Let the games begin? :confused

I'm on the fence leaning towards supporting the repeal.

It's utterly ridiculous that the rights of a group of people are even up for debate.

I think barring an entire group from service in the army is a civil rights issues. The government should not be discriminating based solely on who you are.

I think barring an entire group from service in the army is a civil rights issues. The government should not be discriminating based solely on who you are.

 

 

I agree. Let them serve if they wish.

i dont see how it is entirely different than the military's viewpoint on women and blacks at one point in history

 

IMO, this is a victory for civil rights in this country when we talk about our American military

That still doesn't mean there is a right to serve in the military. That's why women don't serve in full capacity and are mostly reserved for supporting roles. The military can manage its members in a manner it deems effective for combat.

 

The only way you could probably argue otherwise would be on account of the limitations upon speech. This is plausible, but complicated. The military reserves the ability to restrict speech for functionl effectiveness, but not necessarily in terms of sexual orientation. In this respect, pure prohibition might have been more palatable on one level.

 

being gay isnt a handicap...you dont have to be straight to shoot straight

 

its all about being able to serve with honor

 

if other armies around the world can integrate the gay population...then there shouldnt be a problem in this military...orders are still orders irregardless of how the men feel...our military is a reflection of our own people, our culture, our lifestyle, and most importantly, our laws

I think barring an entire group from service in the army is a civil rights issues. The government should not be discriminating based solely on who you are.

 

It might be under the broad umbrella of "civil rights" and it might not be a reasonable form of discrimination, but that still doesn't mean that anyone's "rights" are violated.

 

Yes, this is an issue of semantics. However, I think many people carelessly apply the word "right" and often do so inconsistently. There is no right to serve in the military so technically no "rights" were unfringed upon. That does not mean that DADT was not a short-sighted and unfair policy.

 

If serving in the military were a "right," the military would need to be barred from discriminating against disabilities. That's why I suggest using the terminology here properly.

 

Fair enough, though I think it's a silly distinction to make. Everyone knows what I was referring to when I said that, and I think it is a "civil rights" issue, even if there is no "right" to serve in the military.

It's utterly ridiculous that the rights of a group of people are even up for debate.

 

I don't think that's entirely the case. There really isn't a "right" to serve in the military. However, since it is a public institution, I feel that it should be as open as possible. In a pragmatic sense, discriminating against homosexuals isn't really a constructive or fair policy, especially in the 21st century.

 

 

Contradict yourself much?

 

Every citizen, regardless of their sexual orientation, has a right to participate in/use a public institution.

 

Therefore the military, as a public institution, isn't legally allowed to discriminate against any group.

Again, it's not a big deal. I don't see a problem saying it's under the "civil rights" umbrella because that's generally a broad umbrella of terminology. But saying it's about the "rights of people" and thus should not be up for debate is a bit misguided and potentially detrimental. It sounds like you are taking the rhetoric farther than warranted.

 

The military has an obligation to set certain standards of membership and organization in order to make it function to its fullest capacity. If there is overwhelming evidence that open service of homosexuals would hinder the function of the military, there absolutely needs to be a debate on this issue. However, the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Straight people don't seem too concerned about gays serving openly and the military has been losing a lot of potentially valuable personnel through DADT. So while it was a backwards policy on many levels, I think it's wrong to brand this as a fundamental rights issue.

 

I know it sounds like nitpicking, but I don't feel that the stakes of this issue are always framed properly when this is discussed, especially in the media.

 

 

 

I guess if there was evidence that stated that the presence of black troops in the 40's would have hindered troop performance than you wouldn't have supported integration, right?

 

FYI, I recall hearing several times in the news that when Truman decided to integrate, there was a survey that said 80% of the current troops didn't favor integration.

I don't think that's entirely the case. There really isn't a "right" to serve in the military. However, since it is a public institution, I feel that it should be as open as possible. In a pragmatic sense, discriminating against homosexuals isn't really a constructive or fair policy, especially in the 21st century.

 

 

This ^^

 

being gay isnt a handicap...you dont have to be straight to shoot straight

 

its all about being able to serve with honor

 

if other armies around the world can integrate the gay population...then there shouldnt be a problem in this military...orders are still orders irregardless of how the men feel...our military is a reflection of our own people, our culture, our lifestyle, and most importantly, our laws

 

 

I am so sick of the argument "but other countries do this". If other countries all jumped off a bridge at one would you want us to as well? Geez man we are our own country. Act like it.

 

 

I don't think that's entirely the case. There really isn't a "right" to serve in the military. However, since it is a public institution, I feel that it should be as open as possible. In a pragmatic sense, discriminating against homosexuals isn't really a constructive or fair policy, especially in the 21st century.

 

 

 

Contradict yourself much?

 

Every citizen, regardless of their sexual orientation, has a right to participate in/use a public institution.

 

Therefore the military, as a public institution, isn't legally allowed to discriminate against any group.

 

Did you not read the rest of his posts first? He said it's not a right or else people that have disabilities would be able to serve. Not that I have anything against those people, I had a sister that was disabled.

It's utterly ridiculous that the rights of a group of people are even up for debate.

 

I don't think that's entirely the case. There really isn't a "right" to serve in the military. However, since it is a public institution, I feel that it should be as open as possible. In a pragmatic sense, discriminating against homosexuals isn't really a constructive or fair policy, especially in the 21st century.

 

 

Contradict yourself much?

 

Every citizen, regardless of their sexual orientation, has a right to participate in/use a public institution.

 

Therefore the military, as a public institution, isn't legally allowed to discriminate against any group.

It's a public institution but not a public accommodation. They are allowed to use discretion in deciding who they take. I honestly don't see where you are finding the contradiction.

 

 

The military is a public institution, not an accommodation. An accommodation would be a social program such as social security, medicare, etc.

 

The military is allowed to use discretion based off of performance, and only performance (at least, according to out constitution.)

Again, it's not a big deal. I don't see a problem saying it's under the "civil rights" umbrella because that's generally a broad umbrella of terminology. But saying it's about the "rights of people" and thus should not be up for debate is a bit misguided and potentially detrimental. It sounds like you are taking the rhetoric farther than warranted.

 

The military has an obligation to set certain standards of membership and organization in order to make it function to its fullest capacity. If there is overwhelming evidence that open service of homosexuals would hinder the function of the military, there absolutely needs to be a debate on this issue. However, the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Straight people don't seem too concerned about gays serving openly and the military has been losing a lot of potentially valuable personnel through DADT. So while it was a backwards policy on many levels, I think it's wrong to brand this as a fundamental rights issue.

 

I know it sounds like nitpicking, but I don't feel that the stakes of this issue are always framed properly when this is discussed, especially in the media.

 

 

 

I guess if there was evidence that stated that the presence of black troops in the 40's would have hindered troop performance than you wouldn't have supported integration, right?

 

FYI, I recall hearing several times in the news that when Truman decided to integrate, there was a survey that said 80% of the current troops didn't favor integration.

Proving that the presence of blacks would have hindered military functioning is difficult, and not accomplished by a simple poll. Truman didn't fully integrate until after the Korean War, meaning that most of the combat faced where blacks were fighting along whites was in Vietnam. Considering that this was on the heels of a very sensitive period of racial affairs in US history, integration seemed to work with relative ease. I don't ever recall reading an analysis of Vietnam saying that any military duty was hindered by the integration. There comes a point where military men are simply expected to follow orders maturely even if they don't like the policy. I expect most of the same to be true for the DADT repeal, even though no survery indicates opposition anywhere close to 80%. (Not that it matters, but I do question the validity of that figure).

 

And if you are opposed to the military making such discretionary decisions regarding their personnel, then you should be opposed to women being kept away from the front lines, since they are not fully "integrated." I'm simply acknowledging that the military can manage its personnel in a manner it sees most effective.

 

 

The hypothetical was that a study similar to the one recently conducted on the effect LGBT people serving would have on military effectiveness was conducted during the Truman era, except on the integration of blacks. Now to my knowledge no study ever occured during that time period (and I never inferred that there was one except for the survey I had heard of quite a few times), but it is very realistic that it could have proven that troop performance would have been hindered. According to the logic you used previously, we would have needed to have a thorough debate on the subject before implementing the policy of integration.

 

As for your example, I would first like to say that men and women are genetically different and shouldn't necessarily automatically have the same roles as each other. However, since our constitution doesn't provide the authority to discriminate between the two genders, I would have to be in favor of letting women be in the same positions that men are in.

 

Speaking of the constitution, by the way, DADT isn't just a violation of the 14th amendment, but it is also a violation of the 1st amendment. And yes, when you are speaking of the rules by which public institutions have to abide by, you have to consider the constitutionality of such regulations.

As long as it doesn't affect military readiness, or whatever they're calling it, I'm perfectly fine with it.

No. A public accommodation refers more to more of a location that serves people, such as a park, library, drinking fountain, etc. Things people have free access to.

 

And discrimination based on "performance" is exactly what I am talking about, but this has a broad and opaque definition. I generally don't think sexual orientation can be considered a performance hindrandrance, which is why I oppose DADT. If the military can be selective on the bases of performance, all aspects much be on the table. Physical ability is one such aspect. That's why the military still discriminates partially against women and almost entirely against certain disabilities. Sexual orientation, as Barry Goldwater astutely observed, isn't a liability so isn't a strong argument against openness about orientation. None of this means that the military can't consider setting standards for the people it selects.

 

Either you don't understand my argument or you aren't making your own case clearly. Because I can't for the life of me see what you are arguing against.

 

 

 

First off, public accommodations aren't limited to physical locations. Not to mention that I don't see why you would say the U.S. military is an accommodation instead of an institution, while your only other examples of accommodations are parks, libraries, and drinking fountains, as if the military is anywhere similar to those.

 

You might not have the ability to understand my argument as your argument has been drastically changed to sound very similar to mine.

 

You previously stated that there should be a debate on the issue if there was evidence to suggest that it could hinder troop performance. Now, however, you are saying that you would definitely support repeal since sexual orientation doesn't affect performance, which is exactly what I have repeatedily stated.

 

Stop trying to twist this to make it seem as if your arguments are always consistent.

Again, it's not a big deal. I don't see a problem saying it's under the "civil rights" umbrella because that's generally a broad umbrella of terminology. But saying it's about the "rights of people" and thus should not be up for debate is a bit misguided and potentially detrimental. It sounds like you are taking the rhetoric farther than warranted.

 

The military has an obligation to set certain standards of membership and organization in order to make it function to its fullest capacity. If there is overwhelming evidence that open service of homosexuals would hinder the function of the military, there absolutely needs to be a debate on this issue. However, the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Straight people don't seem too concerned about gays serving openly and the military has been losing a lot of potentially valuable personnel through DADT. So while it was a backwards policy on many levels, I think it's wrong to brand this as a fundamental rights issue.

 

I know it sounds like nitpicking, but I don't feel that the stakes of this issue are always framed properly when this is discussed, especially in the media.

 

 

 

I guess if there was evidence that stated that the presence of black troops in the 40's would have hindered troop performance than you wouldn't have supported integration, right?

 

FYI, I recall hearing several times in the news that when Truman decided to integrate, there was a survey that said 80% of the current troops didn't favor integration.

Proving that the presence of blacks would have hindered military functioning is difficult, and not accomplished by a simple poll. Truman didn't fully integrate until after the Korean War, meaning that most of the combat faced where blacks were fighting along whites was in Vietnam. Considering that this was on the heels of a very sensitive period of racial affairs in US history, integration seemed to work with relative ease. I don't ever recall reading an analysis of Vietnam saying that any military duty was hindered by the integration. There comes a point where military men are simply expected to follow orders maturely even if they don't like the policy. I expect most of the same to be true for the DADT repeal, even though no survery indicates opposition anywhere close to 80%. (Not that it matters, but I do question the validity of that figure).

 

And if you are opposed to the military making such discretionary decisions regarding their personnel, then you should be opposed to women being kept away from the front lines, since they are not fully "integrated." I'm simply acknowledging that the military can manage its personnel in a manner it sees most effective.

 

 

The hypothetical was that a study similar to the one recently conducted on the effect LGBT people serving would have on military effectiveness was conducted during the Truman era, except on the integration of blacks. Now to my knowledge no study ever occured during that time period (and I never inferred that there was one except for the survey I had heard of quite a few times), but it is very realistic that it could have proven that troop performance would have been hindered. According to the logic you used previously, we would have needed to have a thorough debate on the subject before implementing the policy of integration.

 

As for your example, I would first like to say that men and women are genetically different and shouldn't necessarily automatically have the same roles as each other. However, since our constitution doesn't provide the authority to discriminate between the two genders, I would have to be in favor of letting women be in the same positions that men are in.

 

Speaking of the constitution, by the way, DADT isn't just a violation of the 14th amendment, but it is also a violation of the 1st amendment. And yes, when you are speaking of the rules by which public institutions have to abide by, you have to consider the constitutionality of such regulations.

I'm saying that there must be a number of considerations given when denying certain types of people the ability to serve. Physical ability is the most important and social compatibility (things such as potential conflict caused by sexual orientation) are much lower on that list. That's why I oppose DADT. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a debate over a policy change.

 

And the Constitution doesn't need to explicitly grant the military the ability to be selective in who it hires. Congress has been granted the ability to setting the standards. Women are only Constitutionally protected in their ability to serve at the front lines if it is amended to say that. I think you are misusing the Constitution here. By your logic, the military can't deny enlistment to the disabled, either. Are you suggesting that the military must admit everyone regardless of physical status because the Constitution doesn't say the military can make such decisions? No, that's an erroneous understanding of the Constitution with regard to military selection.

 

And as I said previously, I'm receptive to a first amendment violation in the specific case of DADT.

 

 

No, social compatibility is not on the list at all. This policy should have never been implemented in the first place, and it only was because of ignorance and religious fundamentalism. I think you are still missing the point I am trying to make. According to the logic you repeatedly use, we should have had a debate on the integration of black troops too.

 

Your second paragraph shows that you don't entirely know how the Constitution works. The Constitution states that the federal government has to provide for a military. However, the 14th amendment states that every citizen has the same rights as every other one. The first amendment states that there is a separation of Church and State. Therefore, the federal government is not constitutionally allowed to deny service to LGBT citizens.

 

Comparing the LGBT to the disabled to idiotic. As both you and I have stated, being able to serve in the military is based off of performance. I would say that factor would make it difficult for the disabled to contend with the fully-able LGBT citizens.

 

And please, please tell me you didn't just state that DADT doesn't violate the first amendment. So much for your "libertarianism."

No. A public accommodation refers more to more of a location that serves people, such as a park, library, drinking fountain, etc. Things people have free access to.

 

And discrimination based on "performance" is exactly what I am talking about, but this has a broad and opaque definition. I generally don't think sexual orientation can be considered a performance hindrandrance, which is why I oppose DADT. If the military can be selective on the bases of performance, all aspects much be on the table. Physical ability is one such aspect. That's why the military still discriminates partially against women and almost entirely against certain disabilities. Sexual orientation, as Barry Goldwater astutely observed, isn't a liability so isn't a strong argument against openness about orientation. None of this means that the military can't consider setting standards for the people it selects.

 

Either you don't understand my argument or you aren't making your own case clearly. Because I can't for the life of me see what you are arguing against.

 

 

 

First off, public accommodations aren't limited to physical locations. Not to mention that I don't see why you would say the U.S. military is an accommodation instead of an institution, while your only other examples of accommodations are parks, libraries, and drinking fountains, as if the military is anywhere similar to those.

 

You might not have the ability to understand my argument as your argument has been drastically changed to sound very similar to mine.

 

You previously stated that there should be a debate on the issue if there was evidence to suggest that it could hinder troop performance. Now, however, you are saying that you would definitely support repeal since sexual orientation doesn't affect performance, which is exactly what I have repeatedily stated.

 

Stop trying to twist this to make it seem as if your arguments are always consistent.

I've never seen it used in the context you are describing. I'm not saying it never has, but I suspect it's very uncommon. It typically replies to a place that invites patronage and actually can also apply to private entities that invite public commerce (stores or shopping malls). Furthermore, what exactly is your point here? I don't see it.

 

And I'm not saying military is a public accommodation. That's precisely my point. It's not one. It's not open to everyone because it doesn't have open enlistment. It's a public institution but it doesn't follow standard rules with regard to whom it hires. Integrated spaces (public accommodation) under the CRA can't deny anyone, but the military denies potential enlistees all the time for a bunch of reasons, because nobody is entitled to military enlistment.

 

And I'm saying that there should hypothetically be a debate because there is no inalienable right that guarantees open military service. I believe that the military is entitled to make such decisions.

 

And I have no idea what this means:

 

Now, however, you are saying that you would definitely support repeal since sexual orientation doesn't affect performance, which is exactly what I have repeatedily stated.

I've said all along that I support repeal. You are making it sound like I'm wavering. My point is that this isn't a fundamental rights issue, but that the arguments against open disclosure of homosexuals is without merit so the necessary debate is a simple and short one. There is no evidence that supports the opinion that open disclosure will hinder military functioning, but if there were evidence it needed to be considered.

 

You seem to agree that the military needs to be concerned with performance. If performance were in jeopardy, such as enlistments falling off of a cliff in light of the repeal, there needs to be a debate.

 

I'm absolutely being consistent. It's you are twisting and arguing just to argue. You are the one who seems to be saying I'm double talking on my support for repeal. That's twisting, my friend. And you do this every time I discuss something with you on here. You make a weak point, are stubborn about it and then blame me when things become scattered brained.

 

 

The military, as a PUBLIC institution is open to anyone who can physically perform up to the standards that are necessary in order for it to function properly. The goal of selecting who is allowed to serve in the military isn't to bar the people who might cause social unrest solely because of who they are.

 

I never denied that you would support repeal of DADT if there was no evidence to suggest that it might hinder troop performance. The point where we conflict with each other is that I would support the repeal of DADT even if there was such evidence.

 

And why would I do such a thing? Because it is unconstitutional in the first place to have such a rule. You see, this has been my position all along.

 

When I stated that performance matters, I said that performance is what should be considered when judging whether or not someone has the right to join the military. The performance of anti-gay troops who are already serving in the military shouldn't be a factor in determining whether or not DADT should be repealed.

No, social compatibility is not on the list at all. This policy should have never been implemented in the first place, and it only was because of ignorance and religious fundamentalism. I think you are still missing the point I am trying to make. According to the logic you repeatedly use, we should have had a debate on the integration of black troops too.

 

Your second paragraph shows that you don't entirely know how the Constitution works. The Constitution states that the federal government has to provide for a military. However, the 14th amendment states that every citizen has the same rights as every other one. The first amendment states that there is a separation of Church and State. Therefore, the federal government is not constitutionally allowed to deny service to LGBT citizens.

 

Comparing the LGBT to the disabled to idiotic. As both you and I have stated, being able to serve in the military is based off of performance. I would say that factor would make it difficult for the disabled to contend with the fully-able LGBT citizens.

 

And please, please tell me you didn't just state that DADT doesn't violate the first amendment. So much for your "libertarianism."

 

It is completely ignorant and short-sighted to completely ignore the potential ramifications of changing the social constituency of military personnel. I have no problems whatsoever with the military asking those questions in the late 1940s with regard to racial integration. The military is not intended to be some sort of "no strings attached" social institution. It needs to be effective in combat and prevent unnecessary loss of life. That's why I support making the hard decisions of discriminating against the disabled/unfit and women.

 

To the contrary, you appear to be the one without understanding of the Constitution. Every person in the US has equal rights, but nobody has a right to serve in the military. Otherwise you would have seen the Supreme Court strike down DADT long ago, and discrimination against the unfit/disabled and women would be challenged. And again, this doesn't need to be stated in the Constitution. Enumerated powers apply to the powers of Congress. The Constitution permits Congress to set standards by federal law. The military is not like most other federal employers. They do discriminate and are able to discharge people on account of obesity, pregnancy, disability, etc. and do so repeatedly without challenge because these actions are usually necessary to function properly. It's a unique set of circumstances that are protected by the fact that there is no inherent right to be a participant in the military.

 

And what does the separation of church and state have to do with this? This only makes your formula raise an eyebrow.

 

So explain something to me. Is the military allowed to discriminate against anyone? You aren't being clear on this. You say that women should be serving at the front lines because the Constitution says they can't fairly be reduced to supporting roles. But then you say that the military can utilize discretion based upon performance. So which is it? Can they make these decisions or not?

 

By your logic, if women under the US Constitution are entitled to be placed at the front lines, then anyone with a disability, pregnancy, or disability cannot be turned away. So what grants them the ability to turn people away based on performance? Why isn't this being challenged if it's prohibited by the Constitution?

 

And I absolutely did say that DADT is a probable offender of the 1st amendment. Where did you get the impression otherwise? It's really starting to seem like your reading comprehension is lacking.

 

 

You seem to have avoided my question yet again. If there was evidence to suggest that the integration of black troops would have hindered troop performance, would you have supported segregation? If you say yes to that question, which is what I could somewhat infer from the statements in your first paragraph, then we might as well just end this debate. The fact is, is that this IS a civil rights issue. Since it is gays and lesbians we are talking about here instead of the usual minorities such as blacks or hispanics, we seem to forget that though.

 

I guess that since you would support discrimination against some groups of citizens in the military if it hurt troop performance, you would also support the scannings and gropings by the TSA at airports? Of course, the acts completely ignore the fact that each citizen is enshrined with civil liberties, but the policies do make us safer, right? It's the same exact thing.

 

You are correct in the fact that no one has a right to serve in the military. It's not as if I ever stated that, but we will pretend as if you are actually making a legitimate point. Every citizen, however, does have the right of not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation by a public institution. Yes, the military can discgharge because of obesity, a pregnancy, etc. But you know what? Those things actually hinder performance, unlike simply being gay.

 

Please, though, don't pretend as if the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, actually holds up the Constitution as it is. The fact that we actually still regard the piece of paper as important when creating policies is a joke.

 

Why do you think gay marriage is still illegal in most states? Why do you think drugs are illegal? Heck, why do you think we had prohibition in this country? If you can tell me how any one of those policies are constitutional, I will give you a million dollars. It is impossible, however. We don't have a separation of Church and State, and we probably won't for a long time. The combination of Church and State is undoubtedly what is behind DADT in the first place, not the fact that it could hurt troop performance if gays were in the military.

 

And for the hundreth time, the military can only discriminate based off of performance. If a woman can perform just as well as a man, she should be allowed to do whatever he can.

C-c-c-c-combo breaker.

So now you are saying that the military can discriminate on physical ability? Before you said that women should be serving at the front lines because the Constitution did not grant the military to do otherwise. Are you retracting this point? Women are reduced to support roles because of physical shortcomings. You are agreeing with me that it is acceptable to only permit their service in combat support, right?

 

Furthermore, physical ability is only one component of performance. It's the most important, which is why the military was integrated in 1951 and why DADT was repealed (in part), but if issues related to sexual orientation did arise and appeared to be largely detrimental (unlikely), I suspect that open disclosure of sexual orientation would be reconsidered. In other words, the key here is "function properly." It is extremely hard to prove that racial and sexual identity integration/disclosure are capable of inhibiting the functioning of the military. In the extremely unlikely possibility that it should arise, the potential consequences must be considered, just as the physical shortcomings of women were evaluated and regulated.

 

 

 

So what you are implying is that all women are automatically less qualified to serve in the military because they are physically inferior to men? I am not retracting anything because I haven't contradicted any of my previous statements as you have claimed. My only statement on the subject was that the Constitution does not allow the military to discriminate against women solely because of their gender. However, if a specific male soldier was performing better than a specific female soldier, then the make soldier should receive the higher role. There are plenty of female soldiers that perform better than certain male soldiers though.

 

The key is functioning to the best of the military's ability without infringing on the rights of any citizen. The number one goal of the federal government is to protect and defend the rights and liberties of all of its citizens, even if that comes with consequences.

You seem to have avoided my question yet again. If there was evidence to suggest that the integration of black troops would have hindered troop performance, would you have supported segregation? If you say yes to that question, which is what I could somewhat infer from the statements in your first paragraph, then we might as well just end this debate. The fact is, is that this IS a civil rights issue. Since it is gays and lesbians we are talking about here instead of the usual minorities such as blacks or hispanics, we seem to forget that though.

Actually I thought I was pretty explicit. If at the time of integration, it was believed that something outrageous like 80% of all enlisted men would wait for their term to finish and then leave on account of the policy (not re-enlist...and those numbers would have to be certain), I would absolutely be hesitant to integrate. So, yes, under an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario where the military would potentially be unable to defend this country (hence it would no longer function properly), I would oppose integration. That is more or less my position on DADT.

 

However, this is complicated by the fact that conscription wasn't taboo in the late 40s to the extent it is today, so the government would simply draft to make up the difference. So under the circumstances it would be virtually impossible to oppose integration in a practical sense.

 

I guess that since you would support discrimination against some groups of citizens in the military if it hurt troop performance, you would also support the scannings and gropings by the TSA at airports? Of course, the acts completely ignore the fact that each citizen is enshrined with civil liberties, but the policies do make us safer, right? It's the same exact thing.

How in the hell do you go from point A to B here? I see absolutely no connection.

 

Again, there is no right to serve in the military. If you aren't granted permission to enlist, you aren't losing your rights. That's not the same as unwarranted and excessive searches.

 

This is an ill-conceived comparison.

 

You are correct in the fact that no one has a right to serve in the military. It's not as if I ever stated that, but we will pretend as if you are actually making a legitimate point. Every citizen, however, does have the right of not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation by a public institution. Yes, the military can discgharge because of obesity, a pregnancy, etc. But you know what? Those things actually hinder performance, unlike simply being gay.

Well as we established, the military does discriminate against things that it believes to potentially hinder performance. The potential argument that I reject (however, it must be considered), is that "simply being gay" would cause straight members to be uncomfortable and would discourage them from re-enlisting. If this were to happen at a large scale (again, unlikely), it would disrupt the functional capacity of the US military. That is why there must be a debate on this topic.

 

Please, though, don't pretend as if the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, actually holds up the Constitution as it is. The fact that we actually still regard the piece of paper as important when creating policies is a joke.

 

Why do you think gay marriage is still illegal in most states? Why do you think drugs are illegal? Heck, why do you think we had prohibition in this country? If you can tell me how any one of those policies are constitutional, I will give you a million dollars. It is impossible, however. We don't have a separation of Church and State, and we probably won't for a long time. The combination of Church and State is undoubtedly what is behind DADT in the first place, not the fact that it could hurt troop performance if gays were in the military.

Well, I agree with the overall sentiment here regarding the lack of respect for the Constitution, but I don't think that the Christian background of many military personnel is the only reason for DADT being implemented. I do suspect that there was a genuine fear that there would be social turmoil between gays and straights that could result in incidents or possible drops in enlistments. Accord (a member here), before being shipped off to Afghanistan, used to express concern over this due to the living conditions in the USMC. I don't expect this to be the majority viewpoint but I sense that it is held by some. And I wouldn't just brush it off as homophobia.

 

 

Your first response shows me that you could honestly care less about civil liberties, as you have always seemed so proud to proclaim in the past. Whether or not the hypothetical I provided would have been likely to occur or not, the fact that more and more people seem to keep on taking this stance is troubling. This only further proves my point about how irrelevant the Constitution has become in our society.

 

To further explain my point about the TSA scannings, both the scannings and DADT are policies that infringe upon the rights of individuals. The scannings are meant to try to further protect the safety of American citizens, while repealing DADT could possibly hinder the performance of some of the troops. If you were to support keeping DADT if repealing it could hurt troop performance, you would also likely support the TSA scannings since they both could have positive effects on the safety of American citizens.

 

It wasn't the Christian background of military personnel that created DADT, it was the Christian background of the American people as a whole. If the founding fathers of this country were atheist instead of Christian, gay marriage would have always been legal. Feeling uncomfortable because you have to be near gays is called homophobia. I don't know what else you would possibly refer to it as, as I'm sure if I said that I didn't like being around black people you would call it racism.

You are correct in the fact that no one has a right to serve in the military. It's not as if I ever stated that, but we will pretend as if you are actually making a legitimate point. Every citizen, however, does have the right of not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation by a public institution. Yes, the military can discgharge because of obesity, a pregnancy, etc. But you know what? Those things actually hinder performance, unlike simply being gay.

 

 

If the discrimination was as pure as you're making it out to be in this paragraph, gays wouldn't be allowed to serve. Period. DADT allowed gays to serve as long as their sexuality was kept a secret. It didn't go out of its way to look for gays. Just thought I'd make that distinction. Take that as you may. Just keep in mind that the military didn't care whether or not gays served in the military; the problem seemed to be with other members' awareness of a soldier's homosexuality. Less soldiers (meaning gays being barred entirely) would probably be as hurtful to numbers as openly gay people are to 'military readiness.'

You are correct in the fact that no one has a right to serve in the military. It's not as if I ever stated that, but we will pretend as if you are actually making a legitimate point. Every citizen, however, does have the right of not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation by a public institution. Yes, the military can discgharge because of obesity, a pregnancy, etc. But you know what? Those things actually hinder performance, unlike simply being gay.

 

 

If the discrimination was as pure as you're making it out to be in this paragraph, gays wouldn't be allowed to serve. Period. DADT allowed gays to serve as long as their sexuality was kept a secret. It didn't go out of its way to look for gays. Just thought I'd make that distinction. Take that as you may. Just keep in mind that the military didn't care whether or not gays served in the military; the problem seemed to be with other members' awareness of a soldier's homosexuality. Less soldiers (meaning gays being barred entirely) would probably be as hurtful to numbers as openly gay people are to 'military readiness.'

 

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

How do you infer that gays would not be allowed to serve based off of my statements?

 

And I don't know what you mean when you say that the military didn't care if gays served in the military if they had a policy that didn't allow member to be gay...

You are correct in the fact that no one has a right to serve in the military. It's not as if I ever stated that, but we will pretend as if you are actually making a legitimate point. Every citizen, however, does have the right of not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation by a public institution. Yes, the military can discgharge because of obesity, a pregnancy, etc. But you know what? Those things actually hinder performance, unlike simply being gay.

 

 

If the discrimination was as pure as you're making it out to be in this paragraph, gays wouldn't be allowed to serve. Period. DADT allowed gays to serve as long as their sexuality was kept a secret. It didn't go out of its way to look for gays. Just thought I'd make that distinction. Take that as you may. Just keep in mind that the military didn't care whether or not gays served in the military; the problem seemed to be with other members' awareness of a soldier's homosexuality. Less soldiers (meaning gays being barred entirely) would probably be as hurtful to numbers as openly gay people are to 'military readiness.'

 

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

How do you infer that gays would not be allowed to serve based off of my statements?

 

And I don't know what you mean when you say that the military didn't care if gays served in the military if they had a policy that didn't allow member to be gay...

 

It makes perfect sense. Rather than sacrificing a loss of personnel by outright banning all homosexuals, they came to DADT. The name itself is a clear indicator of how far the discrimination goes.

 

The policy isn't that gays cannot serve in the military, it is that gays cannot make public their orientation in the military. That's kind of the point of the name, "Don't Ask Don't Tell.' Otherwise, they'd call it "Tell Us So We Can Kick You." The policy wasn't meant to rid the military of gays. It was just - in true American fashion - made to conceal it.

 

It's a small point; It wasn't really supposed to argue anything more than it's existence.

You are correct in the fact that no one has a right to serve in the military. It's not as if I ever stated that, but we will pretend as if you are actually making a legitimate point. Every citizen, however, does have the right of not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation by a public institution. Yes, the military can discgharge because of obesity, a pregnancy, etc. But you know what? Those things actually hinder performance, unlike simply being gay.

 

 

If the discrimination was as pure as you're making it out to be in this paragraph, gays wouldn't be allowed to serve. Period. DADT allowed gays to serve as long as their sexuality was kept a secret. It didn't go out of its way to look for gays. Just thought I'd make that distinction. Take that as you may. Just keep in mind that the military didn't care whether or not gays served in the military; the problem seemed to be with other members' awareness of a soldier's homosexuality. Less soldiers (meaning gays being barred entirely) would probably be as hurtful to numbers as openly gay people are to 'military readiness.'

 

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

How do you infer that gays would not be allowed to serve based off of my statements?

 

And I don't know what you mean when you say that the military didn't care if gays served in the military if they had a policy that didn't allow member to be gay...

 

It makes perfect sense. Rather than sacrificing a loss of personnel by outright banning all homosexuals, they came to DADT. The name itself is a clear indicator of how far the discrimination goes.

 

The policy isn't that gays cannot serve in the military, it is that gays cannot make public their orientation in the military. That's kind of the point of the name, "Don't Ask Don't Tell.' Otherwise, they'd call it "Tell Us So We Can Kick You." The policy wasn't meant to rid the military of gays. It was just - in true American fashion - made to conceal it.

 

It's a small point; It wasn't really supposed to argue anything more than it's existence.

it was a compromise made by clinton to appease the republicans and christian right in this country...not because the military was willing to compromise themselves