1Lt forced to leave service after outing himself

[ChumpDumper]

There may be steps that Obama can take to blunt the current effects of DADT, but the complete ending of it requires the Congress to get involved. I get the feeling it would pass pretty easily once it got started, it's just that no one wants to take the heat for starting it.

[Wild Cobra]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.

Are you kidding? The democrats don't want to fix the issue. If they did, they would have one less thing to rally voters over. They only want to pretend they care. All they care about is buying votes.

[Winehole23]

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.

Are you kidding? The democrats don't want to fix the issue. If they did, they would have one less thing to rally voters over. They only want to pretend they care. All they care about is buying votes.

WC takes issue with his own post.

[DarkReign]

Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.

I agree with the gist of what youre saying in this particular post, but status quo isnt/wasnt acceptable during the Separate but Equal era. You have to take the good with the bad. A lot of people lost their lives in the civil rights struggle during the 60s. Contrary to popular opinion amongst rednecks, they werent protesting for "extra" rights...or willing to die themselves as many did.

I dont see gay people doing the same thing, but thats understandable as this country will not repeat the same mistakes it made during the 60s. If anything, gay people owe a debt to Martin Luther King, Jr and his ilk for breaking the tolerance barrier in this country. Its only so long that the rest of the country can see human beings being hosed in public streets by police officers or watching teenage black girls get spit on on their way to school. At some point, you find your faith or your humanity (or both).

Maybe its time for the same kind of law to protect sexuals, maybe it isnt.

I for one think it is.

[sam1617]

I agree with the gist of what youre saying in this particular post, but status quo isnt/wasnt acceptable during the Separate but Equal era. Maybe its time for the same kind of law to protect s, maybe it isnt.

I for one think it is.

I believe that sexuality is wrong morally. However, last I checked, they are still people, and I agree, the government should treat them no differently than any other person. Don't ask don't tell should be repealed, and sexuals should be allowed to serve in the military. As for right now, its the law, and you are supposed to obey the law, if you don't, you will have to accept the punishment.

Now, my position on gay marriage is inline with the federal government, since the power of marriage is vested in the state and/or in the religious body doing the marrying, it should be up to the state and/or religious body.

[exstatic]

Special rights? I think gays in the military just want the special discrimination written into the law removed. Then, everyone's the same.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.

Males, whites and potentially heterosexuals could indeed sue using those laws you just whined about. That it doesn't happen, if ever, shows that things are going ok for them in those areas of discrimination.

[Wild Cobra]

WC takes issue with his own post.

No, you're wrong. Apparently I look deeper into situations and want to fix the root cause. Not the symptoms.

[Wild Cobra]

Special rights? I think gays in the military just want the special discrimination written into the law removed. Then, everyone's the same.

Don't ask don't tell is a better policy than what they did before that!

[Wild Cobra]

Males, whites and potentially heterosexuals could indeed sue using those laws you just whined about. That it doesn't happen, if ever, shows that things are going ok for them in those areas of discrimination.

Well, reading the legislation that comes through on the Oregon Ballots, I have to disagree. I'm sure some laws work both ways, but not most the ones I have seen.

[Spurminator]

You think civil rights/gay rights are all about the right to SUE?

[Wild Cobra]

You think civil rights/gay rights are all about the right to SUE?

No, but often the accompanying legislation for new laws make it too easy to sue without a proper case. They try to go too far instead of just setting things equal.

[AFBlue]

Don't ask don't tell is a better policy than what they did before that!

That's like saying "seperate but equal" was better than slavery...still doesn't make it right.

But, like one of the first responders said, it's up to the politicians to make the change. The fact that they haven't says to me they haven't come up with an acceptable comprimise or just don't give a damn.

It's really not a hard decision and the military is uniquely qualified to handle change...because in the end you're told to "shut up and color", despite any objection.

The politicians definitely need to step up and deal with the issue.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes it does. When you make a law like "It is illegal to discriminate against a person because of sexual orientation," then write supporting legislation, it gives that group of people the special right to recourse through law that others don't have. What happens then, is the law gets abused. We see it all the time. People suing because they are black, claiming it's due to race. Women suing claiming it's because of gender. Now some claims are valid, some aren't. These laws give power to the minority over the majority. These laws have developed such that almost no evidence is needed, and just the allegation is believed by the general public even when it's not true.

You're not giving gay people 'special rights'.

As it is, aren't gays under a unique set of cir stances. If all things were equal, then gays should be allowed to be open with their sexuality, just as straight people are allowed to, correct?

And you know as well as I do that not only is sodomy technically illegal, but oral sex would be given the definition in the UCMJ. However, no one gets kicked out just for those things: they are always thrown on to a more serious crime to make the punishment longer.

[Wild Cobra]

That's like saying "seperate but equal" was better than slavery...still doesn't make it right.

In the case of the military and the way it's structured, it infringes on the freedom to associate in ways that are absolutely unacceptable.

But, like one of the first responders said, it's up to the politicians to make the change. The fact that they haven't says to me they haven't come up with an acceptable comprimise or just don't give a damn.

I think they see that in this case, to remedy one problem, you create larger problems. I agree also they don't care. There's not enough voters they can buy with it. In fact, the pussy politicians would lose voters. When's the last time they actually made legislation that was right, rather than being bought off by an activist group, or looking at how people vote?

It's really not a hard decision and the military is uniquely qualified to handle change...because in the end you're told to "shut up and color", despite any objection.

Again, the problems it creates. How many different shower facilities are you going to have, or are you going to make men and women bunk and shower together too?

The politicians definitely need to step up and deal with the issue.

How can they deal with it any better? Give us a solution that doesn;t create more problems than it solves.

You're not giving gay people 'special rights'.

In the case of DADT, I agree. I was talking about legislation in general that activist groups pen. It always has some tool in it that they can use to stick it to business.

As it is, aren't gays under a unique set of cir stances. If all things were equal, then gays should be allowed to be open with their sexuality, just as straight people are allowed to, correct?

I might agree with that is legislation that trys to get passed didn't include terms like "feels threatened," etc. when dealing with various discrimination. It has been an acceptable term, and you have people who choose not to be around gays. That is their right. I guess you believe the rights of one group supersede the rights of another.

And you know as well as I do that not only is sodomy technically illegal, but oral sex would be given the definition in the UCMJ. However, no one gets kicked out just for those things: they are always thrown on to a more serious crime to make the punishment longer.

I agree. However, the military does not get into the bedrooms of the soldiers. Even adultery and sex while not married is punishable under the UCMJ. I have seen soldiers thrown out for adultery, but not fornification.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree. However, the military does not get into the bedrooms of the soldiers. Even adultery and sex while not married is punishable under the UCMJ. I have seen soldiers thrown out for adultery, but not fornification.

Yes, that's what I meant, WC.

In regards to your logistic issues with showering...

It can be assumed that there are gay people already serving in the military, correct?

Given such, it can also be assumed that these gay men are ALREADY showering with straight men.

Given the two above, I don't see why it's a huge problem. Unless you think that people in the military couldn't 'deal' with gay men showering near them.

Soldiers are able to withstand months away from their families, in a hostile environment, with limited resources. I think they can handle gay men showering next to them.

Will it be awkward? Sure. I'm sure that integrating black people into the services was awkward as well, and brought up many of the same questions you're asking. (Will we have to have the same showers/living quarters/etc for black and white people?)

Which do you think is of more concern? That some soldiers will not enjoy knowing their comrade-in-arms is gay and possibly threatening them, or that we are kicking out many capable, qualified soldiers, in effect wasting time, money and manpower in the middle of a war? The former can always be fixed by a visit from the First Shirt, the latter can not.