If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   US Supreme Court upholds ban of gays in the military. So your foxhole is safe. Fabulous   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 510
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

8903 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jun 2009 at 12:11 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



510 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-06-08 02:01:33 PM  
EZ Writer: ace in your face: EZ Writer: Gamer Grrrl: That may be, but there is no requirement by the military that recruits be heterosexual. So there's no "signing the contract know you're already breaking it" because sexuality has nothing to do with a military contract.

Actually there is... it's even punishable under the UCMJ to be the ghey.

Its punishable to have sex outside the missionary position i believe (could be misinformed). It IS punishable for anyone to engage in sodomy though, even straights

Clearly I was too vague... this is straight from one of the handouts at legal officer training:

- Homosexual orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct

DEFINITIONS

Homosexual conduct is:

A homosexual act
- Bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
- Bodily contact that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts

Homosexual statements
- Language or behavior that a reasonable person would believe was intended to convey a statement that a person engages in, attempts to engage in, or has the propensity to engage in homosexual acts
- Includes statements such as "I am homosexual," "I am gay," "I am lesbian," or "I have a homosexual orientation"
- A statement by member that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts is grounds for separation, not because it reflects on the member's sexual orientation, but because it indicates a likelihood the member engages in or will engage in homosexual acts

Homosexual marriage or attempted homosexual marriage


Yes - Sodomy is punishable under the UCMJ, but that doesn't mean you're limited to farking missionary style. There's not an illustrative "thou shalt not" position list. Sodomy means you can't go ass-to-mouth... or something like that.


To be clear: I meant it in a way that it is unfair to everyone and should be taken out completely not that it is fair because straights aren't allowed either (not that I am complaining). I was under the impression that if you caught a partner cheating and it was outside missionary you could add further charges in your divorce than just simply infidelity. Perhaps I am wrong and it is just rumor.
 
2009-06-08 02:02:01 PM  
Murkanen: sparrow794: My point was that he could project military power outside his own country if he wanted to, regardless of what gulf war we're talking about.

He barely had the capacity to project his military past the inner section of Iraq. What little hardware he had that was capable of reaching past his borders was only capable of doing so without a warhead, and that's with the highly generous assuming that it was maintained enough that it didn't blow up in the face of the schmuck ordered to push the button.

For all practical and theoretical purposes Saddam was trapped within the portions of his country that weren't under the direct control of the US' no fly zones.


I would ask for a citation, but truth is I hate it when people ask for citations. And at least you were civil and had a point this time.

I think Ho Chi Minh proved all you need to be effective militarily is some ingenuity, several hundred thousand AK-47's, and some bicycles.
 
2009-06-08 02:02:22 PM  
Shryke: Murkanen: You mean the ones that were all gone/destroyed before Bush invaded?

No, I mean the ones they launched at Kuwait (and us) in 2003.


You mean all 8 of them?

I repeat: Iraq didn't even have the ability to project power outside its own borders in 2003.
 
2009-06-08 02:02:23 PM  
kleppe: They aren't banned.

What do you call it when something can only exist in a place if that existance is unknown?
 
2009-06-08 02:03:13 PM  
bravian: EZ Writer: Actually there is... it's even punishable under the UCMJ to be the ghey.

Having sex yes. But not for being gay.

/according to UCMJ oral sex between heterosexual soldiers is also punishable - how many get kicked out for that?



Punishable =/= automatic discharge. There are many different flavors of punishment. On my last deployment, there were several Sailors (m/f) caught in the act of giving mouth hugs (sodomy). None were kicked out, but they did lose rank, forfeiture of pay and allowances, and were put on restriction.
 
2009-06-08 02:04:42 PM  
PascalsGhost: sparrow794: PascalsGhost: tortilla burger: PascalsGhost: Our first war of choice changes everything.

This is not our first war of choice. In fact, it's not even our second war of choice.

Agreed. bad choice of words. It is an amazing example though of a war against a nation that had absolutely no ability to harm us in anyway. Saddam couldn't project his power outside his own country.

Tell that to Kuwait.

1991 != 2003

I understand things like "time" are too abstract for right wing thinking, but its a very important concept.


Forcing someone's reaction works regardless of what year it is.

I understand things like war don't make sense to leftists, as all the happy thoughts of unicorns and rainbows get in the way; but it can be an important concept in the real world where sometimes fights break out.
 
2009-06-08 02:06:21 PM  
Gamer Grrrl: bartink: But your original statement was ridiculous. The idea that only masculine men and women can do a certain job that has nothing to do with "acting" masculine and actually has a lot of other important attributes is plain wrong.

Not to mention, most people in the military aren't even in combat situations, they support the troops who ARE in combat. So why someone needs to masculine to say, process allotments, I don't know.


THIS, if anything being gay would help you if you were working in food or laundry ...

/Husband is a quartermaster
//He isn't gay but he is a clean freak
 
2009-06-08 02:06:33 PM  
PascalsGhost: You mean all 8 of them?

I repeat: Iraq didn't even have the ability to project power outside its own borders in 2003.


I repeat: not everyone has American Patriot batteries, so you are wrong. His Scuds could reach quite a long ways.

And he had armor, as well as the means of invasion. Your entire argument rests on the presence of a US forces at his border, which you are against in the first farking place.
 
2009-06-08 02:06:43 PM  
The Troof hurts: How does one win the Olympics?

It's like winning the internet, except you have to wrestle with naked, oiled-up men.
 
2009-06-08 02:07:17 PM  
Leetdewd: Can anyone explain to me why we can't treat homosexuals as equals?

OK lets troll

Becasue people who can not get where the penis goes have no business with access to stuff that goes BOOM!
 
2009-06-08 02:07:58 PM  
Ok, so the policy makes no sense but, come on, this is the military.

How long did the smart sense of "advisors" last in Vietnam once the old-guard establishment got involved?

Did the US Military leader recognize the importance of aircraft carriers prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor? (Mostly not).

When has the military establishment not been at least 1 generation behind the times? You've barely got a majority in the general population that are opposed to active discrimination against GL and you honestly expect better from the military? Time to swallow a great big reality pill.
 
2009-06-08 02:11:54 PM  
So it's constitutional for someone to be rejected for a government job based on their sexual orientation?

Who picked this current supreme court anyhow?
 
2009-06-08 02:12:09 PM  
wademh: When has the military establishment not been at least 1 generation behind the times?

1948-1963, desegregation, etc.
 
2009-06-08 02:15:34 PM  
CWCBITM
 
2009-06-08 02:16:02 PM  
Can we all please, PLEASE, stop using the word 'fabulous' to mean 'gay'? I'd appreciate it.

You're making Mrs. Fabulous upset.
 
2009-06-08 02:18:13 PM  
Rule One: No Poofters!
Rule Two: No member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abos in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching.
Rule Three: No Poofters!!
Rule Four: Now this term, I don't want to catch anybody not drinking.
Rule Five: No Poofters!
Rule Six: There is NO Rule Six.
Rule Seven: No Poofters!!

Just out of curiosity, has there been any statement, study, report, etc. from the military explaining why this is a danger to military effectiveness? There are various summaries in this thread and elsewhere, but they are invariably interpretations with healthy doses of personal viewpoint. Is there anything from the military?
 
2009-06-08 02:19:36 PM  
Mr_Fabulous: Can we all please, PLEASE, stop using the word 'fabulous' to mean 'gay'? I'd appreciate it.

You're making Mrs. Fabulous upset.


You sound gay

/and fabulous
 
2009-06-08 02:21:02 PM  
Gamer Grrrl: From the article I linked to: A 2003 survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military.

It's their fault for dressing like that.

/just kidding
//seriously, just kidding.
 
2009-06-08 02:24:11 PM  
treesloth: Gamer Grrrl: From the article I linked to: A 2003 survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military.

It's their fault for dressing like that.

/just kidding
//seriously, just kidding.


30% sounds about the same as the percentage of women who were raped and were never in the military....
 
2009-06-08 02:24:26 PM  
When DADT first came out, I accepted that it was probably the best compromise we could make at the time. I had wanted to think that we were ready to move past it, but as wademh points out, there's a really entrenched group of ultra-conservatives in the military leadership (a good number of strict evangelicals, too) who would start a sh***storm if there was a policy of gays being allowed to serve openly. We can't afford a sh***storm in the Pentagon right now, and Obama knows it.
 
2009-06-08 02:25:02 PM  
I blame Bill Clinton. (Mr Don't Ask, Don't Tell himself).
 
2009-06-08 02:25:16 PM  
Mercutio74: So it's constitutional for someone to be rejected for a government job based on their sexual orientation?

Who picked this current supreme court anyhow?


It has always been deemed constitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation. There is a federal law prohibiting it for some other federal jobs, but there is no federal law or constitutional clause prohibiting employment discrimination against homosexuals outside of those few federal departments.

Gay fires Mormon for being anti-gay= religious discrimination, bloody murder, huge lawsuit.

Mormon fires gay for liking it in the pooper= a-ok in most states.
 
2009-06-08 02:26:24 PM  
Before I RTFA, I'm going to guess that it was a 5-4 decision.
 
2009-06-08 02:27:16 PM  
treesloth: Just out of curiosity, has there been any statement, study, report, etc. from the military explaining why this is a danger to military effectiveness? There are various summaries in this thread and elsewhere, but they are invariably interpretations with healthy doses of personal viewpoint. Is there anything from the military?

Google NAVADMIN 291/99 and you'll have enough reading to fill the rest of your week an military ghey policy. Be sure to read the references... the NAVADMIN is only one part (and dated). The references will be updated.
 
2009-06-08 02:27:30 PM  
And I am a lousy psychic.
 
2009-06-08 02:27:45 PM  
ttintagel: When DADT first came out, I accepted that it was probably the best compromise we could make at the time. I had wanted to think that we were ready to move past it, but as wademh points out, there's a really entrenched group of ultra-conservatives in the military leadership (a good number of strict evangelicals, too) who would start a sh***storm if there was a policy of gays being allowed to serve openly. We can't afford a sh***storm in the Pentagon right now, and Obama knows it.

Fark the entrenched conservatives... your job in the military is to defend the constitution, and to that end, to obey the democratically elected leader. If you can't handle it, the military isn't the right place for you. We can't afford to keep namby-pamby emotional conservatives who get butthurt over not keeping their rose-colored glasses in the Pentagon. Their delusions of grandeur have cost us far too much already.
 
2009-06-08 02:27:50 PM  
HAMMERTOE: fudgefactor7: Equality demands representation.

(1) Gays must be allowed to serve openly; and,
(2) Women must register for selective service (draft)

Either they're equal or they are not, and you can't have this "equal but separate," (no, not yours) either.

/thread

Great. Then:

1) Co-ed barracks.
2) "Reproductive rights," including compulsory abortion, for men.


I got no beef with that. If some guy wants an elimination of possible progeny, who am I to deny him a castration? And as for co-ed barracks, hey, it's all good. We'd also need to shave their heads and treat them in ALL WAYS the same as a male. If they can't handle it, then they're not suitable for the military.
 
2009-06-08 02:28:01 PM  
firefly212: Mercutio74: So it's constitutional for someone to be rejected for a government job based on their sexual orientation?

Who picked this current supreme court anyhow?

It has always been deemed constitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation. There is a federal law prohibiting it for some other federal jobs, but there is no federal law or constitutional clause prohibiting employment discrimination against homosexuals outside of those few federal departments.

Gay fires Mormon for being anti-gay= religious discrimination, bloody murder, huge lawsuit.

Mormon fires gay for liking it in the pooper= a-ok in most states.


Which makes no sense. The only reason its not banned is the fundies hold too much power, and want to keep their scrapegoat.
 
2009-06-08 02:29:02 PM  
Let the gays in!!! then let them sleep in the female bunks.

I will denounce my straighthood card for that privilege!

cdn.ezprezzo.com
 
2009-06-08 02:33:51 PM  
EZ Writer: Google NAVADMIN 291/99 and you'll have enough reading to fill the rest of your week an military ghey policy. Be sure to read the references... the NAVADMIN is only one part (and dated). The references will be updated.

Ah, excellent... (or is that fabulous?) I appreciate the pointer.
 
2009-06-08 02:34:51 PM  
smooshie: USCLaw2010: I think He'll switch positions if he gets a second term. You only have so much political capital and he chose healthcare as the issue to use it on. By the second term, he won't have to worry about running again and can support getting rid of that policyafter Republicans destroy any health-care plan thanks to the spineless Dems in congress, President Obama will lose, having failed to do anything that he promised to his base.

Why is it that when Republicans have a majority, they can run willy-nilly making crap like the Patriot Act, appointing Alitos and Scalias, and pandering to the Fundies, but when Democrats win, they sit quietly until "next time"?


Well, in five months the Democrats have nationalized the auto industry and committed the country to a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. So it's not as if they've sat around twiddling their thumbs.

Also, didn't pretty much everyone in both houses of congress vote for the Patriot Act?
 
2009-06-08 02:35:13 PM  
Donald_McRonald: wademh: When has the military establishment not been at least 1 generation behind the times?

1948-1963, desegregation, etc.


You don't know much about the military establishment at that time. The orders from the CIC were there but for many generals, that order was not legitimately followed. My father related a story from camp LeJune that involved the infamous 'Dixie Division' numerous 'accidental' deaths in training exercises. There was a concerted use of improvised ballistics used in place of blanks. Basically, you add rocks, bits of barbed wire, nails and produce some very nasty wounds, in some cases lethal wounds. All religiously covered up in the late 40s early 50s.
 
2009-06-08 02:35:24 PM  
firefly212: ttintagel: When DADT first came out, I accepted that it was probably the best compromise we could make at the time. I had wanted to think that we were ready to move past it, but as wademh points out, there's a really entrenched group of ultra-conservatives in the military leadership (a good number of strict evangelicals, too) who would start a sh***storm if there was a policy of gays being allowed to serve openly. We can't afford a sh***storm in the Pentagon right now, and Obama knows it.

Fark the entrenched conservatives... your job in the military is to defend the constitution, and to that end, to obey the democratically elected leader. If you can't handle it, the military isn't the right place for you. We can't afford to keep namby-pamby emotional conservatives who get butthurt over not keeping their rose-colored glasses in the Pentagon. Their delusions of grandeur have cost us far too much already.


---------

And during peacetime, I'd be 100% with you. That's a damn good reason to get this war over with as soon as we can, so we can do some housecleaning.
 
2009-06-08 02:36:32 PM  
erveek: Before I RTFA, I'm going to guess that it was a 5-4 decision.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
 
2009-06-08 02:36:33 PM  
keypusher: smooshie: USCLaw2010: I think He'll switch positions if he gets a second term. You only have so much political capital and he chose healthcare as the issue to use it on. By the second term, he won't have to worry about running again and can support getting rid of that policyafter Republicans destroy any health-care plan thanks to the spineless Dems in congress, President Obama will lose, having failed to do anything that he promised to his base.

Why is it that when Republicans have a majority, they can run willy-nilly making crap like the Patriot Act, appointing Alitos and Scalias, and pandering to the Fundies, but when Democrats win, they sit quietly until "next time"?

Well, in five months the Democrats have nationalized the auto industry and committed the country to a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. So it's not as if they've sat around twiddling their thumbs.

Also, didn't pretty much everyone in both houses of congress vote for the Patriot Act?


A better question would be why aren't they tearing it apart in the streets yet?
 
2009-06-08 02:36:47 PM  
"I think this decision is an absolute travesty of justice and I think every judge on this court should be ashamed of themselves," said Pietrangelo, who served six years in the Army, seven years in the Vermont National Guard and fought in Iraq in 1991. "It's nothing short of rubber stamping legalized discrimination, the same way Nazi Germany legalized discrimination against Jews."

Jeez, what a drama queen...

All kidding aside, this was the smart move if the goal is to repeal DADT. Pietrangelo does make a good point in suggesting that Gay America needs to step up if they want equality, because sitting back and expecting the lawyers to bail them out just isn't getting the job done. Take to the streets, make your voices heard, & take the civil rights comparisons full circle.
 
2009-06-08 02:37:41 PM  
sparrow794: keypusher: smooshie: USCLaw2010: I think He'll switch positions if he gets a second term. You only have so much political capital and he chose healthcare as the issue to use it on. By the second term, he won't have to worry about running again and can support getting rid of that policyafter Republicans destroy any health-care plan thanks to the spineless Dems in congress, President Obama will lose, having failed to do anything that he promised to his base.

Why is it that when Republicans have a majority, they can run willy-nilly making crap like the Patriot Act, appointing Alitos and Scalias, and pandering to the Fundies, but when Democrats win, they sit quietly until "next time"?

Well, in five months the Democrats have nationalized the auto industry and committed the country to a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. So it's not as if they've sat around twiddling their thumbs.

Also, didn't pretty much everyone in both houses of congress vote for the Patriot Act?

A better question would be why aren't they tearing it apart in the streets yet?


Because they don't know what it says. And neither do you!
 
2009-06-08 02:38:16 PM  
EZ Writer: You sound gay

/and fabulous


You sound EZ.

/and fat
 
2009-06-08 02:38:36 PM  
sparrow794: PascalsGhost: sparrow794: PascalsGhost: tortilla burger: PascalsGhost: Our first war of choice changes everything.

This is not our first war of choice. In fact, it's not even our second war of choice.

Agreed. bad choice of words. It is an amazing example though of a war against a nation that had absolutely no ability to harm us in anyway. Saddam couldn't project his power outside his own country.

Tell that to Kuwait.

1991 != 2003

I understand things like "time" are too abstract for right wing thinking, but its a very important concept.

Forcing someone's reaction works regardless of what year it is.

I understand things like war don't make sense to leftists, as all the happy thoughts of unicorns and rainbows get in the way; but it can be an important concept in the real world where sometimes fights break out.


Iraq War = Bush attempt at an easy propaganda victory for his legacy. Why do you think they fluffed up how fast it would be and how they would greet us as liberators etc?

A useless war in which tens of thousands died. Such a waste.
 
2009-06-08 02:41:51 PM  
Man, socially America has the proverbial car in "reverse" lately. We are devolving at a much faster rate than we have in quite some time.

Melting pot yo?
 
2009-06-08 02:42:08 PM  
Antimatter: sparrow794: PascalsGhost: sparrow794: PascalsGhost: tortilla burger: PascalsGhost: Our first war of choice changes everything.

This is not our first war of choice. In fact, it's not even our second war of choice.

Agreed. bad choice of words. It is an amazing example though of a war against a nation that had absolutely no ability to harm us in anyway. Saddam couldn't project his power outside his own country.

Tell that to Kuwait.

1991 != 2003

I understand things like "time" are too abstract for right wing thinking, but its a very important concept.

Forcing someone's reaction works regardless of what year it is.

I understand things like war don't make sense to leftists, as all the happy thoughts of unicorns and rainbows get in the way; but it can be an important concept in the real world where sometimes fights break out.

Iraq War = Bush attempt at an easy propaganda victory for his legacy. Why do you think they fluffed up how fast it would be and how they would greet us as liberators etc?

A useless war in which tens of thousands died. Such a waste.


Yea i hate brown people having freedom too, no mater the excuse right?
 
2009-06-08 02:42:16 PM  
All I am saying is Obama could have avoided all this by having the military swear a blood oath to him, then he could have done with the gays whatever he felt like doing, be it full integration or a night of long shapr pointy-pointy things.
 
2009-06-08 02:43:02 PM  
Murkanen: I award you 0/10 for content and a -5 for thinking that "The Troll" would make a good screen name.

My surname is Le Trôle.
 
2009-06-08 02:43:11 PM  
firefly212: ttintagel: When DADT first came out, I accepted that it was probably the best compromise we could make at the time. I had wanted to think that we were ready to move past it, but as wademh points out, there's a really entrenched group of ultra-conservatives in the military leadership (a good number of strict evangelicals, too) who would start a sh***storm if there was a policy of gays being allowed to serve openly. We can't afford a sh***storm in the Pentagon right now, and Obama knows it.

Fark the entrenched conservatives... your job in the military is to defend the constitution, and to that end, to obey the democratically elected leader. If you can't handle it, the military isn't the right place for you. We can't afford to keep namby-pamby emotional conservatives who get butthurt over not keeping their rose-colored glasses in the Pentagon. Their delusions of grandeur have cost us far too much already.


Actually, your notion of idealism is what will cost us all
if you can't take a pragmatic outlook here. In terms of picking
battles, decide if liberalizing gays in the military is more important than health care reform. I'm all for removing antiquated restrictions on gays in the military but will not raise 1 finger to act on that while I think other issues, example healthcare reform, will suffer if we get too sanctimonious about issues sure to be extremely controversial. It sucks for those who get booted but you know, they volunteered and knew the landscape so I don't consider them as simply victims. They gambled and lost.
 
2009-06-08 02:44:12 PM  
firefly212: It has always been deemed constitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation. There is a federal law prohibiting it for some other federal jobs, but there is no federal law or constitutional clause prohibiting employment discrimination against homosexuals outside of those few federal departments.

Gay fires Mormon for being anti-gay= religious discrimination, bloody murder, huge lawsuit.

Mormon fires gay for liking it in the pooper= a-ok in most states.


Ahhh I see. You'll have to forgive me, being Canadian, I was under the impression that gay people are human beings and their sexual orientation doesn't preclude them from participating in the world.

/Carry on
 
2009-06-08 02:45:39 PM  
Mercutio74: You'll have to forgive me, being Canadian

Nope.
 
2009-06-08 02:46:44 PM  
So... what happens if somebody enters the military without telling, but is legally married in one of the states where it is legal?
Does that mean that they cannot register their legal spouse for benefits?
 
2009-06-08 02:47:27 PM  
griffer: Mercutio74: You'll have to forgive me, being Canadian

Nope.


Alright! No more Mr. polite Canuck for you!!!!

I respectfully insist you forgive me.

/Please?
 
2009-06-08 02:47:46 PM  
As long as aomeone is not a fark up that would to get me killed I wouldn't care what they chose to have sex with.

Competency is much more important than sexual preference.
 
2009-06-08 02:48:12 PM  
ttintagel: firefly212: ttintagel: When DADT first came out, I accepted that it was probably the best compromise we could make at the time. I had wanted to think that we were ready to move past it, but as wademh points out, there's a really entrenched group of ultra-conservatives in the military leadership (a good number of strict evangelicals, too) who would start a sh***storm if there was a policy of gays being allowed to serve openly. We can't afford a sh***storm in the Pentagon right now, and Obama knows it.

Fark the entrenched conservatives... your job in the military is to defend the constitution, and to that end, to obey the democratically elected leader. If you can't handle it, the military isn't the right place for you. We can't afford to keep namby-pamby emotional conservatives who get butthurt over not keeping their rose-colored glasses in the Pentagon. Their delusions of grandeur have cost us far too much already.

---------

And during peacetime, I'd be 100% with you. That's a damn good reason to get this war over with as soon as we can, so we can do some housecleaning.


War is a good reason to shun idiocy and intransigence, not to embrace it.
 
Displayed 50 of 510 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report