Judge orders 'don't ask, don't tell' injunction

[GreenLP]

Glad to see another victory for freedom!


Judge orders ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ injunction

By The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 12th, 2010

A federal judge has issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say the department is under no legal obligation to do so and could let Phillips' ruling stand.

Phillips declared the law unconstitutional after a two-week trial in federal court in Riverside. The case was brought about by the pro-gay Log Cabin Republicans.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/judge-orders-dont-tell-injunction/

[erowe1]

Glad to see another victory for freedom!

In what way is this a victory for freedom?

[Danke]

Chalk another one up for those cocksuckers.

[GreenLP]

In what way is this a victory for freedom?
Seriously? Perhaps you're at the wrong forum. This is a "liberty" forum, not a forum that supports discrimination.

[erowe1]

Seriously? Perhaps you're at the wrong forum. This is a "liberty" forum, not a forum that supports discrimination.

Could you still answer the question of how this ruling is a victory for freedom?

Also, what does being a "liberty" forum have to do with whether or not it supports discrimination? Are those two subjects somehow related?

[oyarde]

Could you still answer the question of how this ruling is a victory for freedom though?

Also, what does being a "liberty" forum have to do with whether or not it supports discrimination? Are those two subjects somehow related?

The military routinely discriminates . You are free not to serve . There is little liberty in the military , you volunteer and except those terms .

[Inkblots]

This is indeed good news.

And it is also a victory for those who favor liberty and equality before the law, as GreenLP said. Private individuals have the right to determine who they associate with on any grounds – even repugnant or nonsensical ones – under their freedom of association and private property rights. However, it is completely unacceptable for the government to discriminate against its employees based on race, orientation, and so on. The only metric should be capability to perform the job, and a homosexual orientation in no way affects soldiering ability.

[erowe1]

The military routinely discriminates . You are free not to serve . There is little liberty in the military , you volunteer and except those terms .

How does this point in any way buttress the claim that the ruling against DADT is a victory for freedom?

[erowe1]

Private individuals have the right to determine who they associate with on any grounds

DADT is not about associations between private individuals. It's about associations between individuals and the military.

[Inkblots]

And of course, right on cue, our President gives into his natural inclination to be on the wrong side of absolutely every issue:

Obama administration appeals gay marriage ruling
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012

[erowe1]

It is completely unacceptable for the government to discriminate against its employees based on race, orientation, and so on. The only metric should be capability to perform the job, and a homosexual orientation in no way affects soldiering ability.

I can understand why some people think this. But I fail to see how it has anything at all to do with freedom.

[Inkblots]

erowe1 said: "I can understand why some people think this. But I fail to see how it has anything at all to do with freedom."

What is freedom? It is the ability to act according to one's free will. It is the absence of compulsion and oppression. Now, the an-caps will tell you we can never truly be free so long as the government exists. This is true as far as it goes: perfect liberty is impossible if a coercive force such as government exists. Now, I'm not an an-cap. I believe that perfect freedom, like perfection of all types, is unfortunately unattainable in this fallen world, and I believe some limited government is necessary to maximize freedom, though not perfect it.

That said, if there were no government, and all association was free association, there would be no need for any sort of anti-discrimination policies. However, government does exist, and people of all races, orientations, sexes, and so on, are compelled to live under it and to submit to it. Therefore, the removal of any sort of arbitrary law, regulation, or restriction that affects any group of people is a victory for freedom. Get it?

In addition, as I said above, the only metric the government should use for allowing people into any job is the person's suitability to perform the task. As taxpayers, we are compelled to pay for the governments services, good or poor. Therefore, removing a restriction that ejects competent government employees, in this case, soldiers, from holding their posts also increases freedom by improving the service that citizens receive from their government.

[GreenLP]

Could you still answer the question of how this ruling is a victory for freedom?
Since you seem uneducated about freedom and liberty, I will tell you. The judge struck down a law that unnecessarily discriminated against certain people in the military, akin to a law saying Christians joining the military can't be asked by the military if they are Christian, or they can't announce publicly that they are Christian.


Also, what does being a "liberty" forum have to do with whether or not it supports discrimination? Are those two subjects somehow related?
Perhaps a dictionary will help you.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

As long as gays pay for the military they should be able to serve without discrimination. I disagree with Erowe empathically. If you were forced to pay for say, insurance, but were unable to collect because you are gay would you be in favor of that Erowe, because that is what this situation boils down to.

I happen to agree with GreenLP. This is a win (And I am in the military and heterosexual -- still can't wait to get out!). The one thing about this is that I think there should be co-ed birthing and bathing (Starship Troopers, etc.). The reasoning behind this is pretty well positioned -- either you don't let gays bath with men, and lesbians bath with women, or, there is no fundamental difference on this so everyone should bath with everyone. It would be cheaper to have co-ed, but considering the Gubmit has the gun, they can go ahead and pay the little extra to have gay showering (Don't be a hypocrit here and say you can't do that 'seperate but equal' bullarky, because currently men and women are seperated and that isn't being screamed to death about 'seperate but equal')

[Dr.3D]

Boy is this thread confusing.

First the DADT keeps people from discriminating because nobody knows the sexual preference of the other person. Then suddenly a judge allows discrimination because the sexual preference of the other person is allowed to be established.

Just how does this prevent discrimination?
It would seem if anything, to make a target of those who divulged their sexual preference to others who wouldn't like their sexual preference.

[erowe1]

Since you seem uneducated about freedom and liberty, I will tell you. The judge struck down a law that unnecessarily discriminated against certain people in the military, akin to a law saying Christians joining the military can't be asked by the military if they are Christian, or they can't announce publicly that they are Christian.


Perhaps a dictionary will help you.

I admit to being uneducated. Please educate me. Can you answer the questions? The dictionary said nothing relevant to this topic.

I don't see how it would be anti-freedom if the military excluded Christians.

In fact, the more people the military excludes, the fewer people there are in it and the more pro-freedom it is, as I see it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Boy is this thread confusing.

First the DADT keeps people from discriminating because nobody knows the sexual preference of the other person. Then suddenly a judge allows discrimination because the sexual preference of the other person is allowed to be established.

Just how does this prevent discrimination?
It would seem if anything, to make a target of those who divulged their sexual preference to others who wouldn't like their sexual preference.

As someone who is in the military, when you are living in close proximity with others for a long time, you get to know a lot about them -- a persons sexuality even if they do not divulge is no secret in the military. This just allows them to 'be open' about it without getting kicked out. Granted, everyone knows my position on the Standing Army (ABOLISH!), but given this is happening here and now, and really doesn't have anything to do with a contradiction in beliefs per se, I am confident to say this is a good ruling.

[erowe1]

As long as gays pay for the military they should be able to serve without discrimination. I disagree with Erowe empathically. If you were forced to pay for say, insurance, but were unable to collect because you are gay would you be in favor of that Erowe, because that is what this situation boils down to.

I disagree that that's what it boils down to.

When we are forced to pay for the military, what we are paying for is the alleged protection it gives us, not the opportunity to join it, as though it's some job corps or something. To the extent that the military actually defends us at all (or makes us less safe, as the case may be), it does so for all Americans, regardless of whether or not they are allowed to join the military. So in that sense, which is the sense that is analogous to your insurance example, it does not discriminate.

To look at it the way you described would not only obligate the military to admit gays, but also women for combat roles, handicapped people, the elderly, people who fail their fitness tests, and children (at least if they pay federal taxes).

And again, I understand how people come to your position. But even explained that way, I still fail to see how it is in any way a victory for freedom. How is freedom the guiding principle behind your explanation?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I admit to being uneducated. Please educate me. Can you answer the questions? The dictionary said nothing relevant to this topic.

I don't see how it would be anti-freedom if the military excluded Christians.

In fact, the more people the military excludes, the fewer people there are in it and the more pro-freedom it is, as I see it.

You don't see how it would be anti-liberty to discriminate against Christians, but yet make them pay for this? It would be tantamount to saying all men will pay for Medicare, but won't be able to receive Medicare. Would you say that is pro-liberty, pro-freedom?

[GreenLP]

I don't see how it would be anti-freedom if the military excluded Christians.
So the govt can force Christians to pay for the military, but can forbid them from joining, even if they meet all the requirements?


In fact, the more people the military excludes, the fewer people there are in it and the more pro-freedom it is, as I see it.
Are you one who thinks the US shouldn't have a military?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I disagree that that's what it boils down to.

When we are forced to pay for the military, what we are paying for is the alleged protection it gives us, not the opportunity to join it, as though it's some job corps or something. To the extent that the military actually defends us at all (or makes us less safe, as the case may be), it does so for all Americans, regardless of whether or not they are allowed to join the military. So in that sense, which is the sense that is analogous to your insurance example, it does not discriminate.

To look at it the way you described would not only obligate the military to admit gays, but also women for combat roles, handicapped people, the elderly, people who fail their fitness tests, and children (at least if they pay federal taxes).

And again, I understand how people come to your position. But even explained that way, I still fail to see how it is in any way a victory for freedom. How is freedom the guiding principle behind your explanation?

Yes, they should be given the opportunity to join if they want. There are a myriad of jobs in the military that have nothing to do whatsoever with combat that handicapped persons could easily fill as good or better than anyone else. Take fucking Storekeepers or Yeoman in the Coast Guard. Five-hundred lb gay women with no legs could perform those functions. Similarly, I would imagine such administrative work easily performed in the other services. Granted there would be restrictions, but they should definitely be given the opportunity to join for those positions since they are paying for it in the first place.

[erowe1]

You don't see how it would be anti-liberty to discriminate against Christians, but yet make them pay for this

It wouldn't be discriminating against them in the service they are paying for, which is protection by the military, not the opportunity to join it.

Granted, the part about making people pay for it is anti-liberty. But I don't see how it would become any more or less anti-liberty by being discriminatory in the hiring of the people who populate the agency they're paying for.

[Agorism]

There is only one man who can stop this...


Paladino!


http://www.poeghostal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hulk01mcguinnesscover.jpg

[Inkblots]

erowe1 said: "I can understand why some people think this. But I fail to see how it has anything at all to do with freedom."

What is freedom? It is the ability to act according to one's free will. It is the absence of compulsion and oppression. Now, the an-caps will tell you we can never truly be free so long as the government exists. This is true as far as it goes: perfect liberty is impossible if a coercive force such as government exists. Now, I'm not an an-cap. I believe that perfect freedom, like perfection of all types, is unfortunately unattainable in this fallen world, and I believe some limited government is necessary to maximize freedom, though not perfect it.

That said, if there were no government, and all association was free association, there would be no need for any sort of anti-discrimination policies. However, government does exist, and people of all races, orientations, sexes, and so on, are compelled to live under it and to submit to it. Therefore, the removal of any sort of arbitrary law, regulation, or restriction that affects any group of people is a victory for freedom. Get it?

In addition, as I said above, the only metric the government should use for allowing people into any job is the person's suitability to perform the task. As taxpayers, we are compelled to pay for the governments services, good or poor. Therefore, removing a restriction that ejects competent government employees, in this case, soldiers, from holding their posts also increases freedom by improving the service that citizens receive from their government.

Sorry, I edited this into what was just a snarky comment upthread, so I'll post it down here as well.

[erowe1]

Yes, they should be given the opportunity to join if they want. There are a myriad of jobs in the military that have nothing to do whatsoever with combat that handicapped persons could easily fill as good or better than anyone else. Take fucking Storekeepers or Yeoman in the Coast Guard. Five-hundred lb gay women with no legs could perform those functions. Similarly, I would imagine such administrative work easily performed in the other services. Granted there would be restrictions, but they should definitely be given the opportunity to join for those positions since they are paying for it in the first place.

Yes. I get that that's your position. I just don't see how it's in any way any more of a "libertarian" position than its opposite would be.

In fact, if anything, the position that's most libertarian, is whichever one that allows the fewest people into the military.

[Inkblots]

I happen to agree with GreenLP. This is a win (And I am in the military and heterosexual -- still can't wait to get out!)

You're in the military? I would never have guessed that in a million years.

[Dr.3D]

There is only one man who can stop this...


Paladino!


http://www.poeghostal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hulk01mcguinnesscover.jpg
Dude, that guy looks like a rooster lollipop.
DADT would be best for him.
Wouldn't want him getting shot by 'accident'.

[Agorism]

I support DADT because I like gay rights, and I also like the the idea of feminizing the military in a sense.

One of the goals of boot camp is to homogenize the military and stop diversity that way people follow orders better. Allowing gays in will help stop this.

[erowe1]

I see two parts in this answer, one that has to do with freedom and the other that has to do with DADT. But the part that has to do with freedom has nothing to do with DADT. And the part that has to do with DADT has nothing to do with freedom. So why mix issues like that? If you don't like DADT, why not just frame your objections to it within the principles that guide your position, rather than try to truck in the catchwords of "liberty" and "freedom," when they're really not a part of it?


What is freedom? It is the ability to act according to one's free will. It is the absence of compulsion and oppression. Now, the an-caps will tell you we can never truly be free so long as the government exists. This is true as far as it goes: perfect liberty is impossible if a coercive force such as government exists. Now, I'm not an an-cap. I believe that perfect freedom, like perfection of all types, is unfortunately unattainable in this fallen world, and I believe some limited government is necessary to maximize freedom, though not perfect it.

That said, if there were no government, and all association was free association, there would be no need for any sort of anti-discrimination policies. However, government does exist, and people of all races, orientations, sexes, and so on, are compelled to live under it and to submit to it. Therefore, the removal of any sort of arbitrary law, regulation, or restriction that affects any group of people is a victory for freedom. Get it?

In addition, as I said above, the only metric the government should use for allowing people into any job is the person's suitability to perform the task. As taxpayers, we are compelled to pay for the governments services, good or poor. Therefore, removing a restriction that ejects competent government employees, in this case, soldiers, from holding their posts also increases freedom by improving the service that citizens receive from their government.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes. I get that that's your position. I just don't see how it's in any way any more of a "libertarian" position than its opposite would be.

In fact, if anything, the position that's most libertarian, is whichever one that allows the fewest people into the military.

Libertarian positions are based on the means to the end, not the ends necessarily in and of themselves. Come on Erowe, as a fellow voluntaryist you should be well aware of this!

[oyarde]

As long as gays pay for the military they should be able to serve without discrimination. I disagree with Erowe empathically. If you were forced to pay for say, insurance, but were unable to collect because you are gay would you be in favor of that Erowe, because that is what this situation boils down to.

I happen to agree with GreenLP. This is a win (And I am in the military and heterosexual -- still can't wait to get out!). The one thing about this is that I think there should be co-ed birthing and bathing (Starship Troopers, etc.). The reasoning behind this is pretty well positioned -- either you don't let gays bath with men, and lesbians bath with women, or, there is no fundamental difference on this so everyone should bath with everyone. It would be cheaper to have co-ed, but considering the Gubmit has the gun, they can go ahead and pay the little extra to have gay showering (Don't be a hypocrit here and say you can't do that 'seperate but equal' bullarky, because currently men and women are seperated and that isn't being screamed to death about 'seperate but equal')

Everyone pays , and many would not qualify to serve .

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You're in the military? I would never have guessed that in a million years.

Yes. Sadly I joined before I came to my current positions (Ironically, it wasn't until I got out of boot camp that I started to explore my *libertarian positions more in-depth :/)

* I have always been a libertarian, but never really explored the philosophical aspects too much. About three years ago, I started to get more into political economy and philosophy and developed my now apparent knowledge and consistency. I have always been a principled person, as such I cannot wait to end my daily contradiction :o I figure while I am in, I try as best to preserve liberty (I am notorious for not following anything anti-liberty at my unit, hence why my nickname is Mr. Libertarian :p)

[Inkblots]

I see two parts in this answer, one that has to do with freedom and the other that has to do with DADT. But the part that has to do with freedom has nothing to do with DADT. And the part that has to do with DADT has nothing to do with freedom. So why mix issues like that? If you don't like DADT, why not just frame your objections to it within the principles that guide your position, rather than try to truck in the catchwords of "liberty" and "freedom," when they're really not a part of it?

I suggest you read it again. I defined liberty for purposes of clarity. I assert that any decision that moves us closer to liberty is 'good for liberty'.

Your question is 'how is this good for liberty?' My answer is that it is good for liberty since it moves us, as a nation, closer to the state of liberty, in that it removes a coercive government regulation.

I also argued, perhaps more controversially (and I'm willing to debate this point further if you like) that increasing the efficacy and efficiency of services rendered using coercively taxed public money is good for liberty as well, as it theoretically removes an incentive to tax us further. Therefore, I argue that removing a bar which can keep more qualified employees from jobs in the military by assessing them based on an irrelevant characteristic is good for liberty.

That's 2 ways DADT repeal aids the cause of freedom. Why do you disagree?

[GreenLP]

erowe1,

How do you describe this ruling then since you don't think the way I described it was accurate?

[erowe1]

Libertarian positions are based on the means to the end, not the ends necessarily in and of themselves. Come on Erowe, as a fellow voluntaryist you should be well aware of this!

Actually I don't make any claim of being either a libertarian or a voluntarist, partly because I don't like getting pinned down with arguments that go, "If you don't believe X then you're not a real libertarian."

And I still honestly don't see how your position has anything to do with your being a libertarian or a voluntarist.

[erowe1]

I suggest you read it again. I defined liberty for purposes of clarity. I assert that any decision that moves us closer to liberty is 'good for liberty'.


I didn't see anything about DADT moving us closer to liberty.



Your question is 'how is this good for liberty?' My answer is that it is good for liberty since it moves us, as a nation, closer to the state of liberty, in that it removes a coercive government regulation.
But it doesn't. DADT isn't a coercive government regulation. I fail to see how anyone could conceive of it as one. Whom does DADT coerce? What does it coerce them to do? And how does it coerce them?

The only coercion I see is coercion into paying for the military, which I oppose. But that coercion is unaffected by DADT and by its repeal.



I also argued, perhaps more controversially (and I'm willing to debate this point further if you like) that increasing the efficacy and efficiency of services rendered using coercively taxed public money is good for liberty as well.
I definitely disagree on this point. When it comes to an institution that is essentially a destroyer of freedom, such as the state or an armed gang that has declared my neighborhood its turf, I fail to see how freedom is advanced by improving the efficiency of that anti-freedom institution.

With Will Rogers I say, "Thank Heavens we don't get all the government we pay for."

And even at that, I don't know which makes for a more efficient military, the admission of gays, or the exclusion of gays.

[erowe1]

erowe1,

How do you describe this ruling then since you don't think the way I described it was accurate?

Could you say which posts? I'm getting lost in this thread. Where did you describe the ruling? And where did I say your description was not accurate?

If something I said was taken as a debate about some matter of fact about the ruling, I didn't mean it that way. My discussion in this thread has been based on the assumption that your characterization of the ruling was correct. Other than that, I know nothing about it outside little blurbs I've heard on the radio.

[GreenLP]

Could you say which posts? I'm getting lost in this thread. Where did you describe the ruling? And where did I say your description was not accurate?

If something I said was taken as a debate about some matter of fact about the ruling, I didn't mean it that way. My discussion in this thread has been based on the assumption that your characterization of the ruling was correct. Other than that, I know nothing about it outside little blurbs I've heard on the radio.
I described this ruling as a "victory for freedom." How would you describe this ruling?

[erowe1]

I described this ruling as a "victory for freedom." How would you describe this ruling?

As for it's direct effect, the repeal of DADT, it has no clear bearing on freedom, just as DADT itself has no clear bearing on freedom.

Indirectly, I suppose I see some anti-freedom flavor to the ruling, just as I do with judicial activism in general. The only way judicial review should ever be legitimate is to nullify some law that imposes upon people, such that when those people are being charged as violators of that law, the court could void any punishment they might face for breaking the law on the basis of it being an unjust law.

Since that is not what happened in this case, I see it as another example of an unelected arm of the federal government dictating to the taxpayers what kind of government they must be forced to pay for, bypassing those taxpayers' elected representatives.

I'm not actually a fan of DADT, since I would have preferred that Congress just stay out of it and leave it a matter of internal policy for the military to decide for itself. But Congress, as the holder of the purse strings, at least does have the authority to legislate for the military what its internal policies must be. The judiciary does not, and should not.

[oyarde]

I didn't see anything about DADT moving us closer to liberty.


But it doesn't. DADT isn't a coercive government regulation. I fail to see how anyone could conceive of it as one. Whom does DADT coerce? What does it coerce them to do? And how does it coerce them?

The only coercion I see is coercion into paying for the military, which I oppose. But that coercion is unaffected by DADT and by its repeal.


I definitely disagree on this point. When it comes to an institution that is essentially a destroyer of freedom, such as the state or an armed gang that has declared my neighborhood its turf, I fail to see how freedom is advanced by improving the efficiency of that anti-freedom institution.

With Will Rogers I say, "Thank Heavens we don't get all the government we pay for."

And even at that, I don't know which makes for a more efficient military, the admission of gays, or the exclusion of gays.

Efficiency being the key to me . The proffesional Generals need to have a say . They will be responsible for the results . They alone .

[Inkblots]

I didn't see anything about DADT moving us closer to liberty.


But it doesn't. DADT isn't a coercive government regulation. I fail to see how anyone could conceive of it as one. Whom does DADT coerce? What does it coerce them to do? And how does it coerce them?

The only coercion I see is coercion into paying for the military, which I oppose. But that coercion is unaffected by DADT and by its repeal.


I definitely disagree on this point. When it comes to an institution that is essentially a destroyer of freedom, such as the state or an armed gang that has declared my neighborhood its turf, I fail to see how freedom is advanced by improving the efficiency of that anti-freedom institution.

With Will Rogers I say, "Thank Heavens we don't get all the government we pay for."

And even at that, I don't know which makes for a more efficient military, the admission of gays, or the exclusion of gays.

Okay, erowe1, I'm willing to concede to you that termination of government employment if certain terms of employment aren't met isn't really coercive, so you win on point 1. (But I do believe that the government not discriminating in employment is a positive good, if not precisely a victory for liberty)

But I'm going to insist on point 2, here. It is preferable for the government to render effective services than for it to be ineffectual. The more the government fulfills ends that the people want and are willing to pay for - such as providing an efficient, well-staffed military defense force - the less coercive its assessment of taxes is, right up to the point where it is providing only services I want at prices I'm willing to pay, when it would cease to be coercive entirely. So to the extent that competent employees, skilled translators, etc. aren't being terminated for no good reason, this is still, I maintain, a small victory for freedom.

[Dr.3D]

Efficiency being the key to me . The proffesional Generals need to have a say . They will be responsible for the results . They alone .
As I recall, the generals already said they needed DADT. Seems the judge thinks he knows how to run the military better than the professionals.

[erowe1]

But I'm going to insist on point 2, here. It is preferable for the government to render effective services than for it to be ineffectual.

Let's say you're right, for the sake of argument.

If so, then the rightness or wrongness of DADT boils down to whether or not it makes the military more efficient in taking away our freedom serving us. But if that's what it boils down to, then that issue should be resolved by generals, based on their understanding of the policy's effect on the efficiency of the military, not by judges based on some supposed right of the citizenry to join the military.

[wormyguy]

But it doesn't. DADT isn't a coercive government regulation. I fail to see how anyone could conceive of it as one. Whom does DADT coerce? What does it coerce them to do? And how does it coerce them?

It violates their right to free speech by forcing them never to reveal their sexual orientation during their time in the military (or even to have someone else reveal it), under pain of court martial and dishonorable discharge, which is probably the second worst thing that can pop up on a prospective employer's background check besides a felony conviction. It is therefore a highly coercive (and unjust) policy. Furthermore, people do not only pay for the military's protection, but also for soldiers' salaries, veterans' benefits, veterans' hospitals etc., and denying those services to soldiers who admit they are gay therefore compells gay people to pay for policies which discriminate against them.

[erowe1]

It violates their right to free speech by forcing them never to reveal their sexual orientation during their time in the military (or even to have someone else reveal it).

There's no such thing as a right to join the military. So it's impossible for any suppression of speech as a condition for joining the military to be a violation of someone's right to free speech.

They can say they're gay all they want, just not if they want to be in the military. When you join the military you voluntarily sign away your rights, and the right to tell people you're gay is peanuts compared to other rights you relinquish when you join.

[oyarde]

As I recall, the generals already said they needed DADT. Seems the judge thinks he knows how to run the military better than the professionals.

That is a needless problem . They are working on a study now to try and open some things up if they can guess it will not bring more negatives than positives . Let them work and see what happens .

[erowe1]

Furthermore, people do not only pay for the military's protection, but also for soldiers' salaries, veterans' benefits, veterans' hospitals etc., and denying those services to soldiers who admit they are gay therefore compells gay people to pay for policies which discriminate against them.

No. The service the taxpayers are paying for is the military's protection (such as it is), and nothing else. All those things you list are parts of the cost of that military that ostensibly protects the taxpayers, being included in the compensation packages of those who join the military to serve in that ostensibly protective capacity. They aren't additional services to those taxpayers.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

There's no such thing as a right to join the military. So it's impossible for any suppression of speech as a condition for joining the military to be a violation of someone's right to free speech.

They can say they're gay all they want, just not if they want to be in the military. When you join the military you voluntarily sign away your rights, and the right to tell people you're gay is peanuts compared to other rights you relinquish when you join.

I don't see a reason or need to restrict it more than it all ready is, don't you agree Erowe?

[erowe1]

I don't see a reason or need to restrict it more than it all ready is, don't you agree Erowe?

Restrict what?

Sorry, I get it. You mean you don't see a reason for the military to place any more demands than they already do on those who join to relinquish their rights voluntarily.

I don't personally have much of an opinion on what rights those who join the military should be expected to relinquish. But I don't think it's any of the court's business.

[Kregisen]

The military is used for protection but it's also a job....join the navy and get paid $35k/a year and all expenses paid..........unless you're gay. The government should not be discriminating against without a good reason. It's one thing to deny someone a job in the military because they aren't in the right shape or too old or something....this is different. This has nothing to do with job capability.

[BlackTerrel]

So between two judges they reversed DADT and reversed the votes of 17 million Californians regarding gay marriage.

Fantastic :rolleyes:

[oyarde]

So between two judges they reversed DADT and reversed the votes of 17 million Californians regarding gay marriage.

Fantastic :rolleyes:

Yes .

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So between two judges they reversed DADT and reversed the votes of 17 million Californians regarding gay marriage.

Fantastic :rolleyes:

To be quite honest, the underlying premise of your post is flawed. I shall demonstrate..Imagine if 17 million Californians were to vote to enslave the other 12 million Californians. Obviously, you wouldn't be outraged if a Judge reversed those 17 million votes. So the heart of the matter is not the methodology of the reversal, but the matter of what it reversed. Unless you really do believe that democracy is morality :confused:

[Kregisen]

So between two judges they reversed DADT and reversed the votes of 17 million Californians regarding gay marriage.

Fantastic :rolleyes:

If 300 million people voted for something unconstitional, damn right a judge should overturn it. This isn't a pure democracy.

Not saying these are necessarily unconstitutional.

[oyarde]

The military is used for protection but it's also a job....join the navy and get paid $35k/a year and all expenses paid..........unless you're gay. The government should not be discriminating against without a good reason. It's one thing to deny someone a job in the military because they aren't in the right shape or too old or something....this is different. This has nothing to do with job capability.

I agree it does not have to do with job capability . There are other factors for the Army and Marine commanders to consider . A rifle platoon may not be the best place to start something more than DADT .

[oyarde]

Army times polled some soldiers and about 10 percent said if changes were made they would not consider re enlistment . As an example of some other factors . Efficiency comes first .

[Jcambeis]

In what way is this a victory for freedom?

lawful actions performed in private should not be used against you by the government

Wow six pages I am sure this was answered already.

[specsaregood]

I hope this results in less people joining the military, a lot less.

[erowe1]

I hope this results in less people joining the military, a lot less.

Exactly. I would like to see them enact DADT policies for more groups, including Christians, left-handed people, heterosexuals, nonchristians, and right-handed people.

[erowe1]

lawful actions performed in private should not be used against you by the government

Wow six pages I am sure this was answered already.

IMHO neither your attempt nor any other has answered that question.

[Jcambeis]

IMHO neither your attempt nor any other has answered that question.

Military is a voluntary government service a person enters into. Not very much different from a post office job. We just like to worship military

[Southron]

So between two judges they reversed DADT and reversed the votes of 17 million Californians regarding gay marriage.

Fantastic :rolleyes:

The truth is that judges are more powerful than the entire Congress and. President combined.

And that's not even counting the. Supreme Court, which is on an entirely different plane than us mere mortals.

[teacherone]

erowe is correct. any business should be able to hire whomever they want-- be they biased against a person's sexuality, gender, or race.

[torchbearer]

Chalk another one up for those cocksuckers.

I think we should have an entire brigade called the cocksuckers. Talk about demoralized an enemy.
After retreat, the taliban officer from the engagement explains to his C.O. that his men were defeated by a bunch of cocksuckers. He is then beheaded for his disgrace.

[torchbearer]

erowe is correct. any business should be able to hire whomever they want-- be they biased against a person's sexuality, gender, or race.

federal government and any government has non-discrimination in hiring practices because it is money from all the people, including cocksuckers.
Meaning, they have a right to obtain those federal jobs too.(if they qualify)

[teacherone]

so any dumbass should become a teacher?
any arson a fireman?
any ex-con a spook?

the only job i can think of that requires no qualifications is "politician."

[torchbearer]

so any dumbass should become a teacher?
any arson a fireman?
any ex-con a spook?

the only job i can think of that requires no qualifications is "politician."

a person should qualify by skills, not by sexuality.

[teacherone]

a person should qualify by skills, not by sexuality.

not true-- people are hired all the time by how well they "fit" within a company's mission or culture.

very skilled individuals are often looked over for those with better personalities or those which meld better within the group or department they are joining.

this is no different.

[Carl Corey]

Don't ask don't tell violates the 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

End of story.

[teacherone]

Don't ask don't tell violates the 1st amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

End of story.

??? how in the world does dadt violate the first amendment?

[torchbearer]

not true-- people are hired all the time by how well they "fit" within a company's mission or culture.

very skilled individuals are often looked over for those with better personalities or those which meld better within the group or department they are joining.

this is no different.

i'll try again:
a person should qualify by skills, not by sexuality.

[torchbearer]

??? how in the world does dadt violate the first amendment?

I think the judge calls it a "chilling" of the 1st amendment which is the same.

[teacherone]

if you have a conservative group of financial accountants you're not going to hire Bruno incarnate no matter his skills.

employees need to work well together. companies work hard to develop company cultures and ethoses and hire people who will adhere to both.

that's how the world works.

[Carl Corey]

??? how in the world does dadt violate the first amendment?
DADT abridges the freedom of speech of soldiers, there are probably other first amendment violations, I'm not sure if a soldier could openly support the KKK in the military.

It would kind of make the point if one can display racist attitudes, but not homosexual attitudes.

[teacherone]

I think the judge calls it a "chilling" of the 1st amendment which is the same.

you absolutely do not have the right to free speech on your employer's property.

that's absurd.

[torchbearer]

you absolutely do not have the right to free speech on your employer's property.

that's absurd.

unless your employer is the federal government.

[teacherone]

unless your employer is the federal government.

so federal workers can say whatever they want, dress however they want, and behave however they want on the job without fear of repercussions?

[Philhelm]

Freedom of speech in the military? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

[Philhelm]

I think we should have an entire brigade called the cocksuckers. Talk about demoralized an enemy.
After retreat, the taliban officer from the engagement explains to his C.O. that his men were defeated by a bunch of cocksuckers. He is then beheaded for his disgrace.

"Random Task...show them what you do!" :eek:

[Dr.3D]

I think we should have an entire brigade called the cocksuckers. Talk about demoralized an enemy.
After retreat, the taliban officer from the engagement explains to his C.O. that his men were defeated by a bunch of cocksuckers. He is then beheaded for his disgrace.

The Rooster Lollipop Brigade

http://www.candy.com/thumbnail.asp?file=assets/images/s-84.jpg&maxx=300&maxy=0

[erowe1]

unless your employer is the federal government.

No. Even if your employer is the federal government, there is no requirement that it allow you freedom of speech within your job, especially in the case of the military.

As I said above, those who enlist to the military voluntarily relinquish their rights. The right to say they're gay is peanuts compared to other rights the voluntarily relinquish when they join.

There may be utilitarian reasons for repealing DADT. But DADT is not unconstitutional, nor a violation of anyone's rights, nor is it in any clear way anti-freedom.

[erowe1]

federal government and any government has non-discrimination in hiring practices because it is money from all the people, including cocksuckers.
Meaning, they have a right to obtain those federal jobs too.(if they qualify)

There is no such thing as a right to obtain federal jobs.

[torchbearer]

There is no such thing as a right to obtain federal jobs.

where the fuck you get that out my post?
I swear to fucking god, people just read shit into things that aren't there.
i'm not much for reps on forums, but people not reading your post and responding with crap is definitely a neg.

[AxisMundi]

No. Even if your employer is the federal government, there is no requirement that it allow you freedom of speech within your job, especially in the case of the military.

As I said above, those who enlist to the military voluntarily relinquish their rights. The right to say they're gay is peanuts compared to other rights the voluntarily relinquish when they join.

There may be utilitarian reasons for repealing DADT. But DADT is not unconstitutional, nor a violation of anyone's rights, nor is it in any clear way anti-freedom.

I agree that people give up certain freedoms to serve their Nation.

However, the freedom TO serve your Nation should not be dependant on whether one is hetero or gay, and people have been discharged merely for being outed.

We heteroes are not required to labor under a "don't ask don't tell" policy, and indeed military marriages are commonplace for heteroes.

[teacherone]

where the fuck you get that out my post?
I swear to fucking god, people just read shit into things that aren't there.
i'm not much for reps on forums, but people not reading your post and responding with crap is definitely a neg.

chillax. we're all friends here. :)

[Kregisen]

Erowe1, so what if they banned minorities from joining the military? Should that be allowed too?

[erowe1]

where the fuck you get that out my post?
I swear to fucking god, people just read shit into things that aren't there.
i'm not much for reps on forums, but people not reading your post and responding with crap is definitely a neg.

You said, "they have a right to obtain those federal jobs," right there in my quote of you.

[erowe1]

Erowe1, so what if they banned minorities from joining the military? Should that be allowed too?

Yes. But if would be preferable if the banned non-minorities. The larger the group being banned, the better.

But this ruling isn't about banning any group. It's about DADT.

[erowe1]

I agree that people give up certain freedoms to serve their Nation government.

However, the freedom TO serve your Nation government should not be dependant on whether one is hetero or gay, and people have been discharged merely for being outed.

We heteroes are not required to labor under a "don't ask don't tell" policy, and indeed military marriages are commonplace for heteroes.

1) Fixed it.
2) Again, I get that people think this. I just object to pretending it's somehow a pro-freedom position, including the way you tortuously weaved the word "freedom" into your answer. There is no such right as a right to join the military. It's not a "freedom" that can be protected or violated. It's a job opportunity made available by the government at the expense of coerced taxpayers to whomever is qualified, based on how the internal regulations of the military define "qualified." And frankly, the fewer job opportunities of this sort there are available, the more free we all are.

[AxisMundi]

1) Fixed it.
2) Again, I get that people think this. I just object to pretending it's somehow a pro-freedom position, including the way you tortuously weaved the word "freedom" into your answer. There is no such right as a right to join the military. It's not a "freedom" that can be protected or violated. It's a job opportunity made available by the government at the expense of coerced taxpayers to whomever is qualified, based on how the internal regulations of the military define "qualified." And frankly, the fewer job opportunities of this sort there are available, the more free we all are.

Our Military people might be government employees, but they serve this Nation. Please refrain from adjusting my posts in such a manner again. I stated exactly what I thought appropiate.

That said...

It is certainly a matter of freedom when a minority is told they must pretend to be someone they are not, or their careers are finished.

Like it or not, gays are a minority, recognized as a Protected Class in many areas of the country.

The military, by your own definition, is clearly discriminating against a minority.

[erowe1]

Our Military people might be government employees, but they serve this Nation. Please refrain from adjusting my posts in such a manner again. I stated exactly what I thought appropiate.

OK. But you said it wrong, unless by "this nation" you meant "the regime in Washington."



That said...

It is certainly a matter of freedom when a minority is told they must pretend to be someone they are not, or their careers are finished.


How is that a matter of freedom? I don't get why people keep trucking this "freedom" language into this issue.

Also, it's not telling people to pretend to be someone they are not or else their careers are finished. It's telling them not to say they're gay if they want to be in the military. If people want to be able to say they're gay along with lots of other much more important freedoms, then they shouldn't voluntarily relinquish those freedoms by joining the military, thus getting themselves into a career that would be finished by telling people they're gay.

[VBRonPaulFan]

OK. But you said it wrong, unless by "this nation" you meant "the regime in Washington."



How is that a matter of freedom? I don't get why people keep trucking this "freedom" language into this issue.

Also, it's not telling people to pretend to be someone they are not or else their careers are finished. It's telling them not to say they're gay if they want to be in the military. If people want to be able to say they're gay along with lots of other much more important freedoms, then they shouldn't voluntarily relinquish those freedoms by joining the military, thus getting themselves into a career that would be finished by telling people they're gay.

DADT should apply just as much to hetero's, as talking about your sexuality/sexual misadventures in a workplace is inappropriate nearly anywhere you go to work. If they'd apply the rule in at least a fair manner it would make sense.

[erowe1]

Like it or not, gays are a minority, recognized as a Protected Class in many areas of the country.


Your words "like it or not" are pretty important. I have to admit, I'm not a fan of the whole concept of a protected class. And again, I definitely don't see how having protected classes is in any way pro-freedom.

[erowe1]

DADT should apply just as much to hetero's, as talking about your sexuality/sexual misadventures in a workplace is inappropriate nearly anywhere you go to work. If they'd apply the rule in at least a fair manner it would make sense.

Sounds good to me, as long as it's not judges making the rules.

Of course banning heterosexuals from saying things that betray their attraction to the opposite sex would pretty much clean out the military. But I wouldn't complain.

[BamaAla]

Ruling can be read here: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/

It looks like a good ruling. The judge issued the injunction on grounds: "substantive due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and its members' rights of freedom of speech,
association, and to petition the government, guaranteed by the First
Amendment."

[teacherone]

you guys are so right.

the federal government should pass a blanket "minority civil rights act" and ensure that each and every private business has its requisite representation of every minority group imaginable on its employee roster.

[torchbearer]

You said, "they have a right to obtain those federal jobs," right there in my quote of you.

(if they qualify)
oops. i guess you didn't fucking read the post. try it again.

[torchbearer]

you guys are so right.

the federal government should pass a blanket "minority civil rights act" and ensure that each and every private business has its requisite representation of every minority group imaginable on its employee roster.

i'm not understanding your mental deficiency.
the military isn't a private business. do you know what makes a private business different than a public one?
what prerequisites to this conversation are you missing?

[teacherone]

i'm not understanding your mental deficiency.
the military isn't a private business. do you know what makes a private business different than a public one?
what prerequisites to this conversation are you missing?

same concept-- force employers to hire employees whose lifestyles, personalities, or characters conflict with the company's culture/ mission.

[Danke]

i'm not understanding your mental deficiency.


Beneath you Torch.

Surprised the teacher is so polite in the response.

[torchbearer]

Beneath you Torch.

Surprised the teacher is so polite in the response.

straight honesty is never beneath me. i really can't figure out where the mental deficiancy lies. it could be in many areas-
short time horizon
fish bowl world view
talk radio syndrome
drone imprint
etc.

the information is out there, but if you suffer from any of the above, you probably haven't even come across it.

[Danke]

straight honesty is never beneath me. i really can't figure out where the mental deficiancy lies. it could be in many areas-
short time horizon
fish bowl world view
talk radio syndrome
drone imprint
etc.

the information is out there, but if you suffer from any of the above, you probably haven't even come across it.

Well all I have to say to that is, look in the mirror.

[torchbearer]

Well all I have to say to that is, look in the mirror.

a mirror is not required for self-reflection. that takes up most of my time. i'm quite confident in my assessment.
the prerequisite learning to even discuss what is "right" when it comes to public domain is lacking. The communication can't happen because the information can't be transfered.

[Danke]

i'm quite confident in my assessment.
the prerequisite learning to even discuss what is "right" when it comes to public domain is lacking. The communication can't happen because the information can't be transfered.

Ohh Kaay then.

How's the weather been down there in LA lately? Still rather hot in the evening for this time of year?

[teacherone]

Beneath you Torch.

Surprised the teacher is so polite in the response.

teaching gives one tough skin and lots of patience and i take everything with a grain of salt.

internet histrionics are for pussies :D

[teacherone]

and no i still cannot comprehend how one can both hold the view that the government should not force anti-discrimination laws onto employers but should impose the same laws onto itself.

it is common understanding that those types of laws can be detrimental to any organization's mission.

it is common understanding that those types of laws can damage any organization's morale.

it is common understanding that those types of laws take (hiring/firing) decision making out of managerial hands and place it into bureaucratic ones.

[erowe1]

(if they qualify)
oops. i guess you didn't fucking read the post. try it again.

You say that as if it makes a difference. My response is still that there's no such thing as a right to a federal job, qualified or not.

Also, if intend to tell people they're gay (along with many other much more important freedoms they would voluntarily give up when they join), then according to the military (which is the entity that gets to decide who is and isn't qualified), they don't qualify.

[erowe1]

and no i still cannot comprehend how one can both hold the view that the government should not force anti-discrimination laws onto employers but should impose the same laws onto itself.

it is common understanding that those types of laws can be detrimental to any organization's mission.

it is common understanding that those types of laws can damage any organization's morale.

it is common understanding that those types of laws take (hiring/firing) decision making out of managerial hands and place it into bureaucratic ones.

What we have going on here is that a bunch of people want to use the government as a tool for advancing their personal religious view that homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality.

[torchbearer]

here is the part you are missing-
Private business has an owner. A person with a right over the capital. Every dollar that capitalist gets is a payment/trade for the service/good he provides. at the end of the day- that money is his. He can hire/fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.
Public business has no owner(or everyone is the owner-s same thing). There is no person who has sole right or controlling interest over the public company. The money comes from all of the people, not for a service- but as a force contribution to that public company. Giving each person a even share of that public company. Since there isn't a clear owner for which the rights of the capital can be assigned, then everyone has to be treated as equal share holders each with the exact same access and rights to its resources.

This is a very brief summary of a deeper discussion, but maybe it will start to fill in the voids in your logic.

[TonySutton]

What we have going on here is that a bunch of people want to use the government as a tool for advancing their personal religious view that homosexuality is NOT as valid as heterosexuality.

Fixed it for you (in bold)

[erowe1]

here is the part you are missing-
Private business has an owner. A person with a right over the capital. Every dollar that capitalist gets is a payment/trade for the service/good he provides. at the end of the day- that money is his. He can hire/fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.
Public business has no owner(or everyone is the owner-s same thing). There is no person who has sole right or controlling interest over the public company. The money comes from all of the people, not for a service- but as a force contribution to that public company. Giving each person a even share of that public company. Since there isn't a clear owner for which the rights of the capital can be assigned, then everyone has to be treated as equal share holders each with the exact same access and rights to its resources.

This is a very brief summary of a deeper discussion, but maybe it will start to fill in the voids in your logic.

I'm not sure whom that reply was for. But the voids in my logic go much deeper than that.

I don't see how a single thing in this explanation has anything to do with DADT.

I'm not sure if I think your analogy is good or not. But for the sake of argument, let's say that it's a good analogy.

If the military's decisions are subject to the prerogatives of its owners, distributed among the taxpayers proportionally according to however much anyone pays in federal taxes, then according to the analogy you're making, those owners would have as much right as the stock holders of a private company to enact a discriminatory policy for the company, or alternatively, to delegate to the experts within the operations of the company to decide on their behalf if a discriminatory policy would be beneficial to them. And, as with the case of the shareholders of a company, there could be some among them who agree with that policy ad some who don't. Which of those groups get their way would have to be made by a corporate vote for the company, or by a Congressional vote for the country (either to dictate to the military what its policy must be or to instruct the generals to enact the policy they choose). But neither case should be subject to the decisions of a judge.

Finally, with the military, "access and rights to its resources" is access to the protection it ostensibly provides, not access to jobs in the military. When I pay money to any company for any good or service, what I'm entitled to is that good or service for which I paid, not the opportunity to work for that company.

[erowe1]

Fixed it for you (in bold)

It's actually both. It's important that people realize that. It's not the case that only the anti-gay side is trying implement a policy that reflects their religious view. The pro-gay side is doing the exact same thing, only with the opposite religious view.

[BamaAla]

It's actually both. It's important that people realize that. It's not the case that only the anti-gay side is trying implement a policy that reflects their religious view. The pro-gay side is doing the exact same thing, only with the opposite religious view.

They aren't asking for any religious accommodations; they are asking for equal protection and due process. This is the second thread, in as many days, that you have tried to minimize discrimination based on sexual orientation. I can't imagine why a person on Ron Paul forums would do such a thing.

The judge's ruling was straightforward and concise. You should read it and then reply on valid legal grounds because all you're doing by arguing these abstract ideas is thinly masking your dogmatic hatred for homosexuals.

[teacherone]

What we have going on here is that a bunch of people want to use the government as a tool for advancing their personal religious view that homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality.

i personally believe that homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality and in your words i am "pro-gay".

that said, i think that neither group (no group!) should use the government to advance their views.

[teacherone]

here is the part you are missing-
Private business has an owner. A person with a right over the capital. Every dollar that capitalist gets is a payment/trade for the service/good he provides. at the end of the day- that money is his. He can hire/fire whoever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.
Public business has no owner(or everyone is the owner-s same thing). There is no person who has sole right or controlling interest over the public company. The money comes from all of the people, not for a service- but as a force contribution to that public company. Giving each person a even share of that public company. Since there isn't a clear owner for which the rights of the capital can be assigned, then everyone has to be treated as equal share holders each with the exact same access and rights to its resources.

This is a very brief summary of a deeper discussion, but maybe it will start to fill in the voids in your logic.

all you've done here is outline the "tragedy of the commons" but your solution is incorrect.

it is physically impossible to give every citizen usage rights over all publicly held land simultaneously or to give every citizen "share-holder" status in every publicly held institution.

the only solution to the tragedy of the commons is to privatize everything but that is a different discussion.

while we have public institutions then they should be treated and run as businesses, netting the best value as efficiently as possible.

or do you propose the us military forgo all physical and mental entrance requirements so that each and every citizen is given
equal share-holder status each with the exact same access and rights to its resources

[erowe1]

They aren't asking for any religious accommodations; they are asking for equal protection and due process.
There's that phrase again. What does this have to do with due process?



This is the second thread, in as many days, that you have tried to minimize discrimination based on sexual orientation. I can't imagine why a person on Ron Paul forums would do such a thing.
Why shouldn't people who minimize discrimination based on sexual orientation support Ron Paul? He's the ideal candidate for those of us who oppose the way the government is being used as a tool for the gay agenda.



The judge's ruling was straightforward and concise. You should read it and then reply on valid legal grounds because all you're doing by arguing these abstract ideas is thinly masking your dogmatic hatred for homosexuals.
I don't presume to know anything about the legal arguments. Nor do I care. If it really is the case that our law code grants judges the power to dictate to the military what its hiring policies must be, then the law is wrong.

[erowe1]

i personally believe that homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality and in your words i am "pro-gay".

that said, i think that neither group (no group!) should use the government to advance their views.

I think we make good allies, because I don't believe that homosexuality is as valid as hetrosexuality. I'm anti-gay. And I also think that neither group should use government to advance their views. In fact the government institutions and powers which are being volleyed back and forth between the groups shouldn't be available for such use to begin with.

However, as long as we have a standing army, and as long as it is the case that it must follow one of two policies, either one that recognizes homosexuality as a valid basis for discrimination or one that does not, then it's fallacious to pretend that adopting one of those policies is somehow an imposition of religious views on government policy while the other is some unbiased position.

[BamaAla]

There's that phrase again. What does this have to do with due process?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Substantive%20Due%20Process.htm



Why shouldn't people who minimize discrimination based on sexual orientation support Ron Paul? He's the ideal candidate for those of us who oppose the way the government is being used as a tool for the gay agenda.

Equal protection under the law is not a gay agenda; it is, however, an issue of liberty. I could possibly understand your argument if you were arguing under a "meeting of minds" theory, but you would still be wrong.



I don't presume to know anything about the legal arguments. Nor do I care. If it really is the case that our law code grants judges the power to dictate to the military what its hiring policies must be, then the law is wrong.

Then start the movement to get rid of judicial review.

[erowe1]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Substantive%20Due%20Process.htm
That article didn't mention DADT. What does overturning DADT have to do with due process? Since you're the one who keeps repeating that, you should be able to give a simple straightforward answer in your own words, rather than redirecting to links that don't address that question or saying things like, "You mean you don't know what this has to do with due process?! You must need a dictionary!", and so on.



Equal protection under the law is not a gay agenda; it is, however, an issue of liberty. I could possibly understand your argument if you were arguing under a "meeting of minds" theory, but you would still be wrong.
Again, the "protection under the law" that the military provides is not job opportunities, but defense, which it does provide equally and without respect for sexual orientation.



Then start the movement to get rid of judicial review.
I'm in such a movement already, since I'm a Ron Paul supporter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul#We_the_P eople_Act

[BamaAla]

That article didn't mention DADT. What does overturning DADT have to do with due process? Since you're the one who keeps repeating that, you should be able to give a simple straightforward answer in your own words, rather than redirecting to links that don't address that question or saying things like, "You mean you don't know what this has to do with due process?! You must need a dictionary!", and so on.

You're obviously a pretty smart guy; connect the dots. I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide a seminar on substantive due process. The judges ruling is a short one (82 pages) and is available in pdf format; if you really want to understand the merits of the case, read it. If you don't have an understanding of the legal theories of substantive and procedural due process, google. To boil it down to the most basic concept, homosexual individuals in the military are denied both freedom of expression and freedom of speech and the proximate cause of that is DADT.



Again, the "protection under the law" that the military provides is not job opportunities, but defense, which it does provide equally and without respect for sexual orientation.

If the military was a monolithic entity, that may be true; however, it is not. It is made up of individuals with individual rights.



I'm in such a movement already, since I'm a Ron Paul supporter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul#We_the_P eople_Act

Fantastic, but that would have no bearing on this case. That legislation would have no standing in the case at hand due to jurisdiction laid out in the Constitution.

[erowe1]

You're obviously a pretty smart guy; connect the dots. I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide a seminar on substantive due process. The judges ruling is a short one (82 pages) and is available in pdf format; if you really want to understand the merits of the case, read it. If you don't have an understanding of the legal theories of substantive and procedural due process, google. To boil it down to the most basic concept, homosexual individuals in the military are denied both freedom of expression and freedom of speech and the proximate cause of that is DADT.
OK. I'll connect the dots and stick with my opinion that due process has nothing to do with the way the military denies freedom of expression (along with tons of other freedoms) to everyone who joins, not just homosexuals. If you thought you could join the military and retain your freedom of speech you were mistaken. The ruling against DADT does't change that.


If the military was a monolithic entity, that may be true; however, it is not. It is made up of individuals with individual rights.
When you join the military you voluntarily relinquish your individual rights. And again, the right to tell people you're gay is peanuts compared to the other rights you relinquish. But this is in no way a violation of anyone's rights, since joining the military itself is not a right.


Fantastic, but that would have no bearing on this case. That legislation would have no standing in the case at hand due to jurisdiction laid out in the Constitution.
Right. But it's still against judicial review, and the same principle could (and should) be applied to prevent courts from ruling on DADT, and doing so would be fully within the jurisdiction of Congress laid out in the Constitution. On the other hand, nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the courts the authority to dictate to the military what its hiring policies must be.

[Depressed Liberator]

This is one of those threads that really upsets me, since I realize how religious this movement has become.

[oyarde]

This is one of those threads that really upsets me, since I realize how religious this movement has become.

Not sure I understand what you mean . I do not think religion has anything to do with the military commanders positions on this .

[Depressed Liberator]

Not sure I understand what you mean . I do not think religion has anything to do with the military commanders positions on this .

People should be able to serve regardless of their sexual orientation. It makes no sense.

[Dr.3D]

People should be able to serve regardless of their sexual orientation. It makes no sense.

People are already serving regardless of their sexual orientation.

[oyarde]

People are already serving regardless of their sexual orientation.

True .

[Danke]

People are already serving regardless of their sexual orientation.

One thing I know for certain, all those carpet munchers are not serving me.

[Dr.3D]

One thing I know for certain, all those carpet munchers are not serving me.

LOL, you will never know for sure as long as there is DADT. :D

[AxisMundi]

you guys are so right.

the federal government should pass a blanket "minority civil rights act" and ensure that each and every private business has its requisite representation of every minority group imaginable on its employee roster.

Why add to the bureaucracy?

The concept of Protected Classes already enumerates valid, recognized minorities who would face, or have faced, discrimination otherwise.

[AxisMundi]

It's actually both. It's important that people realize that. It's not the case that only the anti-gay side is trying implement a policy that reflects their religious view. The pro-gay side is doing the exact same thing, only with the opposite religious view.

May I ask when science became religion?

Everything from modern clinical research to simply anthological evidences show that homosexuality is a natural, inherent part of the human species.

[AxisMundi]

People are already serving regardless of their sexual orientation.

Until their sexual orientation becomes known.

At least as far as gays go.

[Dr.3D]

May I ask when science became religion?

Everything from modern clinical research to simply anthological evidences show that homosexuality is a natural, inherent part of the human species.

Heh... science isn't a religion, it's the secular humanist religion that attempts to use science as an excuse.

[Dr.3D]

Until their sexual orientation becomes known.

At least as far as gays go.

And thus DADT works. Even if they remove DADT, those who divulge a lifestyle that conflicts with the norm, may not lose their jobs, but perhaps they will wish they had.

[oyarde]

And thus DADT works. Even if they remove DADT, those who divulge a lifestyle that conflicts with the norm, may not lose their jobs, but perhaps they will wish they had.

From a practical point of view , there are many considerations for the commanders . I could see the reluctance in combat arms . If changes are made , inevitably there will be some negative incidents which would have to be dealt with . How is that a positive for them ? There will also be people who decide against re enlistment . Who will replace them ? etc etc etc .

[erowe1]

May I ask when science became religion?

Everything from modern clinical research to simply anthological evidences show that homosexuality is a natural, inherent part of the human species.

Even if we pretend that's true, what does it have to do with anything?

Science doesn't answer questions of ought. Religion does. And whether someone believes that it is true that men ought not to have sex with men, or believes that it is false, in either case their belief is a religious one.

Incidentally, Christianity teaches that sin in general is a natural inherent part of the human species.

[Depressed Liberator]

People are already serving regardless of their sexual orientation.

They can't serve openly, and there have been many cases where people have gone out of their way to find out about a soldier's sexual orientation.

[oyarde]

They can't serve openly, and there have been many cases where people have gone out of their way to find out about a soldier's sexual orientation.

There is not supposed to be any going out of the way . If that happened it should have been reviewed and dropped .

[teacherone]

i see that this argument has regressed to partisan bickering about religion and the morality of homosexual behavior.

this is pure distraction and completely irrelevant to the issue.

the only provable assertion that anyone can make in this case is that the commanders of the military have decided that it is difficult enough to assimilate hundreds of thousands of men all from different socio-economic-religious-cultural-racial backgrounds without adding open homosexuality into the mix.

the commanders have based this decision on two factors:

1) the difficulty of creating unit cohesion among a mixed group of straight/gay men

2) the cost of providing services (showers, bunks etc) to a mixed group of straight/gay men

if the commanders of the military suddenly and unanimously reversed their position without the duress of political might but based on practical and efficient managerial assumptions, then erowe1 would be suddenly on the wrong side of this issue.

it is not about pro-gay/ anti-gay. it is about leaving managerial decisions in the hands of managers not in the hands of bureaucrats.

the commanders of the military are its managers. if you believe that managerial decisions should be subject to the whim of the political branch then you belong in another forum--one that advocates the use of political force to ensure diversity.

[BamaAla]

it is not about pro-gay/ anti-gay. it is about leaving managerial decisions in the hands of managers not in the hands of bureaucrats.

the commanders of the military are its managers. if you believe that managerial decisions should be subject to the whim of the political branch then you belong in another forum--one that advocates the use of political force to ensure diversity.

Should the military managers also set the budgets, codify the rules, and decide which battles they engage in?

[teacherone]

Should the military managers also set the budgets, codify the rules, and decide which battles they engage in?

congress sets the budgets.

congress declares the wars.

as commander in chief, the president could immediately order his military commanders to accept every open homosexual that applies.

there is a reason he doesn't do this- his commanders don't want it for the reasons detailed above.

[TonySutton]

there is a reason he doesn't do this- his commanders don't want it for the reasons detailed above.

The commanders did not want women either. Today women work alongside their male counterparts with very few problems.

[erowe1]

The commanders did not want women either. Today women work alongside their male counterparts with very few problems.

But if the military excluded women like it used to, there would be nothing wrong with that.

[teacherone]

The commanders did not want women either. Today women work alongside their male counterparts with very few problems.

I don't know... In 2008 33% of military women reported being sexually harassed while in the military. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23636487/) Many more did not report.

But we'll see-- out of our hands now anyway:

Pentagon to comply with court order to end 'don't ask, don't tell'
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407018.html?hpid=sec-nation)

[TonySutton]

I don't know... In 2008 33% of military women reported being sexually harassed while in the military. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23636487/) Many more did not report.



Do you have statistics on sexual harassment in the civilian workplace for comparison?

A poll shown here shows it to be 31%

http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/SHworkplace.html

[teacherone]

Do you have statistics on sexual harassment in the civilian workplace for comparison?

A poll shown here shows it to be 31%

http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/SHworkplace.html

I don't know...difficult to compare.

Your website contains sources such as internet polls by glamour.com and telephone polls by market researchers Harris interactive.

The 2008 Pentagon study was based on actual reported cases:


According to the documents, 1,516 reports involved the Army; 565 for the Air Force; 394 for the Navy; and 213 for the Marines. The active duty Army, by far the largest service with about 518,000 soldiers, also saw the highest rate of reported sexual assaults.

The Army had 2.6 reports per 1,000 soldiers; the Air Force's rate was 1.6 reports per 1,000; the Marines' rate was 1.1 per 1,000; and the Navy's rate was 1 per 1,000 sailors. The average was 1.8 sexual assaults reported per 1,000 military members.

Also, this is only the second full year in which the military has included in the totals
sexual assaults that are filed under a program that allows victims to report the incident and receive health care or counseling services but does not notify law enforcement or commanders.

[teacherone]

^^^numbers don't add up. need to find out where the 31% comes from.

[TonySutton]

I don't know...difficult to compare.

Your website contains sources such as internet polls by glamour.com and telephone polls by market researchers Harris interactive.

The 2008 Pentagon study was based on actual reported cases:

Negative, you need to reread the article.

The statistics on sexual harassment were based on...


The Defense Manpower Data Center said it compiled the data from a survey of 24,000 people in 2006.

The statistics on sexual assault were based on actual cases.

[AxisMundi]

Heh... science isn't a religion, it's the secular humanist religion that attempts to use science as an excuse.

Empty rhetoric doesn't help you in a debate.


And thus DADT works. Even if they remove DADT, those who divulge a lifestyle that conflicts with the norm, may not lose their jobs, but perhaps they will wish they had.

Firstly, gay isn't a "lifestyle". Your use of the term broadcasts your willfully ignorance on the subject.

Secondly, homosexuality is the "norm" for gays. An example of gays acting outside of the "norm" are those who crucify themselves within the evilness of the "ex-gay ministries". These poor misguided souls are acting "outside the norm".

Thirdly, a few real world examples (ie not some far out fantasy but things that could easily happen)...

An outstanding officer pisses off some underlings. Said underlings find out through some other person who knew the officer before enlistment that said officer is gay. Officer is summarily discharged.

A young lesbian is being hit on mercilessly off-base at a bar. Finally she says something to the effect of "Look, I don't like guys, so go away". In retaliation, the guy outs her to their SO and she is summarily discharged.

Do these sound fair to you? Do these sound like DADT works to you? If it does, then you are nothing more than a bigot.

[AxisMundi]

Even if we pretend that's true, what does it have to do with anything?

Science doesn't answer questions of ought. Religion does. And whether someone believes that it is true that men ought not to have sex with men, or believes that it is false, in either case their belief is a religious one.

Incidentally, Christianity teaches that sin in general is a natural inherent part of the human species.

Firstly, I am well aware of what "Christianity" (ie Paulism) teaching about homosexuality. However, our govenrment isn't supposed to be in the business of supporting, endorsing, or forwarding anyone's religion, or religion at all.

A concept that has been worn away over the centuries under the onslought of a theodemocratic agenda.

Secondly, science does indeed address the "ought", it merely cannot address Deity.

[AxisMundi]

i see that this argument has regressed to partisan bickering about religion and the morality of homosexual behavior.

this is pure distraction and completely irrelevant to the issue.

the only provable assertion that anyone can make in this case is that the commanders of the military have decided that it is difficult enough to assimilate hundreds of thousands of men all from different socio-economic-religious-cultural-racial backgrounds without adding open homosexuality into the mix.

the commanders have based this decision on two factors:

1) the difficulty of creating unit cohesion among a mixed group of straight/gay men

2) the cost of providing services (showers, bunks etc) to a mixed group of straight/gay men

if the commanders of the military suddenly and unanimously reversed their position without the duress of political might but based on practical and efficient managerial assumptions, then erowe1 would be suddenly on the wrong side of this issue.

it is not about pro-gay/ anti-gay. it is about leaving managerial decisions in the hands of managers not in the hands of bureaucrats.

the commanders of the military are its managers. if you believe that managerial decisions should be subject to the whim of the political branch then you belong in another forum--one that advocates the use of political force to ensure diversity.

1. I have yet to hear of any combat veteran who woudl give a crap about the sexual orientation of the man next to him in a firefight.

2. Seperate facitlities for gays? I would love to hear where you got that from.

The entire question is, indeed, about anti-gay mentalities that deluge our society and our military as well.

[erowe1]

Secondly, science does indeed address the "ought", it merely cannot address Deity.

No it doesn't. Science is incapable of that.

To claim that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality is every bit as religious as to claim that there is something immoral about it. A policy based on the former is as much an example of government endorsing a religious view as a policy based on the latter is.

[AxisMundi]

No it doesn't. Science is incapable of that.

To claim that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality is every bit as religious as to claim that there is something immoral about it. A policy based on the former is as much an example of government endorsing a religious view as a policy based on the latter is.

Morality is social based, not religious even if a religion has absorbed said social moral.

Your "immorality" of homosexuality in this country is a matter of religious law, not morality.

[erowe1]

Morality is social based, not religious even if a religion has absorbed said social moral.

Your "immorality" of homosexuality in this country is a matter of religious law, not morality.

I'm confused by what you mean here. You seem to think that social mores and religious laws are mutually exclusive concepts. As I see it, they're inseparable. But even if not, I don't see what difference it makes.

Whatever you think the relationship is between those things (the moral, the religious, and the social), you're still left with you and me having opposing views, where I say that gay sex is evil, and you say that ex-gay ministries are evil. Whatever category you put those claims in, it's the same category for both of them, and whatever that category is, it's not science.

[AxisMundi]

I'm confused by what you mean here. You seem to think that social mores and religious laws are mutually exclusive concepts. As I see it, they're inseparable. But even if not, I don't see what difference it makes.

Whatever you think the relationship is between those things (the moral, the religious, and the social), you're still left with you and me having opposing views, where I say that gay sex is evil, and you say that ex-gay ministries are evil. Whatever category you put those claims in, it's the same category for both of them (and in neither case is that category "science").

The major difference between you and I is that I use science and facts to form my opinions, and also stir in a healthy heapning of simple morality as well. Unfounded bigotry is immoral, no matter how one looks at it.

We are not a Christian theocracy, theonomy, or theodemocracy, despite the best attempts be a few.

As there is absolutely no valid secular reason to discriminate against gays, there should be none in this Nation.

Our Constitution permits people to be as much of a bigot as they would like to be, and even to shout said bigotry from teh rooftops if they wish. However, that same document is supposed to ban religious doctrine, which discrimination towards gays is, from being made into law.

[erowe1]

The major difference between you and I is that I use science and facts to form my opinions,
I'm sure you use science to form some of your opinions, as do I. But just as I don't use science to form all of my opinions, neither do you.

For example, the following claim is not formed out of science, as science does not have the capability to provide a basis for claims of anything being immoral:

Unfounded bigotry is immoral, no matter how one looks at it.


We are not a Christian theocracy, theonomy, or theodemocracy, despite the best attempts be a few.
I agree that we are not. Nor do I want us to be one. It seems that some, however, want us to be a secular version of a theocracy, where they claim that it is federal establishment of religion for military hiring policies to comport with the religious view that homosexuality is wrong, and yet they themselves insist that taxpayers must be forced to fund a military whose hiring policies comport with their own religious view that homosexuality is not wrong.


there is absolutely no valid secular reason to discriminate against gays
That's true. However, there is also no valid secular (in the sense of completely devoid of religion) reason to say that discrimination against gays is morally wrong. To say that something is morally wrong is to make a religious claim.

[AxisMundi]

I'm sure you use science to form some of your opinions, as do I. But just as I don't use science to form all of my opinions, neither do you.

For example, the following claim is not formed out of science, as science does not have the capability to provide a basis for claims of anything being immoral:

Science does indeed prove that unfounded bigotry is harmful. One merely has to look at the five gay teens who have recvently committed suicide.


I agree that we are not. Nor do I want us to be one. It seems that some, however, want us to be a secular version of a theocracy, where they claim that it is immoral for military hiring policies to comport with the religious view that homosexuality is wrong, and yet they themselves insist that military hiring policies must comport with the religious view that homosexuality is not wrong.

I am finding it exptremely difficult to debate with you. Please use the common lexicon, and not your personal one.

Firstly, secular means relgiiously neutral, not anti-religion.

Secondly, please stop trying to bring religion and science on to a level playing field by claiming that science is a religion.



That's true. However, there is also no valid secular (in the sense of completely devoid of religion) reason to say that discrimination against gays is morally wrong. To say that something is morally wrong is to make a religious claim.

Again, you confuse morals with religion. Morals are socieity driven, not religiously originated.

The "Big Three" for example, murder, theft, rape, are social morals as the prohibitiona gainst them can be found across cultures. They are found in pre-Christian areas and areas today where Christianity is absent or has no influence.

Just becasue Christianity has absorbed these morals doesn't make said morals property of the religion.

Homosexuality has been, and is, excepted in many parts of the world as a natural part of the human race.

[erowe1]

Science does indeed prove that unfounded bigotry is harmful. One merely has to look at the five gay teens who have recvently committed suicide.
Science can't show that the bigotry is unfounded, nor that those results are bad. For that matter, the concept of bigotry is not one that can be gotten from science at all.


I am finding it exptremely difficult to debate with you. Please use the common lexicon, and not your personal one.

Firstly, secular means relgiiously neutral, not anti-religion.

I've seen it used both ways, which is why I put in the definition I was working with in parentheses. I'm not sure why this makes it difficult to debate, since your preferred definition is the same as mine. It is under that definition that my point is valid.


Secondly, please stop trying to bring religion and science on to a level playing field by claiming that science is a religion.
I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I'm keeping science and religion confined to their respective realms. The debate about whether homosexuality is morally wrong is 0% scientific and 100% religious.



Again, you confuse morals with religion. Morals are socieity driven, not religiously originated.
Again, I reject the premise that those are mutually exclusive categories. But again, it doesn't matter. Whichever category you choose to use, it's not science.



The "Big Three" for example, murder, theft, rape, are social morals as the prohibitiona gainst them can be found across cultures religions. They are found in pre-Christian areas and areas today where Christianity is absent or has no influence.
Fixed it.



Just becasue Christianity has absorbed these morals doesn't make said morals property of the religion.
Actually, yes it does mean exactly that. If you think it doesn't, then you're the one working with your own lexicon here.



Homosexuality has been, and is, excepted in many parts of the world religions as a natural part of the human race.

1) Fixed it.
2) Whether with your wording or mine, I agree.

[libertarian4321]

When we are forced to pay for the military, what we are paying for is the alleged protection it gives us, not the opportunity to join it, as though it's some job corps or something. To the extent that the military actually defends us at all (or makes us less safe, as the case may be), it does so for all Americans, regardless of whether or not they are allowed to join the military. So in that sense, which is the sense that is analogous to your insurance example, it does not discriminate.



To say that gays can't serve openly in the military is the same as saying Gays can't serve openly at the Justice department or the EPA or the food and drug administration or the National Parks system.

When you discriminate against some citizens (and therefore favor others) for Federal jobs, it's just wrong.

As a soldier, I bought into the bull shit for many years and was against gays in the military. But after giving it much thought, I realized THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON TO PREVENT THEM FROM SERVING AND SERVING OPENLY.

I looked back at my career in the military, and couldn't come up with one instance where knowing that the guy (or gal) next to me was gay would have made a damned bit of difference when it comes to getting the job done.

Hence, gays should be allowed to serve in the Justice Department, or the EPA, OR THE MILITARY.

The judge made the right call.

The military is notoriously traditional and slow to change anything. This will give them a push in the right direction.

[erowe1]

To say that gays can't serve openly in the military is the same as saying Gays can't serve openly at the Justice department or the EPA or the food and drug administration or the National Parks system.

When you discriminate against some citizens (and therefore favor others) for Federal jobs, it's just wrong.

As a soldier, I bought into the bull shit for many years and was against gays in the military. But after giving it much thought, I realized THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON TO PREVENT THEM FROM SERVING AND SERVING OPENLY.

I looked back at my career in the military, and couldn't come up with one instance where knowing that the guy (or gal) next to me was gay would have made a damned bit of difference when it comes to getting the job done.

Hence, gays should be allowed to serve in the Justice Department, or the EPA, OR THE MILITARY.

The judge made the right call.

The military is notoriously traditional and slow to change anything. This will give them a push in the right direction.

I definitely appreciate that opinion. But your second to last paragraph, that the judge made the right call, contradicts everything you said up to that point. If the decision of whether or not gays should serve in the military, as well as whether or not a DADT policy should be applied to them if they do, is to be based on whether or not it is rational, from a military standpoint, then it shouldn't be up to a judge to decide.

[AxisMundi]

Science can't show that the bigotry is unfounded, nor that those results are bad. For that matter, the concept of bigotry is not one that can be gotten from science at all.

Firstly, yes science does show that the bigotry towards the GLBT community is undounded. There is simply no valid reason to promote hate towards.

Secondly, clinical research is a science. That clinical research shows how much damage to many gay individuals that the unfoudned bigotry has caused.


I've seen it used both ways, which is why I put in the definition I was working with in parentheses. I'm not sure why this makes it difficult to debate, since your preferred definition is the same as mine. It is under that definition that my point is valid.

I prefer to use the dictionary definition, not the one hysterical definition attributed to the efforts to re-secularize our g'ment.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular


I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I'm keeping science and religion confined to their respective realms. The debate about whether homosexuality is morally wrong is 0% scientific and 100% religious.

Again, science proves homosexuality to be a natural, inherent aspect of the gay individual. Secondly, we are a secular Nation, relgiious doctrine is not suppsoed to be the sole basis for laws in this country. That include the DADT policy.


Again, I reject the premise that those are mutually exclusive categories. But again, it doesn't matter. Whichever category you choose to use, it's not science.

I agree they are not mutually exclusive. Religion does indeed absorb certain morals into their doctrine.

Homosexuality isn't a question of a social moral, it is a question of religious doctrine/law and should not be reflected in our Nation's laws.


Fixed it.

I have no idea what you claimed to have fixed. Certain morals, such as the Big Three, are indeed foudn across cultures, whatever relgiion might have existed in that cutrue, and how much said religion infused that culture as well.


Actually, yes it does mean exactly that. If you think it doesn't, then you're the one working with your own lexicon here.

Please show a dictionary definition proving that I am using my own lexicon in that sentance.


1) Fixed it.
2) Whether with your wording or mine, I agree.

I certainly agree that certain religions accept homosexuals. However, again I meant what I said. No amtter how much a religion infuses an area, there is still cultura influences.l

[AxisMundi]

I definitely appreciate that opinion. But your second to last paragraph, that the judge made the right call, contradicts everything you said up to that point. If the decision of whether or not gays should serve in the military, as well as whether or not a DADT policy should be applied to them if they do, is to be based on whether or not it is rational, from a military standpoint, then it shouldn't be up to a judge to decide.

You have yet to offer any rational for defending DADT.

[erowe1]

You have yet to offer any rational for defending DADT.

I have never once in this thread said that I support DADT.

[erowe1]

Firstly, yes science does show that the bigotry towards the GLBT community is undounded. There is simply no valid reason to promote hate towards.

Secondly, clinical research is a science. That clinical research shows how much damage to many gay individuals that the unfoudned bigotry has caused.

Again, you're expanding science beyond its capabilities. Clinical research may or may not follow the scientific method in any given instance. But if it does, it can never escape the fact that, to the degree that it is scientific, it can only answer questions of is, and never questions of ought. The idea that the things you mean by "harm" are indeed immoral, and the idea that some kind of bigotry is unfounded, are questions of ought, and are entirely outside the scope of all the natural sciences.



I prefer to use the dictionary definition, not the one hysterical definition attributed to the efforts to re-secularize our g'ment.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular
Good. I don't see a problem there.


Again, science proves homosexuality to be a natural, inherent aspect of the gay individual.
No it doesn't. But even if it did, that would be of absolutely no help to the question of whether or not there is anything wrong with homosexuality, or whether or not DADT is a good policy.


Secondly, we are a secular Nation, relgiious doctrine is not suppsoed to be the sole basis for laws in this country. That include the DADT policy.
On the contrary, we are not a secular nation. And there is no such thing as a law in this country or any other country that is not based on religious doctrine in some way.



Please show a dictionary definition proving that I am using my own lexicon in that sentance.

The sentence in question is the following:


Just becasue Christianity has absorbed these morals doesn't make said morals property of the religion.

I'm not sure which word I need to provide you the definition of. But if Christianity absorbed certain social mores, then that fact means that they are a property of the religion. If they are not a property of the religion, then it cannot be the case that it absorbed them.

[libertarian4321]

I definitely appreciate that opinion. But your second to last paragraph, that the judge made the right call, contradicts everything you said up to that point. If the decision of whether or not gays should serve in the military, as well as whether or not a DADT policy should be applied to them if they do, is to be based on whether or not it is rational, from a military standpoint, then it shouldn't be up to a judge to decide.

Let me be clear.

It is the right thing to do, period.

From both a Constitutional and military point of view.

Having the government discriminate against one group of citizens, while favoring another, for arbitrary reasons that have no military value, is just plain wrong, for the same reason it would be wrong to discriminate against blacks, Jews, or red heads.

[libertarian4321]

And thus DADT works.

No, it doesn't.

I'll tell you why.

Not only are gays being tossed out for "coming out," but far more are being tossed out because someone rat's on them.

The gay soldiers are NOT "telling." Yet they are still tossed out- because someone finds out and turns them in or because someone conducts a successful witch hunt.

Not only does this cost all of us a lot of money (it costs a lot of money to train soldiers), it affects readiness (it takes time to replace that soldier). It is also a security risk- as long as a soldier can have his sexuality held over him, he can be blackmailed.

Let me explain. You have a gay soldier who loves the military. He is NOT "telling." He does his job well and follows the policy. But someone finds out he is gay and threatens to expose him and end his career, unless that soldier does something for him (like divulge sensitive information). It gives our enemies and potential enemies the ability to use the policy to extract information from our soldiers- about weapons systems, for example.

The policy is a mess. It does nothing to enhance readiness. It's bad for the soldiers, it's bad for the taxpayers, and it's bad for national security. DADT needs to change and change now.

You can count this old soldier as one who favors getting rid of the policy. My reserve service ends in just under a year, I hope this issue is correctly resolved by then.

BTW, I'm not saying anything radical here- for those who claim that all the military brass support DADT, there are many who do not, including the Chairman of the JCS.

[erowe1]

Let me be clear.

It is the right thing to do, period.

From both a Constitutional and military point of view.

Having the government discriminate against one group of citizens, while favoring another, for arbitrary reasons that have no military value, is just plain wrong, for the same reason it would be wrong to discriminate against blacks, Jews, or red heads.

1) You might have good reasons to be against DADT, but your position has nothing to do with the Constitution.
2) I find it interesting that you include the phrase, "reasons that have no military value." If there were a reason that did have military value would DADT then be acceptable? And if so, then whose job is it to decide whether such a reason exists? Possible military officers, possibly the President, possibly Congress. But surely not anyone in the judicial branch.

[AxisMundi]

1) You might have good reasons to be against DADT, but your position has nothing to do with the Constitution.
2) I find it interesting that you include the phrase, "reasons that have no military value." If there were a reason that did have military value would DADT then be acceptable? And if so, then whose job is it to decide whether such a reason exists? Possible military officers, possibly the President, possibly Congress. But surely not anyone in the judicial branch.

If there is a valid military reason, especially in light of all that has been pointed out from witchhunts to security issues, as well as testimonials from past and present military personnel, please list them.

DADT was a politically motivated and expedient quick fix, an attempt at empty pandering towards Civil Rights activists while still catering to the old school hardliner homophobes within the military. And like every other government "Band-aid" policy, it doesn't work.

And yes, it certainly is a Constitutional issue, as there is no valid, secular reason to discriminate against gays in this, or any manner, especially by our own government. Civil Rights are based on Constitutional Principles, from Protected Classes to voting.

Relgiious doctrines, or just plain "Ick", are simply not reasons to base laws, civilian or military, upon.

[erowe1]

If there is a valid military reason, especially in light of all that has been pointed out from witchhunts to security issues, as well as testimonials from past and present military personnel, please list them.
That's really none of my concern. I don't care one way or the other about DADT (except for the fact that I like the way it reduces the number of people in the military). The important point is that the question of whether or not there is a valid military reason is not mine to answer, and it's certainly not a judge's to answer. But if it does become an issue that the American taxpayers wish to settle legislatively, then the branch of government through which they need to enact that legislation is the legislative one, not the judicial one. If, for example, those taxpayers wish to demand via Congress that their money not be used to fund homosexuals in the military, that's their right, since it's their money. What they don't have a right to do is to delegate to their legislators the passing of laws that would spend their money in ways that violates someone's rights. But that's not relevant to this issue, since none of the options (DADT, the repeal of DADT, or even flat out banning of gays in the military) violate anyone's rights, except inasmuch as they violate the rights of taxpayers not to have to be coerced into funding the military, which is a violation that all options commit equally.



And yes, it certainly is a Constitutional issue, as there is no valid, secular reason to discriminate against gays in this, or any manner, especially by our own government. Civil Rights are based on Constitutional Principles, from Protected Classes to voting.

The concept of "protected classes" is diametrically opposed to constitutional principles.

[AxisMundi]

That's really none of my concern. I don't care one way or the other about DADT (except for the fact that I like the way it reduces the number of people in the military). The important point is that the question of whether or not there is a valid military reason is not mine to answer, and it's certainly not a judge's to answer. But if it does become an issue that the American taxpayers wish to settle legislatively, then the branch of government through which they need to enact that legislation is the legislative one, not the judicial one. If, for example, those taxpayers wish to demand via Congress that their money not be used to fund homosexuals in the military, that's their right, since it's their money. What they don't have a right to do is to delegate to their legislators the passing of laws that would spend their money in ways that violates someone's rights. But that's not relevant to this issue, since none of the options (DADT, the repeal of DADT, or even flat out banning of gays in the military) violate anyone's rights, except inasmuch as they violate the rights of taxpayers not to have to be coerced into funding the military, which is a violation that all options commit equally.

Firstly, to be frank I have to question your integrety in supporting open discrimination to "reduces the number of people in the military". Recruitment limitations would be a much better, and non-discriminatory, method.

Secondly, as I have noted, the Judicial Branch is there for We the People to petition our government over the redress of greviences. In this example to challenge unjust and discriminatory governmental policies.

Lastly, I would imagine that JAG representatives where present in defense of the DADT policy. If they could not convince the judge that there was indeed a valid reason for this discriminatory policy, guess what, there isn't any.

Equality and Civil Rights should never be left open to the democratic principle as the majority will always find ways to discriminate against the minority.


The concept of "protected classes" is diametrically opposed to constitutional principles.

I have heard this "argument" given many times before, Perhaps you will be the first to offer a valid argument instead of the empty rhetoric the phrase is.

People have been, and are, discriminated in housing, employment, education, and other areas of life purely because of race, religion, age, gender, and the other Protected Classes.

It never fails to amaze me how some will speak out against the concept, but then utilize it without hesitation should, say, they feel their religious freedoms are being impinged upon.

[erowe1]

Equality and Civil Rights should never be left open to the democratic principle as the majority will always find ways to discriminate against the minority.


Equality and "civil rights" are two different things. DADT doesn't violate anyone's rights.

[erowe1]

I have heard this "argument" given many times before, Perhaps you will be the first to offer a valid argument instead of the empty rhetoric the phrase is.

People have been, and are, discriminated in housing, employment, education, and other areas of life purely because of race, religion, age, gender, and the other Protected Classes.


OK, I get it. So you're pretty much just trolling here.

[oyarde]

Let me be clear.

It is the right thing to do, period.

From both a Constitutional and military point of view.

Having the government discriminate against one group of citizens, while favoring another, for arbitrary reasons that have no military value, is just plain wrong, for the same reason it would be wrong to discriminate against blacks, Jews, or red heads.

I see your point. If I was a Marine or Army General though , I may tell you that it does have military value. The most important thing at squad and platoon level is trust . Some of these young men would be distrustful of someone who is different than them.

[Promontorium]

Exactly. I would like to see them enact DADT policies for more groups, including Christians, left-handed people, heterosexuals, nonchristians, and right-handed people.

And this is why your opinion is irrelevant.

You are the fox petitioning to gaurd the henhouse. You want the military to collapse. Your opposition to a moral military is quite telling.


Many of you are talking out of both sides of your mouths, because you are biased against homosexuals and you refuse a rational argument. You can not make a non statist argument against gays in the military. You have to appeal to authoritarianism and tyranny of the majority, both things you'd argue against if it applied to you.

The military should both represent the people and take its orders from the people. Your proposal that the federal government should discriminate based on sexuality just disgusts me. That is the heart of anti-liberty. You can't be selectively for liberty in one place and not others. It is hypocrisy, and ultimately when you allow each person even one ignorant hypocritical idea, the totality is more tyrannical and evil than you can imagine.

All your excuses are bullshit. We could go through them one by one but it would make liars of us all. You hate homosexuals. Get over it. It is detrimental to your soul. Or you might be just insane like this guy^ and Austrian Econ who claims he's in the military while being a full blown anarchist. You are a hypocrite, get out of the military. You oppose its existence, while servicing it. Quit or stop acting like you can draw such lines. You don't mind espousing harsh extremist ideas but god forbid you hold yourself to even the remotist standard.

I've seen the shitty effects of DADT I've seen the best get kicked out for being strong armed into admitting their sexuality in words, while disgusting vile shitbags who fuck each other on the job cheating on their spouses get nothing but pay raises.

We need a professional and outstanding military. One that represents liberty, and affords to any man or woman an opportunity to serve if they can do the job. Militaries aren't just jobs, they are symbols, they are diplomats, they must abide to the highest standards of the people they are sworn to defend. They must be better than the average, they must be just. You introduce these biases, these hypocritical standards, and the people you hire will reflect this in behavior. If we should be a nation of thugs, then sure we should only hire people for their killing ability. But if we ever want a moral authority, a just representation, it must be reflected in the military.

[teacherone]

actually we don't need a standing army at all... constitutionally speaking a navy would suffice.