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DADT is repealed.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?).

[Lux]

Am I the only person stumped as to how showering with other people constitutes flitzerbiest's sex life?

I think East of Eden was attempting to appeal to our emotion, which by and large would be opposed to showering with large groups or unknown individuals. As has been pointed out before, though, this isn't entirely relevant; if your job is to kill people, surely you can stomach the sight of genitals while you clean yourself.

Not to mention that showering with unknown men is probably more unsettling than showering with unknown lesbians (for a woman. Wait... for a man too.)

The shower thing is probably the argument for DADT that I have heard most often. I don't get it. What could happen in the showers? These people already shower with homosexuals, they just don't always know it. No one has been harmed yet, that I have heard... Is the slight discomfort of some soldiers over the time of 5-10 minutes a day worth denying homosexuals the same treatment heterosexuals receive? We are upholding a discriminatory policy because some guys don't want to know that someone who has seen them naked is gay?

Getting over uncomfortable situations is a basic part of training, for obvious reasons (war is not a trip to the Bahamas)

[Darias]

I'd be uncomfortable showering in groups, no matter who'd be in there with me. I prefer to shower alone. Here's a thought, instead of making a "gay only" locker room for homosexual men and homosexual women, (which by the way would mirror the separate but equal segregation laws "whites only," "coloreds") -- how 'bout we just create individual stalls -- partitions if you will.

If that would be too expensive -- then just put up some plastic shower curtains.

That would create a sense of privacy and perhaps help to minimize any potential inappropriate behavior/speech by anyone: gay, straight, and bi.

That makes sense to you and me, but I don't know if the military would go for it as their stated goal in boot camp, etc. is to take away any sense of individuality and make soldiers part of a team. The whole 'unit cohesion' thing.

If 'unit cohesion' is so important, I fail to see the logic of DADT. Okay soldiers, you will now live together, work together, shower together, trust each other, get to know each other, and you will never leave each other behind!

But for those of you who are q****s out there -- watch your back and hush your mouth. Loose lips sink ships and unattended personal laptops sink careers!

I don't see how being forced to lie to your teammates and commanders and being forced to hide the identity of your family and spouse, being forced to never give a hint that you missed your "husband" -- hoping that you'd never talk in your sleep about your family -- or anything -- being forced to NOT trust anyone around you -- ALL TO keep your career and source of income safe and secure...

That not only violates 'unit cohesion' it violates equality and fairness -- which is why it was FINALLY repealed.

I don't see what good showering in groups does -- other than creating tense situations for soldiers who are already either homophobic or unsure of their own sexuality -- or anyone who is paranoid about gays or afraid of being naked around others.

If all the opposition of DADT boils down to showering in groups, or fears about sexual harassment -- then all that needs be done to remedy the situation is to use some of those billions in defense spending to create partitions or plastic curtains in the locker rooms for everyone or for those who prefer showering privately.

Sexual harassment issues should be handled as they've always been handled -- anyone who does it, gay straight or bi, should face the consequences of such behavior -- because this applies to everyone and not just gays, or blacks, or men, or women.

[WinePusher]

I'm against the tyranny of the minority.

Sorry, try again. Allowing rights to a minority is in no way tyranny. Such an assertion is ridiculous. Following your logic, we should only provide freedom of religion to the majority religion.

I'm sure you realize that policy and legislation in America is determined by a majority vote, yes? So when the minority, in fact an extremely misniscule minority, is allowed to redefine institutions, abolish laws, and determine military policy that is called governance by the minority which is not how this system works and is appropriately defined as tyranny.

Actually, that ship has already sailed from the poster in question, who adamantly opposes the rights of [strike]Moslems[/strike] Muslims to build a religious center on property which they own.

After an 80 page thread on this issue I would have hoped falsehoods such as these would have been dispeled. Also, let's tweek micatala's questions just a bit:

[strike]1) Should majorities be able to create a different set of rights for minorities?[/strike] 1) Should majorities be able to create laws even if the minority disagrees with it?

[strike]2) Should anything other than the individual's capabilities to perform his or her duties be relevant to military employment?[/strike] Should the military be able to set forth restrictions on speech just like any other organization is?

[strike]3) Should attitudes on the part of some military members towards individuals in some identifiable group or even some individuals that might create cohesion or other problems trump equal rights.[/strike] Should the military be a permissable outlet to talk about one's sex life? You know, like how a teacher has the right to announce to her kindergarten class that he or she is gay? Is that ok? Or should we restrict her from doing that and risk being chastised by the liberal crowd?

[Board]

[strike]1) Should majorities be able to create a different set of rights for minorities?[/strike] 1) Should majorities be able to create laws even if the minority disagrees with it?

This is an unjust representation of the issue. Any minority has the right to equal treatment regardless of whether the majority agrees with them. The majority did indeed change the right of a minority. It is not a matter of agree/disagree over a topic. This was a very obvious discrimination of a minority group by the majority. To call this a law that people simply disagree with is to ignore the importance of equality our nation was founded on.

[strike]2) Should anything other than the individual's capabilities to perform his or her duties be relevant to military employment?[/strike] Should the military be able to set forth restrictions on speech just like any other organization is?

Yes as long as those restrictions are fair and balanced. Restricting the speech of a minority group while allowing the same speech from the majority group is unjust.

[strike]3) Should attitudes on the part of some military members towards individuals in some identifiable group or even some individuals that might create cohesion or other problems trump equal rights.[/strike] Should the military be a permissable outlet to talk about one's sex life? You know, like how a teacher has the right to announce to her kindergarten class that he or she is gay? Is that ok? Or should we restrict her from doing that and risk being chastised by the liberal crowd?

Again you are missing the point of this entire argument. We are not talking about people announcing to the world that they are gay. We are not talking about those who are gay recruiting people for "their side". We are talking about people being able to be who they are an not be forced to hide.

Can you honestly tell me that heterosexual sex life is not spoken of by military personnel? Really? Put a bunch of early 20's guys in a room and the conversation will turn to women or sex in minutes. Should a gay person be forced to listen to that?

This is about discrimination plain and simple. Discrimination is wrong according to the Constitution of the United States of America.

[East of Eden]

Of course.

Now, will you acknowledge that DADT requires that minority sexualities give up rights that heterosexuals maintain, therefore making it a discriminatory policy? You still have not addressed that.

Yes, it does discriminate. We also discriminate when recruits can't pass the physical.

No, I will not acknowledge such a thing. The military is not a stay at a 5 star hotel, when you sign up you know you're going to be uncomfortable at times. Heck, accustoming soldiers to standing uncomfortable situations is basic training. They teach these people to be fine with scrubbing blocked toilets, and they can't even stand the idea of taking a 5 minute shower with someone that is gay?

So why can't gay soldiers handle the uncomfortableness of doing their job without flaunting their same-sex feelings?

Um... no thanks

OK, you would be uncomfortable showering in that situation. Why can't you understand when hetero soldiers have the same feelings with open gays? You may think it silly, I'm sure some would think it silly you wouldn't want to be shoved in a shower with a person of the opposite sex.

[East of Eden]

I don't see how being forced to lie to your teammates and commanders

They lied when they were asked about their sexuality when they joined and then later expected to change their tune.

That not only violates 'unit cohesion' it violates equality and fairness -- which is why it was FINALLY repealed.

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, not fulfill some liberal idea of fairness.

I don't see what good showering in groups does -- other than creating tense situations for soldiers who are already either homophobic or unsure of their own sexuality -- or anyone who is paranoid about gays or afraid of being naked around others.

OK, so in the name of fairness and equality let's force female soldiers so shower with men. That would rightly be called some form of sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment issues should be handled as they've always been handled -- anyone who does it, gay straight or bi, should face the consequences of such behavior -- because this applies to everyone and not just gays, or blacks, or men, or women.

I'm sure any gay soldier who gets out of line will be given a wire brush rubdown in the shower, but why unnecessarily put people in this situtation? What will this new policy do to improve the effectiveness of the military?

[McCulloch]

My jaw dropped when

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, not fulfill some liberal idea of fairness.

Did he mean to demean the liberal ideas of fairness, such as those expressed in the US Constitution, the the US military is sworn to defend? Or has he maligned the liberal ideas of fairness as expressed by Jesus?

[East of Eden]

And the numbers you give, whether passed on by World Net Daily or not, seem to be problematic to say the least.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002100021

I think we've beaten this topic to death, but I did have to laugh when MediaMatters was presented as some kind of unbiased source as opposed to WND.

If I can make a general observation on this subject, it is false to compare objections to homosexual behavior with past racial objections. From a Christian perspective, separation of the races was never commanded by the Chistian bible and in fact it could be argued the opposite was taught, if not followed. The majority of Christians believe homosexual behavior to be immoral and a perversion of God's gift of sexuality, with negative consequences.

[East of Eden]

My jaw dropped when

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, not fulfill some liberal idea of fairness.

Did he mean to demean the liberal ideas of fairness, such as those expressed in the US Constitution, the the US military is sworn to defend? Or has he maligned the liberal ideas of fairness as expressed by Jesus?

The US military is sworn to defend gays in the military? I'll give you an example of a kooky liberal idea of fairness: When we recently saw it made basically illegal for banks to properly evaluate home loans, since it wasn't fair that unqualified poor people had lower levels of home ownership. Thank goodness they never thought of wrecking the car industry with the same 'fairness' logic.

[cnorman18]

And the numbers you give, whether passed on by World Net Daily or not, seem to be problematic to say the least.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002100021

I think we've beaten this topic to death, but I did have to laugh when MediaMatters was presented as some kind of unbiased source as opposed to WND.

If I can make a general observation on this subject, it is false to compare objections to homosexual behavior with past racial objections. From a Christian perspective, separation of the races was never commanded by the Chistian bible and in fact it could be argued the opposite was taught, if not followed. The majority of Christians believe homosexual behavior to be immoral and a perversion of God's gift of sexuality, with negative consequences.

Seems to me there was a LOT more to Micatala's post that deserved an answer, e.g., the very cogent and on-point remarks about logical fallacies, among other things. Can we consider this a withdrawal from the debate and a concession of points that you cannot answer?

Your "general observation" seems to me to be simply an assertion that military rules and regulations ought to be Bible-based -- correction; based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. If that's all you've got, I submit that you've basically got nothing else to offer here.

For the record, many Christians in the past HAVE asserted that the Bible teaches separation of the races; that claim can be found in Dake's Annotated Bible to this day.