• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House approves repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'(edited)

CriticalThought said:
All we need to do is get Navy Pride to say START is dead, and that will pretty much ensure that it passes.
Click to expand...

a very petty observation

But seriously, it has nothing to do with DADT. McCain has a personal animosity to Obama just as he had a personal animosity to Bush. If Reid had put START first, then chances are that neither DADT nor START would have passed.
Click to expand...

you haven't been following

Republicans threaten to derail START - Shira Toeplitz - POLITICO.com

remember, last time he was asked (dec 18), limp lindsey voted "yes"

but don't let start derail your parade, stay up
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
It might be cowardly but it's also a good stepping stone for getting the rest of the country to change. Didn't the military desegregate blacks before the rest of the country?
Click to expand...

Yes. Women were Commanding Officers and Generals before they were CEOs. Blacks were patrolling and being promoted equally and fairly with whites long before Affirmative Action. I've brought this up before to people here, but they all seem too interested in pretending that our military is always the last hold out. In their eagerness to ensure that "they pay our robot salaries" they forget that it has always been the robots that have led social change....not them. The difference is that we are forced to maintain high standards while they use their protected freedoms to maintain the choice between good and bad morality.

But the great contradiction remains... - "You are good enough to go die for my unearned rights, homosexual, but **** you if you want to get married in our courts."
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Yes. Women were Commanding Officers and Generals before they were CEOs. Blacks were patrolling and being promoted equally and fairly with whites long before Affirmative Action. I've brought this up before to people here, but they all seem too interested in pretending that our military is always the last hold out. In their eagerness to ensure that "they pay our robot salaries" they forget that it has always been the robots that have led social change....not them. The difference is that we are forced to maintain high standards while they use their protected freedoms to maintain the choice between good and bad morality.

But the great contradiction remains... - "You are good enough to go die for my unearned rights, homosexual, but **** you if you want to get married in our courts."
Click to expand...

All of that would be great and true, but the fact is, the rest of the country already lets gays work openly for them. In fact, in most(I think) states, gays cannot be discriminated in employment. In this case, the military is behind.
 
Redress said:
All of that would be great and true, but the fact is, the rest of the country already lets gays work openly for them. In fact, in most(I think) states, gays cannot be discriminated in employment. In this case, the military is behind.
Click to expand...

You are evading because you want to believe that gays get a fair shake across our country and that once the military backs off, utopia will magically emerge. It will not. The military have always been removed from the civilian social debates, because tradition and orders will always trump the utopian dreams of university classrooms and political agendas. But it was always the military that was forced to do what civilians would not. This is the very same exact thing that happened with blacks and women. In every case, the civilian world moaned and marched, but in the end forced the military to achieve what they could not long after their tired debates.

1) Gays do not have the same legal rights heterosexuals have. In the military, the legal code will be altered to allow gays the same rights as the rest. Their loved ones will be the beneficiaries, despite civilian courts denying them marriage and spousal legal rights.

2) Gays are the subject of ridicule in Hollywood and television. In the military, singling out gays will result in Non-Judicial Procedures and Courts Martials. Military careers will be ruined while civilians maintain their right to ridicule and ostricize for the world's entertainment.

Once again, the social and legal ineqaulity of the unaccepted will be a civilian shame. It will be the military, once again, that leads the way. We like to pretend that generals are the great bigots of our society, simply because we live during a time of social change, but none of this is new. And I guarantee you that no matter how many gays have been killed in the civilian sector, they will be dismissed for the few that may be killed inside the military. And do you know why? It's because, just like with racial segregation, civilians expect us to be better than them. They expect us to lead where they cannot (and plenty simply refuse).
 
Last edited:
I support getting rid of DADT and allowing gays to serve in most-if not all-military roles. Think of some poor brainwashed Islamist waiting interrogation and worrying that the guy who is going to be grilling him is Gay!!. The US military could use the homophobia intrinsic in the hard core Islamists to our benefit!
 
MSgt said:
You are evading. The military was always behind the civilian debates, because tradition and orders will always trump the utopian dreams of university classrooms and political agendas. But it was always the military that was forced to do what civilians would not. This is the very same exact thing that happened with blacks and women. In every case, the civilian world moaned and marched, but in the end forced the military to achieve what they could not long after their tired debates.
Click to expand...

First off, treating people as people and based on their actions is not some Utopian dream.

The military is not being asked to do something civilians cannot, they are being asked to do what the rest of the country already can do.

1) Gays do not have the same legal rights heterosexuals have. In the military, the legal code will be altered to allow gays the same rights as the rest. Their loved ones will be the beneficiaries, despite civilian courts denying them marriage.
Click to expand...

Oh noz, the military will have to let people designate their own next of kin. The horror!

2) Gays are the subject of ridicule in Hollywood and television. In the military, singling out gays will result in Non-Judicial Procedures and Courts Martials. Military careers will be ruined while civilians maintain their right to ridicule and ostricize for the world's entertainment.
Click to expand...

Gays are also sometimes positively portrayed by Hollywood. Here is a hint: Hollywood is not the whole of the US. If I work with a gay in the civilian world and call him a dirty fag, guess what, I am probably going to be subject to discipline. My career could be ruined. And it's been like that for years. Welcome to the 21st century.

Once again, the socially and legal ineqaulity of the unaccepted will be a civilian shame. It will be the military, once again, that leads the way.
Click to expand...

Really? So being in the rear is leading now?
 
TurtleDude said:
I support getting rid of DADT and allowing gays to serve in most-if not all-military roles. Think of some poor brainwashed Islamist waiting interrogation and worrying that the guy who is going to be grilling him is Gay!!. The US military could use the homophobia intrinsic in the hard core Islamists to our benefit!
Click to expand...

You do know that some people are going to call you a RINO, now, don't you?
 
Gardener said:
You do know that some people are going to call you a RINO, now, don't you?
Click to expand...

yeah I hear that when I tell people i was a guard/escort at Planned Parenthood, I have gay and lesbian friends (and even dated a bisexual woman years ago) and think bible thumpers are almost as clueless as welfare -socialists!
 
TurtleDude said:
I support getting rid of DADT and allowing gays to serve in most-if not all-military roles. Think of some poor brainwashed Islamist waiting interrogation and worrying that the guy who is going to be grilling him is Gay!!. The US military could use the homophobia intrinsic in the hard core Islamists to our benefit!
Click to expand...

Dirty liberal hippy! :D

What roles do you think gays are not able to perform, exactly? (you need to re-establish your evil republican cred, quick!)
 
Redress said:
First off, treating people as people and based on their actions is not some Utopian dream.
Click to expand...

Oh, of course it is. It's all about the utopian dream.

Redress said:
The military is not being asked to do something civilians cannot, they are being asked to do what the rest of the country already can do.
Click to expand...

The rest of the country maintains a homosexual's spousal preference in its legal codes?

Redress said:
Oh noz, the military will have to let people designate their own next of kin. The horror!
Click to expand...

You are evading. The military already designates Next of Kin. I would think you knew this. I would also think that you would be aware of the significance of a RED when it comes to not just next of kin, but "spousal rights."

Redress said:
Gays are also sometimes positively portrayed by Hollywood. Here is a hint: Hollywood is not the whole of the US. If I work with a gay in the civilian world and call him a dirty fag, guess what, I am probably going to be subject to discipline. My career could be ruined. And it's been like that for years. Welcome to the 21st century.
Click to expand...

"Sometimes?" "Probably?" There is no sometimes and probably in the military. One more example on how we will be forced to maintain the higher standard so that lower standards in the civilian sector can be over looked.

Redress said:
Really? So being in the rear is leading now?
Click to expand...

You are still evading the truth. When the military was forced to integrate women and blacks, the civilian debates of acceptance was already happening. In both events, the military was "behind," but it was the military that led. This is the same. Spousal preference in the military will be a fact of law before they are allowed to marry in civilian courts.

And besides, it's gays that are being in the rear.
 
Last edited:
Often the stuff MSgt posts is pretty sensible. This is not the case today, unfortunately.

Also, I wonder how long until the military recognizes homosexual marriages.
 
MSgt said:
Oh, of course it is. It's all about the utopian dream.
Click to expand...

If trying to live in the best country possible is Utopian, then maybe we are. Of course, I think it's just better to do the right thing whenever possible and don't see that as Utopian.

The rest of the country maintains a homosexual's spousal preference in its legal codes?
Click to expand...

Nowhere does it say that the military has to recognize gay marriages.


You are evading. The military already designates Next of Kin. I would think that you would be aware of the significance of a RED when it comes to not just next of kin, but "spousal rights."
Click to expand...

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice that the federal government does not recognize SSM.

"Sometimes?" "Probably?" There is no sometimes and probably in the military. One more example on how we will be forced to maintain the higher standard so that lower standards in the civilian sector can be over looked.
Click to expand...

Yes there are in the military. I could call my hispanic bud in the navy a wetback cuz he knew I was joking with him. That is the difference. If I insult some ones sexuality at work(well, my last job, unemployed sorta atm), and they take offense, I will face discipline.


You are still evading the truth. When the military was forced to integrate women and blacks, the civilian debates of acceptance was already happening. In both events, the military was "behind," but it was the military that led. This is the same. Spousal preference in the military will be a fact of law before they are allowed to marry in civilian courts.
Click to expand...

The military is not being forced to integrate women or blacks, they are being forced to integrate gays. I already covered your mistaken beliefs about SSM. The rest is already the case in the civilian world. Sorry, but the world moved past you all.

And besides, it's gays that are being in the rear.
Click to expand...

Gays will be where ever they are ordered to be. Remember, the first casualty of the in the Iraq war was gay.
 
megaprogman said:
Often the stuff MSgt posts is pretty sensible. This is not the case today, unfortunately.

Also, I wonder how long until the military recognizes homosexual marriages.
Click to expand...

Not as long as DOMA is in place.
 
megaprogman said:
Often the stuff MSgt posts is pretty sensible. This is not the case today, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

And why is this? Don't mistake your lack of knowledge as sense.

megaprogman said:
Also, I wonder how long until the military recognizes homosexual marriages.
Click to expand...

As soon as civilians allow gay marrriage. Or should the military lead this too? In the mean time, the military will recognize spousal preference in the RED, which is a step up from what they get now in the courts.
 
MSgt said:
Oh, of course it is. It's all about the utopian dream.



The rest of the country maintains a homosexual's spousal preference in its legal codes?



You are evading. The military already designates Next of Kin. I would think you knew this. I would also think that you would be aware of the significance of a RED when it comes to not just next of kin, but "spousal rights."



"Sometimes?" "Probably?" There is no sometimes and probably in the military. One more example on how we will be forced to maintain the higher standard so that lower standards in the civilian sector can be over looked.



You are still evading the truth. When the military was forced to integrate women and blacks, the civilian debates of acceptance was already happening. In both events, the military was "behind," but it was the military that led. This is the same. Spousal preference in the military will be a fact of law before they are allowed to marry in civilian courts.

And besides, it's gays that are being in the rear.
Click to expand...

Actually, it really doesn't look like gay spouses will be able to receive all or even most of the same benefits that straight spouses receive yet, due mainly to DOMA. That was specifically addressed in the study, and I'm pretty sure that the panel took the position that giving them most benefits without having their spouse legally recognized (despite the fact that their spouse can't be legally recognized by the federal government) would not be fair to straight couples in relationships but not legally married (ignoring the fact that those straight couples could get legally married pretty much anytime they chose to).

Personally, I wish that they would recognize gay spouses completely as dependents, but it most likely won't happen til DOMA goes down.

As far as the civilian vs. military acceptance of homosexuality, I think the military is more in the middle on this one. There are a lot of businesses that do recognize a gay person's significant other under benefits, but there are still more that don't. And there are many states that protect a person from being fired because they are gay, but there are some states that don't or have laws that say a business doesn't have to state why a person was fired. It all depends on what part of the country you are in and/or what business you are comparing the military to as to whether or not they are behind or ahead in this policy.
 
MSgt said:
Yes. Women were Commanding Officers and Generals before they were CEOs. Blacks were patrolling and being promoted equally and fairly with whites long before Affirmative Action. I've brought this up before to people here, but they all seem too interested in pretending that our military is always the last hold out. In their eagerness to ensure that "they pay our robot salaries" they forget that it has always been the robots that have led social change....not them. The difference is that we are forced to maintain high standards while they use their protected freedoms to maintain the choice between good and bad morality.

But the great contradiction remains... - "You are good enough to go die for my unearned rights, homosexual, but **** you if you want to get married in our courts."
Click to expand...

Yes, well I want to personally thank you for leading the way for gay marriage then. I can see how the military will force states to change. Consider that a gay couple married in Vermont should now be able to qualify for spousal benefits in the military...but not one from Texas? The military does like for everything to be uniform.
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, it really doesn't look like gay spouses will be able to receive all or even most of the same benefits that straight spouses receive yet, due mainly to DOMA. That was specifically addressed in the study, and I'm pretty sure that the panel took the position that giving them most benefits without having their spouse legally recognized (despite the fact that their spouse can't be legally recognized by the federal government) would not be fair to straight couples in relationships but not legally married (ignoring the fact that those straight couples could get legally married pretty much anytime they chose to).

Personally, I wish that they would recognize gay spouses completely as dependents, but it most likely won't happen til DOMA goes down.

As far as the civilian vs. military acceptance of homosexuality, I think the military is more in the middle on this one. There are a lot of businesses that do recognize a gay person's significant other under benefits, but there are still more that don't. And there are many states that protect a person from being fired because they are gay, but there are some states that don't or have laws that say a business doesn't have to state why a person was fired. It all depends on what part of the country you are in and/or what business you are comparing the military to as to whether or not they are behind or ahead in this policy.
Click to expand...

Aw, that sucks. That'll be like a decade from now. :(
 
Deuce said:
Dirty liberal hippy! :D

What roles do you think gays are not able to perform, exactly? (you need to re-establish your evil republican cred, quick!)
Click to expand...

never said they cannot perform roles-however I think right now having an openly gay man in some small elite units MAY cause a deleterious affect upon that unit Some with submarines. NOt the gay's fault but a reality
 
Kelzie said:
Aw, that sucks. That'll be like a decade from now. :(
Click to expand...

Maybe sooner, but we'll all just have to wait and see. Hopefully, one of those court cases working its way up will reach the SCOTUS soon and take down DOMA completely.

Gotta love optimism.
 
TurtleDude said:
never said they cannot perform roles-however I think right now having an openly gay man in some small elite units MAY cause a deleterious affect upon that unit Some with submarines. NOt the gay's fault but a reality
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be submarines that a person would have to worry about very many issues. I have worked with submariners (due to working at Pearl Harbor SY), and most of those guys have very little issue with working with gays. As far as they're concerned, they just want someone who does their job. Working with women, otoh, is a hot item with them. Most of them would much rather work with an openly gay man than a straight woman anyday.
 
You appear to be emotional. Settle down.

Redress said:
If trying to live in the best country possible is Utopian, then maybe we are. Of course, I think it's just better to do the right thing whenever possible and don't see that as Utopian.
Click to expand...

People often mistake their personal perspectives as a definition for the general belief. Utopia has been the goal since the Greeks. The Declaration of Independence is very much a prescription fo utopia. Making mistakes and trying to do the "right thing" ever since has been about realizing the purity of utopian society.

Redress said:
Nowhere does it say that the military has to recognize gay marriages.
Click to expand...

And notice that nowhere did I write that it had to. I'm not talking about legal marriage within the military. I am talking about legal spousal preference and SGLI benefits in a nation where courts laugh at their requests to get married. In other words, civilians want the military to pretend that they have the same rights so that they can continue to deny them rights.


Redress said:
Yes there are in the military. I could call my hispanic bud in the navy a wetback cuz he knew I was joking with him. That is the difference. If I insult some ones sexuality at work(well, my last job, unemployed sorta atm), and they take offense, I will face discipline.
Click to expand...

Are you being argumentative on purpose? I wasn't talking about jokes. I am talking about malicious behavior. In your civilian world you "may" see discipline and it will probably be in the form of a letter or a class. In the military there will be pay loss, rank loss, and career loss. I would certainly describe that as being far more intolerable than your last job. And in this fashion, just like in blacks and women, the military will lead the way.

Redress said:
The military is not being forced to integrate women or blacks, they are being forced to integrate gays. I already covered your mistaken beliefs about SSM. The rest is already the case in the civilian world. Sorry, but the world moved past you all.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, the world has moved past nothing. Gays are ostricized, beaten up, and murdered everywhere. Second, I am quite aware that integrating blacks and women were in the past and that today's issues are about homosexuals. Your attempt to insult my intelligence was sophomoric. I was very clear about how all three social changes were and are similar. And third, you covered what you thought was my mistake for the sake of your pro-homosexual stage. I have been quite clear on my absolute indifference on whether gays serve or not. But being able to serve openly means special considerations in regards to spousal (dependent) preference, especially during conflict. These considerations will not reflect the civilian's prescription for gays in the civilian courts.

Long after gays serve openly and have other men as their dependents, civilians will still refuse them legal marriage proving that you have moved past nothing. You will be proven as wrong as all those leftist dreamers that tried to paint the military as being behind in regards to women and blacks decades ago.

Redress said:
Gays will be where ever they are ordered to be. Remember, the first casualty of the in the Iraq war was gay.
Click to expand...

.....so? Remember, the biggest traitor in the Iraq War was also gay. Are these things supposed to mean something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom