Obama and the Gay Military...

[ZirconBlue]

I faxed every Senator in the United States a letter showing that this would lead to law suits. In combat, the military could be sued if they thought favoritisim was given to someone who was gay or someone was not gay when someone would be picked to go to a dangerous mission in a squad or if someone was not picked etc. It is unavoidable.

Worst. Argument. Ever.

 

[Ryokan]

Worst. Argument. Ever.

Worse than his argument that gay soldiers will rape their comrades in the heat of battle?

 

[willhaven]

Worse than his argument that gay soldiers will rape their comrades in the heat of battle?

You have to admit, the thought of that is pretty hot.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Worse than his argument that gay soldiers will rape their comrades in the heat of battle?

I stand corrected. Although neither is as bad as the argument that Wal-Mart would create holiday ads featuring soldiers showered by nuclear fallout.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am not a fan of DADT, but this statement in the article caught my attention:

Six military officers who were discharged under the policy testified during the trial. A decorated Air Force officer testified that he was let go after his peers snooped through his personal e-mail in Iraq.

IF TRUE then that is not really an indictment of DADT, in principle, although it certainly is an example of how awful it is in practice.

Let's ask the question, why was the person discharged? Who did he tell he was gay? Apparently, no one in the military was told. Yet, he got bounced out. On what grounds?

This is one problem that I have observed with the practice of DADT. The whole idea of what constitutes "telling" makes no sense at all. A person is observed walking into a gay bar. Not on duty, while in leave, no where near the base. However, if the wrong person observes it, it is grounds for discharge?

 

[KingMerv00]

But what if it won't? What if it is too soon? What if the USA is not ready for it?

What if the US isn't ready for emancipation/integration/suffrage? It would be nice if we were more accepting but I just don't know...

Don't be such a milquetoast. Take a stand for something that is right.

 

[I Am The Scum]

What if the US isn't ready for emancipation/integration/suffrage? It would be nice if we were more accepting but I just don't know...

Don't be such a milquetoast. Take a stand for something that is right.

I'm honestly curious here: There have been many issues (such as the ones you reference) where the argument has been that "now is not a good time." Has this ever actually been the case? Can we look back in history and say, "You know, we would have been much better off if we had waited ten years"?

 

[Dr. Keith]

IF TRUE then that is not really an indictment of DADT, in principle, although it certainly is an example of how awful it is in practice.

There are many tales of ex-lovers turning in soldiers out of spite.

My understanding is that DADT is a somewhat inaccurate shorthand for a policy that does not allow gays to serve if they are found to be gay, but does not punish gay soldiers for serving. So, what you think DADT should be is not really what it is.

The bottom line is that once the military knows you are gay you can not serve.

 

[drkitten]

I'm honestly curious here: There have been many issues (such as the ones you reference) where the argument has been that "now is not a good time." Has this ever actually been the case? Can we look back in history and say, "You know, we would have been much better off if we had waited ten years"?

Quite often, at least in the business world. Google "the market wasn't ready for" (as a phrase) for a list of case studies.

You can get a similar set of case studies for society by googling "society wasn't ready for," although in many cases those are simply the arguments by apologists as reported by the historians.

ETA: One example that is often cited by historians is the abolition of slavery. Most historians believe that the plantation system and slavery in the American South was economically unsustainable and that, left to itself, slavery would have been abolished by the end of the 19th century everywhere in the United States. Indeed, without the invention of the cotton gin (which made slave-harvested cotton a profitable cash crop), slavery probably would have disappeared of its own accord well before 1860. Historians point to the way that slavery was gradually abolished by the Northern states during the 18th century, even without developments in industrialization to compete.

So it's fairly easy for 19th century historians to look back and say something like that with respect to the rise of the extremist abolitionist movement; while Lincoln, of course, didn't start or even provoke the Civil War, people like John Brown did. I think I could make a strong case that many people of all races would be much better off without the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the rise of the Jim Crow South that followed them.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Hey Bill, if you ever return, why has the British Military not imploded?

The German?

The French?

Why are these armed forces working so well despite allowing teh gayz in for a very long time?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Quite often, at least in the business world. Google "the market wasn't ready for" (as a phrase) for a list of case studies.

You can get a similar set of case studies for society by googling "society wasn't ready for," although in many cases those are simply the arguments by apologists as reported by the historians.

ETA: One example that is often cited by historians is the abolition of slavery. Most historians believe that the plantation system and slavery in the American South was economically unsustainable and that, left to itself, slavery would have been abolished by the end of the 19th century everywhere in the United States. Indeed, without the invention of the cotton gin (which made slave-harvested cotton a profitable cash crop), slavery probably would have disappeared of its own accord well before 1860. Historians point to the way that slavery was gradually abolished by the Northern states during the 18th century, even without developments in industrialization to compete.

A lot of it took until the early 19th

A lot of the early laws made it illegal to free older slaves, the idea being that you got their useful work you should take care of them in their old age.

 

[Ryokan]

Hey Bill, if you ever return, why has the British Military not imploded?

The German?

The French?

Why are these armed forces working so well despite allowing teh gayz in for a very long time?

Bill has answered this many times already. It's because the American society is very different from and more bigoted than all other nations who allow gays to serve.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Bill has answered this many times already. It's because the American society is very different from and more bigoted than all other nations who allow gays to serve.

So, the nation that pushed the vile Section 28 into law a mere 22 years ago, and that had as the main leader of the opposition in government the vile creep who pushed for it for a span that ended a mere 5 years ago is so much more harmonised and wonderous than the US?

A country where recently there was a scandal about Bed and Breakfast places being able to discriminate against gay people?

Wow. He's just all kinds of stupid isn't he?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

IF TRUE then that is not really an indictment of DADT, in principle, although it certainly is an example of how awful it is in practice.

There are many tales of ex-lovers turning in soldiers out of spite.

My understanding is that DADT is a somewhat inaccurate shorthand for a policy that does not allow gays to serve if they are found to be gay, but does not punish gay soldiers for serving. So, what you think DADT should be is not really what it is.

The bottom line is that once the military knows you are gay you can not serve.

I was going to bring this up to. The title of a law is not necessarily what the text of the law is intending. The Don't Ask part of the law is removing the military's ability to straight up ask everyone if they are gay upon signing up. The Don't Tell is more appropriately "Don't Get Caught." Originally it was even called Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Pursue, but that was mainly to gain support in its passing. Nothing in the law has any prohibition against pursuit of homosexuals.

 

[cwalner]

I was going to bring this up to. The title of a law is not necessarily what the text of the law is intending. The Don't Ask part of the law is removing the military's ability to straight up ask everyone if they are gay upon signing up. The Don't Tell is more appropriately "Don't Get Caught." Originally it was even called Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Pursue, but that was mainly to gain support in its passing. Nothing in the law has any prohibition against pursuit of homosexuals.

So, gays in the military are allowed to chase each other around the barracks, just as long as they don't catch each other?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

So, gays in the military are allowed to chase each other around the barracks, just as long as they don't catch each other?

They also cannot tell anyone about it.

 

[foxholeatheist]

You certainly can be gay but you must not speak about it.

I have begun to refer to my wife as my "partner" and I do not have any photos of her nor do I wear a wedding band and let people make up their own minds. Maybe as a minuscule act of solidarity to the overwhelming bigotry or maybe to point out how silly it is to ask a group of people never to bring up their social lives while the philandering of another group is if not encouraged, at worst, tolerated. I do not see how this is not a textbook definition of discrimination.

In my new job for the first time I work with female soldiers. Any US soldier that believes that they will be subjected to non-stop come ons from the fancy boys... Well, maybe they will then reconsider how they treat female soldiers, at least from what I have seen. No, I am not expecting any kind of conscious raising but I expect everyone to uphold a certain amount of integrity.

And no, most of the males afraid of being hit on by another man probably have nothing to worry about.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I never thought I had the RIGHT to enlist in the military. On the other hand, I always felt that the military had the RIGHT to deny me enlistment. This is just one of many reasons why DADT is not a gay rights issue.

I compiled a list of the addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and fax numbers of every senator in the United States Senate. I presented my case in the best well-written letter I could manage. I added a few more arguments that I have not presented here or anywhere else. One was the fact that the United States culture is one that is obsessed with law suits and it is conceivable that, in combat there is potential for a law suit to be filed against a commanding officer simply because sexual orientation is suddenly part of the equation. Was someone considered for a dangerous mission because of his or her sexual orientation? Was someone passed over for a dangerous mission because of his or her sexual orientation? Picking someone at random is no longer an option. This would not be an issue in other countries because other countries are not as law-suit obsessed as the United States.

It took a while but I contacted every United States senator. Family members who read my letter said it was well-written and convincing.

I am not saying that my actions played any role in the Senate refusing to strike down DADT. But I am not saying that it had nothing to do with it.

No one, that I know of, has had the courage to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is if they disagree with me. I did a little experiment. If you are really sure I am wrong, how about one dollar to post your opinion where the senators can read what you have to say? No one did. No one did because when money -- even one dollar -- is put into the equation, it give people pause and a moment to reconsider their actions. Posting a comment online, here, is cheap and easy. So emotions run amuck. And people are free to associate DADT with gay rights without thinking they might be wrong.

A head hunter in Seattle (employment agent, for all you non-yanks) said I should charge more, like 3.99, otherwise people will think it is a scam. It is not a scam. You can sign up, make your post and then you can even go into the dash board of your account and cancel the membership. If I wanted, I could charge one dollar per post instead of a membership. But THAT, I think actually would be a kind of scam.

Anyway, this discussion forum, here, I think, on the randi forum is just for fun. Where the rubber meets the road, is my blog where the policy makers have been told they can go and read what makes sense. If you are sure of yourself, you will make a post there. I think you are not sure of yourself. You are just voicing an opinion to be part masses for the sake of popularity.

Bill Thompson - 1
Lady Gaga - 0

 

[elbe]

Anyway, this discussion forum, here, I think, on the randi forum is just for fun. Where the rubber meets the road, is my blog where the policy makers have been told they can go and read what makes sense. If you are sure of yourself, you will make a post there. I think you are not sure of yourself. You are just voicing an opinion to be part masses for the sake of popularity.

You know what else is just for fun? Blogs. Have you seen the one with the cute dog pictures? That's about as much as anyone has any reason to be interested in your blog, provide interesting content and people might come.

I could write all the senators letters (not a difficult task, mind) telling them to visit my blog and read my crappy stories, they probably wouldn't, but that doesn't make my blog senator approved. Really, now, all your blog is doing is "voicing [your] opinion to be part masses for the sake of popularity".

Bill Thompson - 1
Lady Gaga - 0

Speaking of putting money where your mouth is. I'm not a big fan of Lady Gaga, but she's actually done something, all you've done is posted on the internet and mailed out a form letter.

 

[NobleXenon54]

I compiled a list of the addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and fax numbers of every senator in the United States Senate. I presented my case in the best well-written letter I could manage.

It took a while but I contacted every United States senator. Family members who read my letter said it was well-written and convincing.

I am not saying that my actions played any role in the Senate refusing to strike down DADT. But I am not saying that it had nothing to do with it.

Bill Thompson - 1
Lady Gaga - 0

Cool story bro, but one question. Are you really that naive? Everything that happened in the Senate yesterday was meant to be defeated. Reid did everything in his power for it to be defeated. He knew silencing the Republicans would have prevented a few of them from voting for closure, like Snowe, Collins, and Voinovich.

Do you really think they were going to do immigration reform, gays in the military, and ethics reform in one blow, which so elegantly happened to come out of nowhere? This was a political stunt by the Democrats to make the Republicans look bad, if the Republicans weren't bad enough already.

First, the majority of Americans support repeal of DADT. In fact, a majority of conservatives are in favor of changing or repealing the law. The conservatives will vote Republican, but what about the moderates? In the eyes of the moderates, they think this was a stupid move by Republicans, thus painting them to be the bad guys. The moderates are the ones that are always targeted for elections. Also, this just energized the gay rights groups that have been furious at Obama's lack of action for any gay rights causes in the past two years.

Second, the DREAM act. This was simply meant to target to the Latinos. Right now, in the news, immigration advocates are furious that Republicans took ZERO interest in this subject. Believe it or not, but the Latinos are the fastest growing voting population. What state does Reid reside in? Yup, Nevada, a swing state. Great, so now Arizona, New Mexico, and others just received a shade of blue that will just get more blue in the future.

Third, the Disclose Act. This was meant to make the Republicans look like they don't care about ethics, given the high occurrence of questionable activity on both sides. Must be great to be perceived as a person with no morals.

Fourth, the troops themselves. Seriously, there is already a thread in this forum that says "Republicans hate the troops." That thread title is probably a joke title, but still, that is what the Democrats want to Republicans to be painted as, just like the Republicans did the same thing to the Democrats years before. What comes around goes around right?

All in all, you probably made no difference playing the Democracy game, since the Democrats wanted all of these to fail for their political gain anyways. Unless if you wanted the Democrats do this, the real score is;

Bill Thompson - 0
Lady Gaga - 0

Congratulations.

Besides, gay rights groups had the cloture votes, as well as the final votes, if Military Readiness amendment was the only amendment introduced in the Defense Bill and having Republican input.

inb4 itzaconspiracytheory derp derp