Obama to sign law ending military gay ban

[Darias]

.


Finally...


DADT is repealed.

And it was done so via Congress - not via the courts.

And it was done with a Republican dominated House.

It will take a while before the policy goes into action, but at least it's there.

I didn't expect this to ever happen after the results of the November election.

Now the U.S. can join the rest of the world... finally.


Questions for debate:

1.) How do you feel about this?

2.) What effect do you think it will have on our military (will it look like Israel's or any of the other many countries who have equality in their armed forces? Or will it have negative repercussions?).

[cnorman18]

This is a speech issue, and speech is restricted in precincts where the powers at be deem it appropriate. Disneyland has the power to prevent workers from wearing 9/11 flags because they don't conform with their uniform regulations, CNN has the power to fire Rick Sanchez for exercizing free speech because they didn't conform with CNN policy, and the military should have the power to prevent Homosexuals and Heterosexuals from expressing their sexual preferences in a military setting.

That's about as disingenuous as it gets. It it had been a speech issue, then soldiers and sailors wouldn't have been discharged when their homosexuality became known even when they had said nothing about it. The crime wasn't SAYING one is gay -- it was BEING gay. In order to serve in the military, gays were required to be dishonest, because gays were not allowed to serve.

[Darias]

No because this is a fallacious analogy and the two situations are incomparable. The Gay Rights movement is not comparable with the Civil Rights Movement and it's wrong for people to try to do so.

1.) If I may butt-in,

I don't think anyone is saying that slavery & segregation = DADT and the lack of recognition of gay marriage. I think that African Americans had it much worse; after all I rarely hear of a 'gay-lynching.'

That said, I argue is that the nature of discrimination is very similar. A majority group objects to the establishment of equal rights for a minority group over "moral/traditional" reasons.

Disneyland has the power to prevent workers from wearing 9/11 flags because they don't conform with their uniform regulations,

2.) And they have done this with Muslim women as well. Dress Code is dress code. I can't wear a t-shirt at my job that says "No Mosque Here," first because it is a government office and the dress code is formal, and second because it is inappropriate (Not that I would want to anyway).

CNN has the power to fire Rick Sanchez for exercizing free speech because they didn't conform with CNN policy,

3.) Um, first -- since when do you care about CNN? You watch FOX right?

Second, I thought you didn't like Sanchez because he was too liberal.

Third, They fired Sanchez because he made disturbing comments about Jews. If he hadn't been fired, I'm sure you'd be sitting here ranting about how anti-Semitic the "main stream liberal news" is.

and the military should have the power to prevent Homosexuals and Heterosexuals from expressing their sexual preferences in a military setting.

4.) Well if that rule had applied to everyone, and not been discriminatory against a single group, and had it not been abused as it was, and if thousands upon thousands of people hadn't been fired because of it -- then it would have been great.

But the fact is, DADT was a rule that targeted gay soldiers. Under the policy, straight soldiers could brag about their women -- how hot they were -- and freely talk about how much they wanted to "hit that," while gay soldiers were forced to pretend to be straight, joining in with the 'macho-talk' or remain silent altogether.

Yet, despite the unfairness of that respect, that isn't why this policy was repealed. The policy itself sought out gay soldiers upon suspicion -- monitored emails between them and their loved ones back home -- pursued investigations to confirm their orientation, and then fired them. This happened.

It also forced gay soldiers to lie about who they were and who they liked, just to keep their jobs. Gays who were not fired upon suspicion or admission, resigned by themselves.

Let's be honest, the idea that a gay agenda exists, and that gay soldiers simply wanted the right to unzip their flies and wave their junk around in people's faces - or freely engage in inappropriate behavior in group showers -- that paranoia is certainly untrue and ridiculous.

These soldiers, men and women, simply wanted their jobs back (OR) simply wanted that burden lifted off of them -- that fear of being watched, investigated, or fired upon suspicion.

I mean put yourselves in their boots for a moment. What if there was a military policy that forbid the expression or admission of religious belief. How would you feel if you had to hide who you were (your beliefs shaping much of that), hiding your bible, deleting all your sent messages to your family, not wearing a cross, avoid looking like you are praying -- all to keep your job. Living in fear of losing your job -- or simply confessing that you were a Christian.

Would you then consider it ludicrous that there was a "Christian Agenda" out there trying to repeal such an unfair law (which discriminates against the religious)?


5.) Now that DADT has been repealed, I believe we should look to our allies and their policies (most of their armies having had freedom of expression for a very long time) and learn from them. I think that repealing the repeal would be harmful and I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans try to do it. If they do, I certainly won't vote for any next time around.


6.) Colbert's Bit on McCain and DADT

It's not the policy, it's not the policy, it's not the policy, it's not the policy!

7.) If you didn't read anything I just wrote, please have the courage to watch this video: It's not from FOX or CNN or MSNBC, it's just a video of Mike Almy, the guy who was fired under DADT -- even when he didn't do anything to violate the policy -- it was still enforced.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

[WinePusher]

CNN has the power to fire Rick Sanchez for exercizing free speech because they didn't conform with CNN policy,

3.)Um, first -- since when do you care about CNN? You watch FOX right?

If you care so much about what shows I watch why not PM me and ask instead of derailing the topic?

Second, I thought you didn't like Sanchez because he was too liberal.

Correct, I don't like Sanchez.

Third, They fired Sanchez because he made disturbing comments about Jews. If he hadn't been fired, I'm sure you'd be sitting here ranting about how anti-Semitic the "main stream liberal news" is.

That would be conjecture on your part, not such a good debate tactic.

Anyways, if an employer has the right to restrict the speech of people who work for them then why is that also not applicable to the military. I was listing examples of this and you have been issuing non-sequitur and irrelevant comments that are not germane to the point of the limits on speech. If disneyland and CNN can restrict the speech of their workers then the military should also be able to do so.

and the military should have the power to prevent Homosexuals and Heterosexuals from expressing their sexual preferences in a military setting.

4.) Well if that rule had applied to everyone, and not been discriminatory against a single group, and had it not been abused as it was, and if thousands upon thousands of people hadn't been fired because of it -- then it would have been great.

If a person violates the rules of the employer the employer has the right to fire them. If I work for McDonald's and come to work with a blue shirt, and there exists a McDonald's statute that say workers cannot wear blue shirt then I have exposed myself to the possibility of discharge.

But the fact is, DADT was a rule that targeted gay soldiers. Under the policy, straight soldiers could brag about their women -- how hot they were -- and freely talk about how much they wanted to "hit that," while gay soldiers were forced to pretend to be straight, joining in with the 'macho-talk' or remain silent altogether.

DADT should be expanded to include all possible sexual preferences, whether it be heterosexuality, homosexuality or bestiality.

I mean put yourselves in their boots for a moment. What if there was a military policy that forbid the expression or admission of religious belief. How would you feel if you had to hide who you were (your beliefs shaping much of that), hiding your bible, deleting all your sent messages to your family, not wearing a cross, avoid looking like you are praying -- all to keep your job. Living in fear of losing your job -- or simply confessing that you were a Christian.

If I were in the military my religion would be irrelevant, if the military said I can't express my religious views in a military setting because they are polemic I would be fine with that because it is irrelevant. The person who works at Barnes and Noble must behave in a certain fashion and can't do or say certian things, it should be the same way with the military. But I find it interesting that you compare Homosexuality to Religion. Do you think freedom of expression applies to Homosexuality as well as religion?

7.) If you didn't read anything I just wrote, please have the courage to watch this video: It's not from FOX or CNN or MSNBC, it's just a video of Mike Almy, the guy who was fired under DADT -- even when he didn't do anything to violate the policy -- it was still enforced.

If he didn't violate the policy and express his sexual preferences then he was unjustly fired, if he did violate the policy and did express his sexual preferences then the military has every right to discharge him.

[Lux]

Why do they have to flaunt their homosexuality to serve in the military? If I'm in the military, I don't want to hear about anyone's sexuality, hetero or gay.

Who said anything about flaunting? Is saying "I'm gay" if the subject comes up and then getting right back to work flaunting? I'm not saying they need to be allowed to show up with a Gay pride flag wrapped around their bodies, I'm saying that they should not be constantly fearing being "outed", or obligated to keep shushed.

Let me ask you a question as a woman, if you were in the military would you be OK with being forced to shower with men? That's kind of what's going on here, and we're saying to the straight men, tough.

You should ask me if I'd be OK with showering with women I know to be lesbians, because that's what the repeal of DADT entails. The answer is yes, I would be OK with showering with lesbians.

This question should have been decided by the men and women in the military who are in a position to take a bullet on behalf of us.

No, the majority doesn't and shouldn't have the right to oppress a minority. If we used that system, we would just hold public referendums for everything.

Not that it is particularly relevant, but the majority of americans support the repeal of DADT. During the mosque debate, you didn't seem much interested in the fact that the majority of the people of Manhattan (the only ones Park51 would affect directly) supported it, and instead focused on the national polls, that showed opposition.

I heard a survey of current gays in the military that said they didn't much care about the repeal.

Sort of like saying there is not a great interest in voting among hispanic-americans, so there is no reason that they should have the right to vote.

If they don't care about it, no one is going to force them to reveal their sexual preference. The repeal is for those who don't want to hide, whether they are the majority of homosexuals or not.

I'm not sure how much it was enforced anyway. That Army traitor who leaked info. to the Wiki guy was gay and had it all over his website, and nothing happened. I've heard a good number of those expelled under the old policy saw it as an easy way out of the military. As for the rest, I have no sympathy for them as they were asked about their sexuality when they joined.

Quite a bit.

Since 1994, DADT has resulted in the discharge of more than 13,000 military personnel across the services, including approximately 800 with skills deemed “mission critical,� such as pilots, combat engineers, and linguists. According to a 2005 report from the Government Accountability Office, the cost of discharging and replacing service members fired because of their sexual orientation during the policy’s first 10 years totaled at least $190.5 million — roughly $20,000 per discharged service member.

[nygreenguy]

Why do they have to flaunt their homosexuality to serve in the military? If I'm in the military, I don't want to hear about anyone's sexuality, hetero or gay.

Can you see how this would be insulting? Do you presume all homosexuals are like "Queer eye for the straight guy"?

Let me ask you a question as a woman, if you were in the military would you be OK with being forced to shower with men? That's kind of what's going on here, and we're saying to the straight men, tough. This question should have been decided by the men and women in the military who are in a position to take a bullet on behalf of us.

If they are uncomfortable with showering with someone, but not with killing another person, something is seriously wrong here.

[LegendarySandwich]

No because this is a fallacious analogy

Fallacious? Would you care to share which fallacy I used in my post?

and the two situations are incomparable. The Gay Rights movement is not comparable with the Civil Rights Movement and it's wrong for people to try to do so.

Why?

This is a speech issue, and speech is restricted in precincts where the powers at be deem it appropriate. Disneyland has the power to prevent workers from wearing 9/11 flags because they don't conform with their uniform regulations, CNN has the power to fire Rick Sanchez for exercizing free speech because they didn't conform with CNN policy, and the military should have the power to prevent Homosexuals and Heterosexuals from expressing their sexual preferences in a military setting.

While it isn't a speech issue -- it's a bigotry issue -- you're right that the government and companies can restrict speech (which is another issue entirely). We're not saying they don't have the power to do that. What we're saying is it's wrong to fire gays for expressing their sexuality.

You could very easily say that it was right to segregate gays and blacks because that was the law and they had the right to do that.

Also, it's not just a matter of talking about sexuality -- it's a matter of
homosexuals talking about their sexuality. It's a huge, prejudiced double-standard.

[LegendarySandwich]

CNN has the power to fire Rick Sanchez for exercizing free speech because they didn't conform with CNN policy,

3.)Um, first -- since when do you care about CNN? You watch FOX right?

If you care so much about what shows I watch why not PM me and ask instead of derailing the topic?

Second, I thought you didn't like Sanchez because he was too liberal.

Correct, I don't like Sanchez.

Third, They fired Sanchez because he made disturbing comments about Jews. If he hadn't been fired, I'm sure you'd be sitting here ranting about how anti-Semitic the "main stream liberal news" is.

That would be conjecture on your part, not such a good debate tactic.

Anyways, if an employer has the right to restrict the speech of people who work for them then why is that also not applicable to the military. I was listing examples of this and you have been issuing non-sequitur and irrelevant comments that are not germane to the point of the limits on speech. If disneyland and CNN can restrict the speech of their workers then the military should also be able to do so.

and the military should have the power to prevent Homosexuals and Heterosexuals from expressing their sexual preferences in a military setting.

4.) Well if that rule had applied to everyone, and not been discriminatory against a single group, and had it not been abused as it was, and if thousands upon thousands of people hadn't been fired because of it -- then it would have been great.

If a person violates the rules of the employer the employer has the right to fire them. If I work for McDonald's and come to work with a blue shirt, and there exists a McDonald's statute that say workers cannot wear blue shirt then I have exposed myself to the possibility of discharge.

But the fact is, DADT was a rule that targeted gay soldiers. Under the policy, straight soldiers could brag about their women -- how hot they were -- and freely talk about how much they wanted to "hit that," while gay soldiers were forced to pretend to be straight, joining in with the 'macho-talk' or remain silent altogether.

DADT should be expanded to include all possible sexual preferences, whether it be heterosexuality, homosexuality or bestiality.

I mean put yourselves in their boots for a moment. What if there was a military policy that forbid the expression or admission of religious belief. How would you feel if you had to hide who you were (your beliefs shaping much of that), hiding your bible, deleting all your sent messages to your family, not wearing a cross, avoid looking like you are praying -- all to keep your job. Living in fear of losing your job -- or simply confessing that you were a Christian.

If I were in the military my religion would be irrelevant, if the military said I can't express my religious views in a military setting because they are polemic I would be fine with that because it is irrelevant. The person who works at Barnes and Noble must behave in a certain fashion and can't do or say certian things, it should be the same way with the military. But I find it interesting that you compare Homosexuality to Religion. Do you think freedom of expression applies to Homosexuality as well as religion?

7.) If you didn't read anything I just wrote, please have the courage to watch this video: It's not from FOX or CNN or MSNBC, it's just a video of Mike Almy, the guy who was fired under DADT -- even when he didn't do anything to violate the policy -- it was still enforced.

If he didn't violate the policy and express his sexual preferences then he was unjustly fired, if he did violate the policy and did express his sexual preferences then the military has every right to discharge him.

So, basically, what you are saying here is that because the military has the legal right to discriminate against gays, it's morally just...right?

And yes, freedom of expression applies to everything, including homosexuality and religion.

[Lux]

If a person violates the rules of the employer the employer has the right to fire them. If I work for McDonald's and come to work with a blue shirt, and there exists a McDonald's statute that say workers cannot wear blue shirt then I have exposed myself to the possibility of discharge.

Being homosexual and wearing a blue shirt are in no way shape or form comparable, let alone equal.

For starters, what color shirt to wear is your own choice, whereas Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Choosing to disclose your orientation is, sometimes (not always, people can be outed) a choice. However this is a much greater demand than "Don't wear a blue shirt". It's an important and inevitable part of one's identity, and it's not good for a person, socially or psychologically, to be forced to hide who they are. Mandatory self-censorship is the sort of thing that goes on in dictatorships, it has no place in the USA.

Furthermore, the policy of not wearing blue shirts would presumably be applicable to all employees, whereas DADT only applied to minority sexualities, making it a discriminatory policy.

Anyways, if an employer has the right to restrict the speech of people who work for them then why is that also not applicable to the military. I was listing examples of this and you have been issuing non-sequitur and irrelevant comments that are not germane to the point of the limits on speech. If disneyland and CNN can restrict the speech of their workers then the military should also be able to do so.

An employer has the right to impose some restrictions on their employees, surely. What an employer does not have the right to do is impose discriminatory restrictions, and that's exactly what DADT was. It targeted particular sexual orientations, while making absolutely no restrictions of speech in the case of heterosexuals. A policy of Shut Up About Your Sex Life applicable to everyone would have been, even though silly in my opinion, not discriminatory and therefore within the boundaries of acceptable employee restrictions.

[East of Eden]

No. An extensive study of the attitudes of the troops indicated that 70% did not believe that repealing DADT would have any significant effect on them or their mission.

Only 5% of the military was sampled in DoD’s survey. Only 20% of that 5% of our Armed Forces indicated yes to favoring repeal.

The report results are extremely misleading and skewed.

In most categories of the questions, more were directly against repeal than were directly for it.

Only 8.8% of those sampled were soldiers who were currently in combat or on ships.

Only about 20% of respondents were in all-male units, so of the 5% of the military surveyed, very few of those who responded were even in Combat Arms units (Infantry, Artillery, Armor, Combat Engineers, and Special Forces).

National leaders and the media who shout that 70% of our Armed Forces supports repeal, according to the government’s own survey, are pushing a blatant lie. Integrity is becoming a casualty of war.

So, is it okay to segregate black and whites if the majority are in favor of it?

No because this is a fallacious analogy and the two situations are incomparable. The Gay Rights movement is not comparable with the Civil Rights Movement and it's wrong for people to try to do so.

This is a speech issue, and speech is restricted in precincts where the powers at be deem it appropriate. Disneyland has the power to prevent workers from wearing 9/11 flags because they don't conform with their uniform regulations, CNN has the power to fire Rick Sanchez for exercizing free speech because they didn't conform with CNN policy, and the military should have the power to prevent Homosexuals and Heterosexuals from expressing their sexual preferences in a military setting.

Exactly. You give up your freedom of speech when entering the military. For instance, a general can't comment freely on what he thinks of the current commander in chief.

[East of Eden]

Why?

Because being born of a certain race isn't comparable with chosen sexual behavior.

While it isn't a speech issue -- it's a bigotry issue --

Stop the namecalling.

Also, it's not just a matter of talking about sexuality -- it's a matter of
homosexuals talking about their sexuality.

And why do they have to do that to do their job in the military? Is that what they joined for?