Repealing DADT Struck Down by the Senate

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Darias
Guru
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:14 pm

Repealing DADT Struck Down by the Senate

Post #1

Post by Darias »

Anne Flaherty, from the [i]Associated Press[/i] wrote: Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer – 4 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation that would have repealed the law banning gays from serving openly in the military.

The partisan vote was a defeat for Senate Democrats and gay rights advocates, who saw the bill as their last chance before November's elections to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

With the 56-43 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. It also would have authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops.

Senate Democrats attached the repeal provision to the defense bill in the hopes that Republicans would hesitate to vote against legislation that included popular defense programs. But GOP legislators opposed the bill anyway, thwarting a key part of the Democrats' legislative agenda.

Now, gay rights advocates say they worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections this fall, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

"The whole thing is a political train wreck," said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

Socarides said President Barack Obama "badly miscalculated" the Pentagon's support for repeal, while Democrats made only a "token effort" to advance the bill.

"If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this," he said.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins agreed with her GOP colleagues that Republicans weren't given sufficient chance to offer amendments.

Reid allowed Republicans the opportunity to offer only one amendment to address GOP objections on the military's policy on gays.

Collins said she planned to vote against advancing the bill unless Democrats agreed to extend debate so that her colleagues could weigh in on other issues.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the senator would be willing to allow more debate on the bill after the November elections.

"Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures," Manley said. "It's about a GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."

An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights' groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.

_____
SOURCE



QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE:
_______

1.) What do y'all think of this?

a.) Is this a good thing? How so?

b.) Is this a bad thing? Why?


2.) What damages morale more? Repealing DADT, or the Senate's decision today to keep it in place?


3.) What do you believe are the chances of repealing DADT in the future?

User avatar
Board
Scholar
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:00 pm
Location: Michigan

Post #21

Post by Board »

East of Eden wrote: Gays are pretty much allowed in the military now, as long as they don't flaunt their lifestyle.
Heterosexuals are pretty much allowed in the military now, as long as they don't flaunt their lifestyle.

Right?

Your statement is promoting a double standard.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #22

Post by East of Eden »

Board wrote:
East of Eden wrote: Gays are pretty much allowed in the military now, as long as they don't flaunt their lifestyle.
Heterosexuals are pretty much allowed in the military now, as long as they don't flaunt their lifestyle.

Right?

Your statement is promoting a double standard.
It is a double standard. Heterosexuals are by definition normative, the 1% who are gay are not. I can see how heterosexual soldiers would be uncomfortable showering with gays, just as female soldiers would be uncomfortable showering with male soldiers. This is why your equation to the former opposition to black soldiers is an invalid one.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Board
Scholar
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:00 pm
Location: Michigan

Post #23

Post by Board »

East of Eden wrote: It is a double standard.
Glad you agree.
East of Eden wrote: Heterosexuals are by definition normative, the 1% who are gay are not.
This is a troubling statement. By definition, normative is how things "ought to be". Are you claiming that by and large society views homosexuality as something that ought not be?

And your % is off. In 2008 the polls show 4% of the voting public claimed to be homosexual.
East of Eden wrote: I can see how heterosexual soldiers would be uncomfortable showering with gays, just as female soldiers would be uncomfortable showering with male soldiers. This is why your equation to the former opposition to black soldiers is an invalid one.
Not sure if you mean me or someone else there. I made no mention of black soldiers. However, now that you mention it I feel it fits quite well. Would a person who is racist feel comfortable showering with an African-American?

Males and Females showering together is an interesting topic as well. Are we so ashamed of our nudity? Can Heterosexuals not control themselves standing around naked together?

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #24

Post by East of Eden »

Board wrote: This is a troubling statement. By definition, normative is how things "ought to be". Are you claiming that by and large society views homosexuality as something that ought not be?
A group that is 1% is by definition not the norm. That is not making a value judgement.
And your % is off. In 2008 the polls show 4% of the voting public claimed to be homosexual.
That's one opinion, why limit it to voting public? This says gay men are less than 1%. http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html
Not sure if you mean me or someone else there. I made no mention of black soldiers. However, now that you mention it I feel it fits quite well. Would a person who is racist feel comfortable showering with an African-American?
He wouldn't feel sexually threatened.
Males and Females showering together is an interesting topic as well. Are we so ashamed of our nudity? Can Heterosexuals not control themselves standing around naked together?
Why don't you wander into the nearest ladies room and find out?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
Board
Scholar
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:00 pm
Location: Michigan

Post #25

Post by Board »

East of Eden wrote: A group that is 1% is by definition not the norm. That is not making a value judgement.
It is most certainly making a value judgement. Check the meaning of the word normative.
Wiki wrote:In the social sciences, the term "normative" has broadly the same meaning to its usage in philosophy
Wiki wrote:In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong.
East of Eden wrote: That's one opinion, why limit it to voting public? This says gay men are less than 1%. http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html
Your link was more than 10 years old on census data and using flawed math. Read the fine print on their site. number 5 at the bottom of their page. One reference is to a book from 1994.
East of Eden wrote: He wouldn't feel sexually threatened.
So the feeling of being sexually threatened is the basis behind DADT? You at first stated that a straight man would feel uncomfortable around a gay man. I brought up a black man and a racist. It is obvious that both the racists and black man would be uncomfortable. Now you change the argument to a sexually threatening situations?

I went to college and lived in a dorm where we had a communal bath. I showered in the same room as several gay men. Not once did I ever feel sexually threatened.
East of Eden wrote: Why don't you wander into the nearest ladies room and find out?
That is a completely un-called for response to an honest question. [/quote]

User avatar
Abraxas
Guru
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:20 pm

Post #26

Post by Abraxas »

East of Eden wrote:
Board wrote:
East of Eden wrote: Gays are pretty much allowed in the military now, as long as they don't flaunt their lifestyle.
Heterosexuals are pretty much allowed in the military now, as long as they don't flaunt their lifestyle.

Right?

Your statement is promoting a double standard.
It is a double standard. Heterosexuals are by definition normative, the 1% who are gay are not. I can see how heterosexual soldiers would be uncomfortable showering with gays, just as female soldiers would be uncomfortable showering with male soldiers. This is why your equation to the former opposition to black soldiers is an invalid one.
Exactly, this is why females are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

However, I think I'm on to something here. I heard of this thing once called a partition, and what it does is you put it somewhere to divide one thing from another thing. Don't tell anyone, because I think I can make some money on this, but, what if we took a few of these "partitions" and created some kind of square like structure and put showers in those. Maybe not even squares, maybe just triangles coming off a central pillar with shower heads depending on how the showers are set up. These partitions don't even have to be rigid, could use something like, like, I don't know, what are those things that go over windows? Curtains. That's right, we can create shower curtains. That way people who don't want to be seen showering don't have to. I think I shall call them "stalls" in honor of the political feet dragging that led to this invention.

Then, for my next trick, I will develop an entirely new system where we train soldiers to withstand some discomfort. Since they are being sent to some of the worst places in the world to begin with, far from home, far from amenities, to brave explosions and machine gun fire, to, at times, be asked to die and die alone for the good of the country, some training in that regard might be useful. We can train then to withstand all that, and withstand the possibility someone might see their artillery in the shower who is different from they are. Seeing as how this would be pretty important and fundamental, I think I shall call it "basic training"

I'll bet if the US is willing to drop hundreds of millions on fighter aircraft that don't even work properly, they'll spend a fortune to get this technology that will allow both women and homosexuals to fill the ranks of the armed forces. To the patent office; away!

User avatar
Scotracer
Guru
Posts: 1772
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Post #27

Post by Scotracer »

East of Eden wrote:
Maya wrote:
East of Eden wrote:
Maya wrote:Back to the original topic...

It seems to me that this is simply yet another case of one party being blatantly obstructionist regardless of ideology. It is a tactic that has long been in use in party politics: if the other party is in power, say no to anything and everything they oppose. Prevent anything from getting done, then blame the other party in the next election for lack of progress. It works like a charm.

The particular hypocrisy of the Republicans on this matter is amusing. Every time a judge or legislation attempts to legalize gay marriage, they wail that they are attempting to circumvent "the will of the people" (a pretty and politically convenient concept, but an imaginary one). Yet when Congress attempts to repeal a policy that has, by all recent polls, been shown to be unpopular with the majority of Americans, the Republicans are conspicuously silent about "the will of the people".

DADT is an illogical, fear-based policy far more suited to backwards theocracies than the USA. There has never been any objective studies that suggest that having openly homosexual service members has a detrimental effect on operational readiness. Information regarding the performance of other militaries that allow openly gay troops does not suggest any detrimental effects, either. This policy is based on the same kinds of fears that once kept the military racially segregated, and is defended with much the same reasons. Furthermore, it damages the military's effectiveness by depriving it of qualified soldiers. It needs to go, and the country will be a good deal better off when it does.

I won't attempt to get involved in the argument of whose party is better. Such an argument is akin to attempting to stick one's head up one's own backside: it is both impossible and undesirable.
We should pay more attention to what the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines think than we do to gay activists.

http://coloradoindependent.com/54299/mi ... compromise
The military by its nature is resistant to change. It took an executive order to force them to racially desegregate. The military chiefs under Truman did not like that idea, and the public was considerably less supportive of the idea than they now are of repealing DADT. Truman forced the change anyway because he believed that it was best for the military and the country. Obama has refused to do this, despite his own campaign promises, out of fear of reprisal and a desire to not be seen as hostile to the military. It is not caution, it is cowardice. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that repealing DADT would be harmful to the military.
Gays are pretty much allowed in the military now, as long as they don't flaunt their lifestyle.
You mean heavily oppressed? If I was in the US I would not serve for that reason alone. So I can be open about my relationships if I have a girlfriend but if I have a boyfriend I have to remain quiet. Screw that.

Oh and the amount of Xenophobia in here is just staggering.
Why Evolution is True
Universe from nothing

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
- Christopher Hitchens

Maya
Student
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #28

Post by Maya »

Why exactly should straight soldiers feel sexually threatened by showering with gay soldiers? With the current environment, it seems to me that the gay soldiers would be the ones feeling threatened, if anything.

So let me see if I have your line of thinking correct: Obviously, if a man is homosexual, he finds every other male on the planet sexually attractive. Furthermore, he is incapable of resisting the urge to copulate with every man he sees. Due to this, he will attempt to rape straight soldiers in the shower, all while other straight soldiers (who vastly outnumber him) look on and do nothing. The straight soldier, because he is analagous to a woman, will not be physically capable of resisting the gay soldier.

User avatar
Lux
Site Supporter
Posts: 2189
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:27 pm

Post #29

Post by Lux »

Maya wrote:Why exactly should straight soldiers feel sexually threatened by showering with gay soldiers? With the current environment, it seems to me that the gay soldiers would be the ones feeling threatened, if anything.

So let me see if I have your line of thinking correct: Obviously, if a man is homosexual, he finds every other male on the planet sexually attractive. Furthermore, he is incapable of resisting the urge to copulate with every man he sees. Due to this, he will attempt to rape straight soldiers in the shower, all while other straight soldiers (who vastly outnumber him) look on and do nothing. The straight soldier, because he is analagous to a woman, will not be physically capable of resisting the gay soldier.
I couldn't agree more. And it doesn't happen just in the military, either. I've met many straight men saying that "they don't mind gays but are not comfortable around them". When asked why, they say something along the lines of worrying the gay men will hit on them. Um... is that excessive ego, or just the assumption that all homosexual men are sexual predators of some sort? :confused2:

Having met and befriended several gay men, I know that they practically never try for a man that is clearly straight. Heterosexual guys in the military don't have anything to worry about with gays. It's all prejudice, and it's in their heads.
[center]Image

© Divine Insight (Thanks!)[/center]



"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith." -Phil Plate.

Maya
Student
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post #30

Post by Maya »

Lucia wrote:
Maya wrote:Why exactly should straight soldiers feel sexually threatened by showering with gay soldiers? With the current environment, it seems to me that the gay soldiers would be the ones feeling threatened, if anything.

So let me see if I have your line of thinking correct: Obviously, if a man is homosexual, he finds every other male on the planet sexually attractive. Furthermore, he is incapable of resisting the urge to copulate with every man he sees. Due to this, he will attempt to rape straight soldiers in the shower, all while other straight soldiers (who vastly outnumber him) look on and do nothing. The straight soldier, because he is analagous to a woman, will not be physically capable of resisting the gay soldier.
I couldn't agree more. And it doesn't happen just in the military, either. I've met many straight men saying that "they don't mind gays but are not comfortable around them". When asked why, they say something along the lines of worrying the gay men will hit on them. Um... is that excessive ego, or just the assumption that all homosexual men are sexual predators of some sort? :confused2:

Having met and befriended several gay men, I know that they practically never try for a man that is clearly straight. Heterosexual guys in the military don't have anything to worry about with gays. It's all prejudice, and it's in their heads.
Exactly. The anxiety is entirely irrational. It stems from one of two causes: unfounded prejudice or insecurity about one's own sexuality.

Soldiers are supposed to be tough guys, right? So why do they get all bent out of shape at the mere thought of being hit on? Women, both straight and gay, get unwanted propositions by men all the time, and most of them manage to handle it just fine without freaking out. These guys sound like sissies to me

Post Reply