Nice, glad to see the Lady has added her .02 worth. Personally, I think it's shameful they attached it to the next defense appropriations bill. I'm sick and tired of the bullshit tricks Repugs & Dims keep playing with legislation by attaching pretty much un-related issues to important bills so they can have a "gotcha" factor. "Senator Blowhard voted against clean underwear for Sr. Citizens". Nevermind that amendment was stuck in an appropriations bill for dog brothels.
"Pop star Lady Gaga led a political rally in favor of repeal in Maine on Monday. The state is home to the two Republican senators — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins — seen as most likely to side with Democrats on the issue. Lady Gaga said it was unjust to have goodhearted gay soldiers booted from military service while straight soldiers who harbor hatred toward gays are allowed to fight for their country.
She suggested a new policy should target straight soldiers who are "uncomfortable" with gay soldiers in their midst.
"Our new law is called 'If you don't like it, go home!'" she said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100921/ap_on_go_co/us_gays_military
"Send home the straight soldier who hates the gay soldier..." ::)
Didn't our military operate just fine prior to President Clinton weighing in with "Don't ask don't tell"? Why should anyone in the military want their sexual identity to be an issue in the first place?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2010, 09:22:46 AM
Didn't our military operate just fine prior to President Clinton weighing in with "Don't ask don't tell"? Why should anyone in the military want their sexual identity to be an issue in the first place?
Before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gays were specifically always banned from the military. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was intended as a way to allow gays to serve so long as they didn't tell anyone they were gay.
Quote from: swake on September 21, 2010, 09:46:23 AM
Before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gays were specifically always banned from the military. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was intended as a way to allow gays to serve so long as they didn't tell anyone they were gay.
Are you seriously trying to imply gays didn't serve before that?
How many gays do you think were turned away before the legislation as opposed to after? All DADT did was put into writing what had gone on for 200+ years in the American Armed Forces.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2010, 09:57:21 AM
Are you seriously trying to imply gays didn't serve before that?
How many gays do you think were turned away before the legislation as opposed to after? All DADT did was put into writing what had gone on for 200+ years in the American Armed Forces.
Except that if someone found out you were gay, you could be discharged for that reason alone.
In other words, if someone saw you out at Chili's eating dinner with your partner and reported you, you could be tossed. Which is, in essence, the equivalent of getting fired. And which, when based on sexuality, is discriminatory.
Quote from: we vs us on September 21, 2010, 10:24:28 AM
Except that if someone found out you were gay, you could be discharged for that reason alone.
In other words, if someone saw you out at Chili's eating dinner with your partner and reported you, you could be tossed. Which is, in essence, the equivalent of getting fired. And which, when based on sexuality, is discriminatory.
There are so many things that are "discriminatory" in our military your point is silly. Let's start with who is exempt from registering with the Selective Service.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 10:36:54 AM
There are so many things that are "discriminatory" in our military your point is silly. Let's start with who is exempt from registering with the Selective Service.
Who's exempt? I honestly don't know.
But I don't think it matters in the larger scheme of things. DADT is still enshrining discrimination for no other reason than for sexuality. Not for physical or mental readiness, or ability. These are people who serve perfectly well, except for the fact that they're gay.
Quote from: we vs us on September 21, 2010, 10:43:01 AM
Who's exempt? I honestly don't know.
But I don't think it matters in the larger scheme of things. DADT is still enshrining discrimination for no other reason than for sexuality. Not for physical or mental readiness, or ability. These are people who serve perfectly well, except for the fact that they're gay.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html)
Quote from: we vs us on September 21, 2010, 10:43:01 AM
Who's exempt? I honestly don't know.
But I don't think it matters in the larger scheme of things. DADT is still enshrining discrimination for no other reason than for sexuality. Not for physical or mental readiness, or ability. These are people who serve perfectly well, except for the fact that they're gay.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPrF6-dvM3oI0ccGa9mrlTSgdIsGz_poULNFlfVb_KkLPnEqE&t=1&usg=__YKSwOLbrM_54A-W5wFeJawfzFcA=)
As for who is eligible, google "Selective Service". Jeez
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 11:00:53 AM
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPrF6-dvM3oI0ccGa9mrlTSgdIsGz_poULNFlfVb_KkLPnEqE&t=1&usg=__YKSwOLbrM_54A-W5wFeJawfzFcA=)
As for who is eligible, google "Selective Service". Jeez
I'm not gonna google to support your argument. Post it yourself or move on.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 21, 2010, 10:50:36 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html)
The usual perp walk.
They violated military policy and spoke about their sexual orientation over a military instant chat system.
People need to quit thinking of the military as being some sort of "employer" which operates within the norms of society. The armed forces necessarily operate under a different rules and decorum.
Quote from: we vs us on September 21, 2010, 11:09:40 AM
I'm not gonna google to support your argument. Post it yourself or move on.
Hey bud, you started this "discriminatory" crap and I smacked it down. If you do not want to learn something about how the military conducts itself, and insist on burying your head in sand, so be it.
I remember something from bootcamp about the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) replacing your Constitutional Rights.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2010, 12:02:50 PM
The usual perp walk.
They violated military policy and spoke about their sexual orientation over a military instant chat system.
People need to quit thinking of the military as being some sort of "employer" which operates within the norms of society. The armed forces necessarily operate under a different rules and decorum.
But the military policy is discriminatory. The military IS both an employer, and also the Federal Government, both of whom cannot (or should not discriminate).
I agree that the military should be treated in
some cases as a special entity, but not in all cases. In cases where essential readiness is under threat, I'm much more open to fudging the rules. But the fact that DADT exists is a de facto admission by the armed forces that accepting soldiers of all sexual orientations doesn't affect combat readiness.
And it doesn't affect readiness. cf. Iraq, Afghanistan, the GWOT. We've been more militarized in the last decade than we have since Vietnam, and the functioning of the military, I think everyone would agree, has been excellent and not degraded by the secretly gay troops in our military.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 12:33:21 PM
Hey bud, you started this "discriminatory" crap and I smacked it down. If you do not want to learn something about how the military conducts itself, and insist on burying your head in sand, so be it.
You didn't smack anything down. If you want to argue or discuss or debate, support your case. If you can't be bothered to post your argument, then what are you doing here?
Quote from: we vs us on September 21, 2010, 12:54:27 PM
If you can't be bothered to post your argument, then what are you doing here?
Right now, I'm laughing at you.
Quote from: we vs us on September 21, 2010, 12:54:27 PM
You didn't smack anything down. If you want to argue or discuss or debate, support your case. If you can't be bothered to post your argument, then what are you doing here?
Does anyone here know which entire class of persons (hint, they make up the majority of our population) are exempt from registering with selective service?
broads?
Hmmm, illegal aliens er as yet unregistered Democrat voters under the age of 26 are required to register, I never knew that.
The bill did not pass.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:gSLAivVUQVn0pM:http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x74/chicbn872/Movie%2520Stills/YouShallNotPass2.jpg)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 21, 2010, 01:28:02 PM
broads?
I was going to go with "Children of elected officials"
Quote from: Trogdor on September 21, 2010, 02:48:12 PM
I was going to go with "Children of elected officials"
Go with it, it's funny.
What I want to know is: When is this attention whore's 15 minutes up? She really annoys the frackin' crap out of me. I wish she'd get back on her damn disco stick and leave.
Quote from: swake on September 21, 2010, 06:15:03 PM
What I want to know is: When is this attention whore's 15 minutes up? She really annoys the frackin' crap out of me. I wish she'd get back on her damn disco stick and leave.
This sounds much like the admonition to the Dixie Chicks when they criticized Bush II - "Shut up and sing!"
Lady Gaga is merely exercising her constitutional right to criticize the government, something we all do here everyday. She just has a bigger stage.
Quote from: Ed W on September 21, 2010, 06:52:44 PM
This sounds much like the admonition to the Dixie Chicks when they criticized Bush II - "Shut up and sing!"
Lady Gaga is merely exercising her constitutional right to criticize the government, something we all do here everyday. She just has a bigger stage.
Come on Ed. A few weeks ago when the so-called Ground Zero mosque issue was on fire, those opposing the mosque were called intolerant, bigoted, and islamaphobic. I do not recall much pity for those folks exercising their constitutional rights to speak out in that circumstance.
Swake, do I need to post that video of the troops in Afghanistan singing/dancing to Gaga's "Telephone" so as to remind you of her significance.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 07:08:28 PM
Come on Ed. A few weeks ago when the so-called Ground Zero mosque issue was on fire, those opposing the mosque were called intolerant, bigoted, and islamaphobic. I do not recall much pity for those folks exercising their constitutional rights to speak out in that circumstance.
The freedom of speech does not have a freedom from criticism piggybacking on it.
Quote from: nathanm on September 21, 2010, 07:18:25 PM
The freedom of speech does not have a freedom from criticism piggybacking on it.
Which is why I supported Swake's position on his Gaga "attention whore" point. Question is, why didn't you?
Quote from: Ed W on September 21, 2010, 06:52:44 PM
Lady Gaga is merely exercising her constitutional right to criticize the government, something we all do here everyday. She just has a bigger stage.
Which is why she should be more careful.
Honestly, our stage is so small, that what we say is soon forgotten.
She has the ability to influence many of her uninformed audience. She probably is just as uninformed as they are and was told what to say by her publicist.
And I thought she was really a dude.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 07:08:28 PM
Come on Ed. A few weeks ago when the so-called Ground Zero mosque issue was on fire, those opposing the mosque were called intolerant, bigoted, and islamaphobic. I do not recall much pity for those folks exercising their constitutional rights to speak out in that circumstance.
I don't recall that I said those who spoke out against the mosque were "intolerant, bigoted, or islamaphobic" - they are - but they have the same right to speak their minds as you, me, or Lady Gaga. Mind you, I said the same right, not superior or inferior despite their apparent ignorance of American history.
Pity? I should feel pity for someone exercising their rights? That's a new one.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2010, 09:22:46 AM
Didn't our military operate just fine prior to President Clinton weighing in with "Don't ask don't tell"? Why should anyone in the military want their sexual identity to be an issue in the first place?
If by 'just fine' you mean a sizeable percentage of the armed forces had to (and still does) do their jobs pretending to be someone they aren't, and are basically living a lie for fear of losing their career, then yes.
And the whole point of repealing DADT is so sexual identity will NOT be an issue- for anyone. BTW, it's not the gays that are making sexuality such a big deal.
Quote from: Ed W on September 21, 2010, 08:53:19 PM
I don't recall that I said those who spoke out against the mosque were "intolerant, bigoted, or islamaphobic" - they are - but they have the same right to speak their minds as you, me, or Lady Gaga. Mind you, I said the same right, not superior or inferior despite their apparent ignorance of American history.
Pity? I should feel pity for someone exercising their rights? That's a new one.
"Pity" was perhaps not the best word when I meant "understanding" for the free speech rights of others. But it doesn't matter given that in the context of the mosque those wanting relocation were
ipso facto bigots.
So if those folks wanting the mosque moved were intolerant, et. al., wouldn't Gaga be intolerant and bigoted as to the perhaps religious motives by those opposing gay rights? And on the subject of intolerance and bigotry, funny that we don't hear Gaga, you, or any others demanding that women (as opposed to men) be required to register with the selective service (or risk loss of college assistance) or serve a more equal combat role. Now why is that? You must be anti-man.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on September 21, 2010, 09:08:29 PM
If by 'just fine' you mean a sizeable percentage of the armed forces had to (and still does) do their jobs pretending to be someone they aren't, and are basically living a lie for fear of losing their career, then yes.
And the whole point of repealing DADT is so sexual identity will NOT be an issue- for anyone. BTW, it's not the gays that are making sexuality such a big deal.
Is there a distinction between sexual "orientation" and sexual "identity". If so, how do transgenders fit into either of those definitions? Seriously curious, because those having had a "sex change" from female to male, just like women, do not have to register for the selective service. Are the DADT repealer crowd demanding that female to male transgendered be required by law and under penalty (such as the aforementioned loss of college benefits) to register? I don't know.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 10:36:54 AM
There are so many things that are "discriminatory" in our military your point is silly. Let's start with who is exempt from registering with the Selective Service.
There is a huge difference between being exempt from having to register for the draft, and being flat out denied from willfully serving your country based solely on your sexual preference. Last I checked, women (or at least the straight ones) were still allowed to serve.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 09:25:08 PM
Is there a distinction between sexual "orientation" and sexual "identity". If so, how do transgenders fit into either of those definitions? Seriously curious, because those having had a "sex change" from female to male, just like women, do not have to register for the selective service. Are the DADT repealer crowd demanding that female to male transgendered be required by law and under penalty (such as the aforementioned loss of college benefits) to register? I don't know.
There is definitely a difference between sexual preference, and gender identity, as the two are completely unrelated. I personally believe that anyone who is physically and mentally willing and able to fight and die for our country should have the right to do so.
Edited to add that you bring up a good point in that the transgendered persons are even less understood by the so-called mainstream than the gays. Really though, they are just people who feel they were born the wrong sex and identify with either being a male or female, and could either be gay or straight, since gender identity isn't related to who you are attracted to sexually. So actually, you could have transgendered 'straight' people that could technically serve right now, and I think that anyone who identifies as being a male should be required to abide by the selective service laws, even though they would undoubtedly be denied for being 'homosexual' even though they may not be.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on September 21, 2010, 09:27:00 PM
There is a huge difference between being exempt from having to register for the draft, and being flat out denied from willfully serving your country based solely on your sexual preference. Last I checked, women (or at least the straight ones) were still allowed to serve.
Oh come freakin on. If you are woman or a female to male transgendered you cannot be forced at the barrel of a gun to serve at a time of war in a combat role. There are even more examples of rampant "discriminatory" decisions the military makes every day, yet we do not hear you or others demanding equality shouting loudly.
For the record, I actually support repeal of DADT because I simply do not think mission effectiveness is compromised--although admittedly I am no expert. I am someone who has "been there/done that" in the Army and AF.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 09:36:58 PM
Oh come freakin on. If you are woman or a female to male transgendered you cannot be forced at the barrel of a gun to serve at a time of war in a combat role. There are even more examples of rampant "discriminatory" decisions the military makes every day, yet we do not hear you or others demanding equality shouting loudly.
For the record, I actually support repeal of DADT because I simply do not think mission effectiveness is compromised--although admittedly I am no expert. I am someone who has "been there/done that" in the Army and AF.
And for the record, I don't think gender should play a role whatsoever in the military, whether it be selective service or any other aspect. I understand where the outdated logic comes from, but I don't agree with it.
Not requiring women to register is still a very different issue than flat out denying people who want to serve based on a prejudice against their sexuality. Doesn't even compare. Women are still able to run out and sign up anytime they want. Gays are not.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 09:36:58 PM
For the record, I actually support repeal of DADT because I simply do not think mission effectiveness is compromised--although admittedly I am no expert. I am someone who has "been there/done that" in the Army and AF.
Ha...wait, what?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on September 21, 2010, 09:49:31 PM
Not drafting women during wartime is still a very different issue than flat out denying people who want to serve based on a prejudice against their sexuality. Doesn't even compare.
Tell that to the nearly 100,000 men who fled to Canada during the Vietnam war about how it compares. Or the thousands of draftees that died/grievously wounded during that war while women and any others that were not drafted were left unharmed.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 09:55:39 PM
Tell that to the nearly 100,000 men who fled to Canada during the Vietnam war about how it compares. Or the thousands of draftees that died/grievously wounded during that war while women and any others that were not drafted were left unharmed.
Hey, if women want to get together and protest to get the laws changed so they are included in the draft process, then more power to them!
I could be wrong, but I really don't think many women feel that their constitutional rights are being stomped on by not having to register for the draft. I'm pretty sure in this case most women feel damn lucky to have a uterus.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on September 21, 2010, 10:06:02 PM
I could be wrong, but I really don't think many women feel that their constitutional rights are being stomped on by not having to register for the draft. I'm pretty sure in this case most women feel damn lucky to have a uterus.
Man you better duck and cover, and I mean in a real hurry.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 10:10:06 PM
Man you better duck and cover, and I mean in a real hurry.
If there actually are any women on this forum, I would love for them to chime in on this one.
Quote from: Ed W on September 21, 2010, 06:52:44 PM
This sounds much like the admonition to the Dixie Chicks when they criticized Bush II - "Shut up and sing!"
Lady Gaga is merely exercising her constitutional right to criticize the government, something we all do here everyday. She just has a bigger stage.
You misunderstand. I am for the repeal of the law. I just can't stand her fake self aggrandizing persona.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2010, 09:17:22 PM
"Pity" was perhaps not the best word when I meant "understanding" for the free speech rights of others. But it doesn't matter given that in the context of the mosque those wanting relocation were ipso facto bigots.
So if those folks wanting the mosque moved were intolerant, et. al., wouldn't Gaga be intolerant and bigoted as to the perhaps religious motives by those opposing gay rights? And on the subject of intolerance and bigotry, funny that we don't hear Gaga, you, or any others demanding that women (as opposed to men) be required to register with the selective service (or risk loss of college assistance) or serve a more equal combat role. Now why is that? You must be anti-man.
It's heartening that even you can recognize the inherent bigotry in the anti-Muslim, anti-mosque protesters. But the sleight of hand won't work. The topic was and remains on free speech. You, me, and Lady Gaga all have the same right to speak our minds, just as those benighted anti-mosque protesters do or the kids who protest the G8 (or is it G9 talks?). You can stand on any street corner and burn a Koran, a Bible, an old Sears catalog, or that photo of Sarah Palin you keep by the bedside. (I'm guessing, of course.) That is your right, just as it's equally mine. But bigotry comes into the picture - as you know - when one person or group believes their ideas are the truth, and they believe it's necessary to suppress any other ideas that are contradictory. So bigotry is rooted in intolerance. So it's reasonable, then, to say that speaking out about gay rights, DADT, Muslims, or mosques isn't by itself an indication of bigotry unless that speech is meant to suppress or deprive others of their rights.