Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[Raccoon Love]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/21/senate.defense.bill/index.html?hpt=T2

In a graphic example of election-year politics at work, a defense bill that would repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy got blocked Tuesday in the U.S. Senate by a Republican-led filibuster.
The bill stalled on a 56-43 vote, four short of the 60 votes needed to overcome the Republican opposition. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, changed his vote to "no" as a tactical move, allowing him to bring the measure up later.
Reid and other Democrats accused Republicans of stalling the National Defense Authorization Act, which traditionally passes with bipartisan support, to undermine the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal and an immigration provision offering a path to citizenship for students and soldiers who are children of illegal immigrants.
Republicans countered that Democrats were trying to use defense policy act that authorizes $725 billion in military spending to force through provisions popular with their political base ahead of the November 2 congressional elections.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs expressed disappointment at the vote but said "we'll keep trying" to get Congress to approve the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring openly gay and lesbian soldiers from the military.
A federal judge recently ruled that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was unconstitutional, and the uncertainty of congressional action after Tuesday's vote further complicated the issue.
The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, said in response to the vote that the Justice Department should let the court ruling stand instead of filing an appeal.
Video: Lieberman: 'Don't ask' 'un-American' Video: Gaga: If you don't like it, go home Video: Gaga: Senators, repeal 'don't ask' Video: 'Don't ask, don't tell' on the line
"We still have a fighting chance to repeal DADT through congressional action, but in the meantime, the best interests of our men and women in uniform -- as well as the country -- are served by doing everything we can do to get rid of this discriminatory law," said Joe Solmonese, the group's president.
Debate on the defense bill was rancorous in the run-up to the vote. Republicans accused Reid of trying to prevent them from proposing amendments to the bill and criticized his plan to tack on the immigration provision, known as the DREAM Act.
"I've never seen such a cynical use of the needs of the men and women of the military," said GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, calling the expanded bill "a cynical act for political reasons as the election nears to try to salvage what appears to be a losing campaign."
Reid countered that the Republican opposition was a blow to gay and lesbian Americans, as well as those born to illegal immigrants, who want to serve their country.
"The Defense Department

 

[NaeturVindur]

 

[Blind Bandit]

This is nothing new. The parties are too focused on fighting themselves and placating the masses. They don't care what happens as long as they keep things in the same stagnant rut.

 

[IndigoSensor]

[quote=N

 

[Saru Inc]

I see the point in DADT, but detest its existence. In the eyes for heterosexual men (I'm generalizing and stereotyping them mind you) Gay guys are always checking them out. Their theory is how can a gay man stay focused in the field with all these hunky buffs around him. At least thats what a bunch of us soldiers said. "I just dont know if a homosexual has my back if hes watching my butt or the enemies."


Probably both.

Still, REPEAL IT !!

 

[88chaz88]

I see the point in DADT, but detest its existence. In the eyes for heterosexual men (I'm generalizing and stereotyping them mind you) Gay guys are always checking them out. Their theory is how can a gay man stay focused in the field with all these hunky buffs around him. At least thats what a bunch of us soldiers said. "I just dont know if a homosexual has my back if hes watching my butt or the enemies."


Probably both.

Still, REPEAL IT !!

So why don't we outlaw all men from the army for the sake of the few female soldiers? Or I know, let's enforce a new rule where you're allowed to join but can't flash your cock in public. We'll call it the Don't Ask, Don't Show rule.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I see the point in DADT, but detest its existence. In the eyes for heterosexual men (I'm generalizing and stereotyping them mind you) Gay guys are always checking them out. Their theory is how can a gay man stay focused in the field with all these hunky buffs around him. At least thats what a bunch of us soldiers said. "I just dont know if a homosexual has my back if hes watching my butt or the enemies."


Probably both.

Still, REPEAL IT !!

That is not a valid point for having DADT by any stretch of the word, and was not the reason for it being brought into law in the first place. This line of thought for supporting DADT is actually one of the reasons it is still their, because of this false stigma. Very few people actually feel this way, and it they do it is a complete irrational and unfair notion to hold in the first place. To support this kind of mindset is completely illogical and counter-productive.

Also, consider the fact that men and women (hetereosexual) work together in the army, and relations are formed and broken on a regular basis.

 

[Saru Inc]

So why don't we outlaw all men from the army for the sake of the few female soldiers? Or I know, let's enforce a new rule where you're allowed to join but can't flash your cock in public. We'll call it the Don't Ask, Don't Show rule.

What? Dude I am agreeing with you, but I think you think I am disagreeing. I'm saying DADT doesn't make sense, and you're trying to argue that it doesn't...

 

[88chaz88]

What? Dude I am agreeing with you, but I think you think I am disagreeing. I'm saying DADT doesn't make sense, and you're trying to argue that it doesn't...

Let's assume that not everything I say is an argument and more of a creative way of getting my point across and extending the discussion.

 

[Majesty]

Being homosexual won't make you less efficient and is in no way related with anything else.
So this is absolutely wrong, might as well make people who don't like aubergines unable to work at Toys R Us.

I don't even understand why you would be homophobe. Even if you were told all your life it was wrong, that's not a reason to not be able to have your own opinion.

 

[Saru Inc]

Let's assume that not everything I say is an argument and more of a creative way of getting my point across and extending the discussion.

Gotcha, my bad. >.< Don't hate mate.

 

[Kavalan]

Another example of how the civic duty part of being a senator/congressmen as died, been buried, and is spinning in it's grave.

 

[88chaz88]

Gotcha, my bad. >.< Don't hate mate.

No hate involved. I'm just a typical tactless SP.

 

[Barnabas]

My question is what happens if the DADT policy is overturned, Homosexual men and women can't share quarters with the same sex for the same reason heterosexual can't share quarters with the opposite sex.

Do gay men now go to the female quarters and vice versa, maybe they get separate quarters one for each homosexual gender. wait gay men can't be given quarters with other Gay men, and neither can women. I know they each get there own individual quarters and a puppy!

The issue isn't exactly simple.


That and there is also more to this bill then just the repeal of DADT, using a social issue to further your political agenda, not cool. Thats as about as annoying as adding that I have to get government funded student loans because they added it to the healthcare bill.

Wait now I remember I don't like politics, no wonder why I'm upset.




EDIT:

I haven't slept in about twenty four hours, I become mean when I don't sleep. Sorry if I come off as the posterior of a mule.

 

[MindYourHead]

This is nothing new. The parties are too focused on fighting themselves and placating the masses. They don't care what happens as long as they keep things in the same stagnant rut.

X2!

 

[Saru Inc]

My question is what happens if the DADT policy is overturned, Homosexual men and women can't share quarters with the same sex for the same reason heterosexual can't share quarters with the opposite sex.

Do gay men now go to the female quarters and vice versa, maybe they get separate quarters one for each homosexual gender. wait gay men can't be given quarters with other Gay men, and neither can women. I know they each get there own individual quarters and a puppy!

The issue isn't exactly simple.


That and there is also more to this bill then just the repeal of DADT, using a social issue to further your political agenda, not cool. Thats as about as annoying as adding that I have to get government funded student loans because they added it to the healthcare bill.

Wait now I remember I don't like politics, no wonder why I'm upset.




EDIT:

I haven't slept in about twenty four hours, I become mean when I don't sleep. Sorry if I come off as the posterior of a mule.

Didn't think of that, I agree.

 

[NaeturVindur]

My question is what happens if the DADT policy is overturned, Homosexual men and women can't share quarters with the same sex for the same reason heterosexual can't share quarters with the opposite sex.

Do gay men now go to the female quarters and vice versa, maybe they get separate quarters one for each homosexual gender. wait gay men can't be given quarters with other Gay men, and neither can women. I know they each get there own individual quarters and a puppy!

The issue isn't exactly simple.


That and there is also more to this bill then just the repeal of DADT, using a social issue to further your political agenda, not cool. Thats as about as annoying as adding that I have to get government funded student loans because they added it to the healthcare bill.

Wait now I remember I don't like politics, no wonder why I'm upset.




EDIT:

I haven't slept in about twenty four hours, I become mean when I don't sleep. Sorry if I come off as the posterior of a mule.

And why can't they. What you're forgetting is that there ARE gay men sleeping in the barracks, and all that. They're simply not open about it. DADT goes away, and very little changes, except some homophobes might get a bit uncomfortable. And really, if you can be upset so much by the mere chance that someone may flirt with you, or whatever it is homophobes are so affraid of, they really shouldn;t be in the army. I mean, come one, is a flirty man really scarier than people f**king SHOOTING AT YOU!?

 

[88chaz88]

My question is what happens if the DADT policy is overturned, Homosexual men and women can't share quarters with the same sex for the same reason heterosexual can't share quarters with the opposite sex.

Why can't they?

 

[Nixie]

I see DADT as an institutionalized value judgement against a segement of the population with a definate religious basis. Meaning, that the intent of DADT is to let homesexuals know that the US goverment sanctions the idea that homosexuality is wrong because certain religious texts and beliefs say it is wrong.

Personally I believe that, sexuality is just one facet of the human condition and generally speaking, humans tend to limit this contact with just one person at a time (not talking about poly here!! in general). That being said, why don't we just allow the two people involved be the only ones involved? If we can get past the idea that we must all be homongenous (the same) and realize that we are indivduals given the power of choice we can move forward as a society. We can argue it (fill in with whatever) is right or it is wrong until we are blue in the face but it does not change that it is (one's sexuality is one's sexuality).

Everyone has the power of choice. I believe that homosexuality is wrong for me. I use the term "wrong" only in the sense that it conveys a generalized meaning that is the opposite of right. I do not say this as a value judgement against those who are gay. I say this as an expression of how I choose to express my sexuality and beliefs. I am straight, I like men. My beliefs place an emphasis on harmony and balance and I do not believe, for me, that I can find that balance in my physical self through homosexuality.

I see the conflict between sides as thus: ( in general by the prepondence of rhetoric)
Gay community: You must accept me. No I must accept your right to choose how you live your life and express your sexuality.
Anti-Gay community with religious bias: You must accept that homosexuality is wrong. No I must accept that you have the right to believe homosexuality is wrong.
Tolerance is concept that we don't express easily in our society.

 

[Raccoon Love]

I see the conflict between sides as thus: ( in general by the prepondence of rhetoric)
Gay community: You must accept me. No I must accept your right to choose how you live your life and express your sexuality.
Anti-Gay community with religious bias: You must accept that homosexuality is wrong. No I must accept that you have the right to believe homosexuality is wrong.
Tolerance is concept that we don't express easily in our society.

You are correct, tolerance is very important and I am very happy you have that. I just do not understand how can anyone be opposed to homosexuality though. I understand that it ''feels wrong to some people'', but there is now clear scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural. The only reason it does not feel right to some, its simply due to the fact that they are heterosexual, to a homosexual person being with someone of the opposite sex does not feel natural either. Gays, however, are the ones that are constantly oppressed due to social stigma which has a lot of origins in religion, and because we are seen as different due to us being in the minority. I just don't see it as something that should be just ''respected'', but of course as long as one's personal belief does not affect any one else then you are entitled to believe in it.