What about unemployment. What about the division and polarization going on in America? What's he doing about that stuff?

[Winehole23]

Credit properly goes to Bill Clinton for this enlightened, progressive idea, before this thread becomes yet another all-purpose backyard pinyata.

That is all.

[Stringer_Bell]

And you're honestly going to tell me that Obama is getting stuff done as president? What great things has he accomplished as president? How's the economy doing? What about unemployment. What about the division and polarization going on in America? What's he doing about that stuff?

It's not Obama's fault that people have become so impatient for improvement because shit under Bush was so fucking awful. Ending combat operations is one of the toughest things ANY President can do, and he's done that in Iraq. That's at least one accomplishment that any sane person can recognize as an accomplishment, whether or not they agree we should have wasted time/lives there.

Obama can do nothing about the polarization, it's self-inflicted and from what I can see it's pleasurable to the people that swim in it and make money off of it. It's pleasurable to be angry and stop progress of ANY kind because it makes them feel like they are being heard. Obama's mistake was buying into his own promise that people would listen to him and cooperate because the country was in such a shitty situation (and still is)...and the GOP has made him pay through stalled legislation and proxy grassroot movements organized as loosely as the Al Qaeda franchises they were shitting themselves over 4 years before - the same Al Qaeda that have not dissappeared since then and only gotten stronger with all the time OUR government spends dicking around in a 24/7 365 political campaign and making issues out of Muslim conspiracies.

You can't work with political opposition, not consistently enough to fix all that is wrong with the country. Right now, it's just not possible for anyone when the GOP minority party will always want to be the loudest and the Dem majority is full of pussies. He's trying to fix things, but the clock started with 1 second left and he's been out of time since the start.

[TinTin]

That's an entirely different situation. 7th grade boys are tough enough to handle a gay guy seeing their weiner. Marines, Navy Seals, Green Berets, etc. are pretty sensitive and may not be able to do there jobs if a gay guy saw their weiner. Which threatens the security of the United States of America!

They would be afraid of friendly fire?

[Trainwreck2100]

lol attaching an immigration rider blocks this shit lol gays

[MannyIsGod]

"Republicans constantly claim to be the party that defends the Constitution. We have no legitimate right to that claim until we get right on gay rights."

-- GOP strategist Mark McKinnon, writing for the Daily Beast in the wake of yesterday's successful effort by Senate Republicans to block repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Crookshanks]

Many of you are saying the republicans blocked this bill because they're against the repeal of DADT - but that isn't the truth. Republicans blocked it because the democrats refused to extend the debate. Dems tried to play games - and they lost; and now they're blaming it on the republicans.
================================

WASHINGTON (AP) — Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins says she'll vote against a bill that would allow gays to serve openly in the military unless Democrats agree to extend debate so that her colleagues can weigh in on other issues.

Collins' position is likely the last nail in the coffin for the Democratic proposal, which would have repealed the 17-year-old law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

A moderate Republican who supports changing the law, Collins was seen as the crucial 60th vote needed to override GOP objections and advance it. The provision was attached to a broader defense bill that authorizes $726 in military spending.

Democrats plan to allow Republicans to offer only one amendment on the bill to address their concern about the gay rights' provision.

[clambake]

Many of you are saying the republicans blocked this bill because they're against the repeal of DADT - but that isn't the truth. Republicans blocked it because the democrats refused to extend the debate. Dems tried to play games - and they lost; and now they're blaming it on the republicans.
================================

WASHINGTON (AP) — Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins says she'll vote against a bill that would allow gays to serve openly in the military unless Democrats agree to extend debate so that her colleagues can weigh in on other issues.

Collins' position is likely the last nail in the coffin for the Democratic proposal, which would have repealed the 17-year-old law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

A moderate Republican who supports changing the law, Collins was seen as the crucial 60th vote needed to override GOP objections and advance it. The provision was attached to a broader defense bill that authorizes $726 in military spending.

Democrats plan to allow Republicans to offer only one amendment on the bill to address their concern about the gay rights' provision.

thanks for telling us she'll vote against it cuz she wants to "weigh in on other issues".

[LnGrrrR]

My standard is gays can openly serve when men and women share the same shower facilities at the same time.


Except that gay males and straight males are ALREADY integrated, whereas females and males are obviously not.

Also, there is much more separation in our society between male/female than there is gay/straight. (Hormones, for one thing...)

[LnGrrrR]

No, they can then make remarks they wouldn't otherwise make, making others feel rather uncomfortable.

So then punish them for unprofessional conduct, right? Shouldn't we police their ACTIONS rather than their thoughts?

[LnGrrrR]

In a he-said-she-said situation, how do you prove anything?


They manage to do it all the time with male/female situations, by looking at the evidence, talking to coworkers, etc etc. MEO is there for a reason.

[Trainwreck2100]

thanks for telling us she'll vote against it cuz she wants to "weigh in on other issues".

she crossed back over the aisle cause the Dems tried to tack n the DREAM Act as a rider

[Yonivore]

The Military is not a Democracy, the judgment of Command Military Officers should be all that matters in the debate. Let them hash it out and arrive at a solution; Civilian leaders and the general population have no direct stake in the game.

Our Nation fields troops to break shit and kill people with the expectation they'll do it with the least amount of harm to themselves and innocent bystanders while achieving an successful military objective. I say the Commanders should be left free to do that and not have to engage in social debates over matters that don't matter in the context of battle.

Where's that answer on the survey?

[ChumpDumper]

The Military is not a Democracy, the judgment of Command Military Officers should be all that matters in the debate. Let them hash it out and arrive at a solution; Civilian leaders and the general population have no direct stake in the game.Bullshit.

[Mel_13]

The Military is not a Democracy, the judgment of Command Military Officers should be all that matters in the debate. Let them hash it out and arrive at a solution; Civilian leaders and the general population have no direct stake in the game.

Our Nation fields troops to break shit and kill people with the expectation they'll do it with the least amount of harm to themselves and innocent bystanders while achieving an successful military objective. I say the Commanders should be left free to do that and not have to engage in social debates over matters that don't matter in the context of battle.

Where's that answer on the survey?

Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says otherwise.

[Yonivore]

Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says otherwise.
No, it doesn't.

I take that back. It may say otherwise but, it doesn't say what you think it does or there'd be no argument. Would there?

[ChumpDumper]

The military is not infallible. They have fucked up mightily before.

[Mel_13]

No, it doesn't.

I take that back. It may say otherwise but, it doesn't say what you think it does or there'd be no argument. Would there?

It directly contradicts the portion of your previous post that I quoted in bold. There's no argument about that.

Clearly there is an argument as to what the policy should be regarding homosexuals serving in the military, but there is absolutely no argument that "civilian leaders have a stake in the game". That stake is clearly defined in the Constitution.

[MannyIsGod]

The Military is not a Democracy, the judgment of Command Military Officers should be all that matters in the debate. Let them hash it out and arrive at a solution; Civilian leaders and the general population have no direct stake in the game.

Our Nation fields troops to break shit and kill people with the expectation they'll do it with the least amount of harm to themselves and innocent bystanders while achieving an successful military objective. I say the Commanders should be left free to do that and not have to engage in social debates over matters that don't matter in the context of battle.

Where's that answer on the survey?

The military still falls under the constitution.

[Yonivore]

It directly contradicts the portion of your previous post that I quoted in bold. There's no argument about that.

Clearly there is an argument as to what the policy should be regarding homosexuals serving in the military, but there is absolutely no argument that "civilian leaders have a stake in the game". That stake is clearly defined in the Constitution.
I never said Civilians leaders weren't in charge of the military but, yes, there is an argument over whether or not the President has a direct stake in the "game," -- the game being whether or not the social issue of gays in the military needs to be addressed during a war.

He's not carrying a gun on the streets of Fallujah or Kabul and, neither are you, I presume.

Frankly, the military has much more important things to do right now than experiment with its social structure.

[MannyIsGod]

Blah, Mel beat me. Good job pointing out the blatantly obvious to the hopelessly blind.

[Yonivore]

The military still falls under the constitution.
Yeah, I know.

However, I'm not certain the issue of gays in the military does...except as codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[MannyIsGod]

I never said Civilians leaders weren't in charge of the military but, yes, there is an argument over whether or not the President has a direct stake in the "game," -- the game being whether or not the social issue of gays in the military needs to be addressed during a war.

He's not carrying a gun on the streets of Fallujah or Kabul and, neither are you, I presume.

Frankly, the military has much more important things to do right now than experiment with its social structure.

Our military is subject to the same rules that everyone else is and who has a supposed stake in the game is absolutely and completely irrelevant.

The military must follow the same rules everyone else is subject to regarding equality in this country and that is a principle that is above anything else you can come up with. NO law in this country supersedes the constitution.

[ChumpDumper]

Frankly, the military has much more important things to do right now than experiment with its social structure.Frankly, you would have said the same thing about desegregating the armed forces in 1948.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, I know.

However, I'm not certain the issue of gays in the military does...except as codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Um, what?

[Mel_13]

I never said Civilians leaders weren't in charge of the military but, yes, there is an argument over whether or not the President has a direct stake in the "game," -- the game being whether or not the social issue of gays in the military needs to be addressed during a war.

He's not carrying a gun on the streets of Fallujah or Kabul and, neither are you, I presume.

Frankly, the military has much more important things to do right now than experiment with its social structure.

The Commander in Chief has a stake in every important decision concerning the military.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't even understand this line of thinking. Its the United States military, not some separate entity that somehow exists outside our countries preview.

Civilians and their leadership are just supposed to let the military operate in their own bubble? Yeah, FUCK that.

[Yonivore]

The Commander in Chief has a stake in every important decision concerning the military.

That's not necessarily true. The Commander-in-Chief makes decisions all the time that don't impact him personally.

[Yonivore]

I don't even understand this line of thinking. Its the United States military, not some separate entity that somehow exists outside our countries preview.

Civilians and their leadership are just supposed to let the military operate in their own bubble? Yeah, FUCK that.
They have their own system of laws.

[ChumpDumper]

They have their own system of laws.That doesn't mean they are not subject to other laws.

[MannyIsGod]

They have their own system of laws.

None of which supersede the Constitution.

[DarrinS]

Don't ask don't tell is a retarded policy.

[ChumpDumper]

It might be instructive to list a few other countries that exclude gays from military service:

Cuba
China
Egypt
Iran
North Korea
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Venezuela
Yemen


Nice company you guys want to keep.

[Mel_13]

That's not necessarily true. The Commander-in-Chief makes decisions all the time that don't impact him personally.

Huh? Of course he does. That doesn't make my point untrue in any way at all.

[Yonivore]

None of which supersede the Constitution.
Which doesn't address gays in the military and which I merely suggested should be a policy decided on by the Military Commanders having to lead these warriors into battle.

And, I concur, DADT is a stupid policy but, that's not the issue.

[Mel_13]

They have their own system of laws.

Military law is not separate from U.S. law, rather it is subject to it.

[ChumpDumper]

Which doesn't address gays in the military and which I merely suggested should be a policy decided on by the Military Commanders having to lead these warriors into battle.if the policy is unconstitutional, there is nothing to decide.

[MannyIsGod]

Which doesn't address gays in the military and which I merely suggested should be a policy decided on by the Military Commanders having to lead these warriors into battle.

And, I concur, DADT is a stupid policy but, that's not the issue.

You must have missed the recent federal court ruling deciding DADT is unconstitutional.

[Yonivore]

You must have missed the recent federal court ruling deciding DADT is unconstitutional.
And yet, it persists.

There's a federal court out in California that is constantly saying a bunch of shit is unconstitutional and they keep getting their asses handed back to them.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, first the government has to appeal the case for it to be tossed back. Hasn't happened yet. I suspect it will be appealed at some point but I don't think its a certainty. Once its thrown back then we'll talk, but as of this time DADT is unconstitutional. Considering the ruling was only a couple of weeks ago I don't think you can draw too much from the fact that it persists.

How long did it take the south to integrate the schools after all?

[Jacob1983]

Shouldn't an issue like this be on the bottom of the priorities list in America right now? How about the economy and the unemployment rate? Shouldn't those things be more important than whether or not gay people can be gay double rainbow all the way in the military? Just askin'.

[ChumpDumper]

Shouldn't an issue like this be on the bottom of the priorities list in America right now? How about the economy and the unemployment rate? Shouldn't those things be more important than whether or not gay people can be gay double rainbow all the way in the military? Just askin'.There are always lame excuses.

Just sayin'.

And considering the trouble the military is having meeting recruitment and retention goals while committed heavily to two theaters of operation, your excuse got even lamer.

[Mel_13]

Shouldn't an issue like this be on the bottom of the priorities list in America right now? How about the economy and the unemployment rate? Shouldn't those things be more important than whether or not gay people can be gay double rainbow all the way in the military? Just askin'.

Perhaps you'd care to suggest a minimum percentage of the population that must be affected in order for an issue to merit the consideration of our elected officials? :rolleyes

[ElNono]

Yeah! We're at war and the economy is in shambles! Why would anybody care about the Constitution? :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Except that gay males and straight males are ALREADY integrated, whereas females and males are obviously not.

Also, there is much more separation in our society between male/female than there is gay/straight. (Hormones, for one thing...)
So?

What is the difference? Those who are gay claim they are born so.

Why do women not want men to see their naked bodies? Isn't there suppose to be equal protection?

Can you at least acknowledge that some see this as a valid point? It's not only me you know.

[ChumpDumper]

So?

What is the difference? Those who are gay claim they are born so.

Why do women not want men to see their naked bodies? Isn't there suppose to be equal protection?

Can you at least acknowledge that some see this as a valid point? It's not only me you know.So you want straight men to see your naked body.

OK.

[Spurminator]

Support the Troops!*

*As long as they're not homos.

[CuckingFunt]

The Military is not a Democracy, the judgment of Command Military Officers should be all that matters in the debate. Let them hash it out and arrive at a solution; Civilian leaders and the general population have no direct stake in the game.

As long as the military is dependent upon civilian enlistment, then, yes, the general population absolutely has a direct stake in the game.

[SnakeBoy]

So?

What is the difference? Those who are gay claim they are born so.

Why do women not want men to see their naked bodies? Isn't there suppose to be equal protection?

Can you at least acknowledge that some see this as a valid point? It's not only me you know.

Hey WC, I don't want to rip on you or anything but the points you've been making in this thread are really dumb. If you're just playing around to get a rise out of the libs that's cool but if you're being serious you might want to bail because seriously you're points have been really dumb.

[Jacob1983]

The majority of Americans don't give a shit if gay people can't serve openly in the military. I know that the gay community does not want to hear that but it's true. People are focused on the economy and unemployment mainly because it affects them. People are tired of the recession and want things to get better.

[ChumpDumper]

The majority of Americans don't give a shit if gay people can't serve openly in the military.Actually, that's wrong, so I'm not going to give a shit about the rest of your post.


Three-quarters of Americans say that they support openly gay people serving in the U.S. military, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021104873.html

[LnGrrrR]

So?

What is the difference? Those who are gay claim they are born so.

Why do women not want men to see their naked bodies? Isn't there suppose to be equal protection?

Can you at least acknowledge that some see this as a valid point? It's not only me you know.

Your point is that until men and women can shower together, gay men and straight men shouldn't either. Which means that gay men shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military.

So, the freedom of speech that is denied to these soldiers is trumped by some theoretical "right" for men and women to shower together? Sorry, can't agree with you on that one.

[MannyIsGod]

And yet, it persists.

There's a federal court out in California that is constantly saying a bunch of shit is unconstitutional and they keep getting their asses handed back to them.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/24/military.gay.reinstatement/index.html?hpt=T2

This one going to get overturned too? Your boy appointed the judge, btw.

Whats up WC, does this court have authority?

[ChumpDumper]

But they have a different system of justice!

YouTube, help me!

[MannyIsGod]

Meant to post this yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407018.html?hpid=sec-nation

Whats up now?

[Winehole23]

Good riddance to smelly garbage if the ruling stands.

[MannyIsGod]

I have no doubts it stands just as I've had no doubts this was the inevitable outcome. 2+2 = 4 and all that.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/24/military.gay.reinstatement/index.html?hpt=T2

This one going to get overturned too? Your boy appointed the judge, btw.

Whats up WC, does this court have authority?

Well, looks like the 9th already sent it back to him to review. Administration has appealed so it goes back to the 9th and will get rubber stamped. My guess is that O will not appeal the 9th courts ruling.