http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html
Quote from:
Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist
Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.
Some readers might think it unfair to blame Obama. After all, the president inherited the "don't ask, don't tell" law when he took office. As Commander-in-Chief, he has to follow the law. If the law says that the military must fire any service member who acknowledges being gay, that is not Obama's fault.
Or is it?
A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The "don't ask, don't tell" law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.
An executive order would not get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.
I spent a day with Dan Choi last month, and he is not someone we want to fire from the military. He loves the armed forces. He served bravely under tough combat conditions in Iraq. His Arabic is excellent, and he used his language skills to diffuse many tough situations and to save lives, both Iraqi and American. All of his unit mates know he is gay, and they have been very supportive of him. But he doesn't want to live a lie.
Obama has been praised for delaying efforts to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell," and some major gay rights groups are actively lobbying to delay consideration of the issue. They seem to believe that Obama should focus on other gay-rights issues first, and that he shouldn't spend his precious political capital trying to ram a repeal bill through Congress.
This misses the point. Obama could sign an executive order today. With roughly three-quarters of the public, including a majority of republicans, in favor of open gay service, a meaningful public backlash is unlikely. A slight majority of service members prefer that the policy be left in place, but polls also show that only a tiny minority of them care strongly about the issue, and that the vast majority of service members are comfortable interacting with gays.
Obama may believe he has nothing to lose by waiting. But what about Dan Choi's career? Is this really the right time to fire military officers who are fluent in Arabic?
Yes!
Damn it! What are the chances so many gays know Arabic?
DAMN BUSHITLER! :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 02:59:19 PM
Damn it! What are the chances so many gays know Arabic?
No shit. :D
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 02:59:19 PM
Damn it! What are the chances so many gays know Arabic?
Know your enemy.
Spanky knows Arabic. :ph34r:
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
:nelson:
Mind-blowing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 08, 2009, 03:04:08 PM
Spanky knows Arabic. :ph34r:
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
AND he's in the NAVY.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 02:59:19 PM
Damn it! What are the chances so many gays know Arabic?
Well considering that Arabic has been stated as a useful language for the US's current military struggles, it wouldn't surprise me if people took to learning it to get a leg up.
/I think you were being sarcastic but I'm unclear on Yi's angle.
So this guy went on national television to force the Presidents hand?
Why did he have to come out on national television? He deserves to get kicked just for that. Wait till you resign, get discharged, or retire before you speak against the military publicly.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:14:18 PM
Why did he have to come out on national television? He deserves to get kicked just for that. Wait till you resign, get discharged, or retire before you speak against the military publicly.
His declaration would have much less of an impact(or less oomph rather) if he did that. :contract:
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:14:18 PM
Why did he have to come out on national television? He deserves to get kicked just for that. Wait till you resign, get discharged, or retire before you speak against the military publicly.
Well the army does talk about developing courage and honor. Maybe that idiocy led him to do that.
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2009, 03:21:37 PM
His declaration would have much less of an impact(or less oomph rather) if he did that. :contract:
Exactly. Attention whore does not deserve to be in the military.
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2009, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 02:59:19 PM
Damn it! What are the chances so many gays know Arabic?
Well considering that Arabic has been stated as a useful language for the US's current military struggles, it wouldn't surprise me if people took to learning it to get a leg up.
Add to that that I think it is fair to say that "out" homosexuals are more likely to be somewhat educated (Grallon excepted), and I think you have your answer.
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2009, 03:21:37 PM
His declaration would have much less of an impact(or less oomph rather) if he did that. :contract:
Yep-- less chance to be a celebrated martyr/drama queen.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:23:20 PM
Add to that that I think it is fair to say that "out" homosexuals are more likely to be somewhat educated (Grallon excepted), and I think you have your answer.
I was joking around on the fact that so many of the dudes getting kicked out of the military for gayness happened to have a specialty we are desperately in need of. Hell it doesn't even make sense, why would unit morale be undermined by the sexuality of their linguist?
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2009, 03:24:37 PM
Yep-- less chance to be a celebrated martyr/drama queen.
Exactly.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 03:22:57 PM
Well the army does talk about developing courage and honor. Maybe that idiocy led him to do that.
It also teaches loyalty, duty, respect, and selfless service - values he violated when he bitched on TV while still under contract.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:23:14 PM
Exactly. Attention whore does not deserve to be in the military.
Human beings don't really belong in the military.
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2009, 03:26:31 PM
Human beings don't really belong in the military.
Droids. :nerd:
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:28:09 PM
Droids. :nerd:
If they can be made cheaply enough.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:25:52 PM
It also teaches loyalty, duty, respect, and selfless service - values he violated when he bitched on TV while still under contract.
How does sacrificing your career for something you believe in not selfless? Eh this is America maybe he will benefit somehow from his five minutes of fame.
Anyway pity to lose another Arabic linguist this way.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 03:25:01 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:23:20 PM
Add to that that I think it is fair to say that "out" homosexuals are more likely to be somewhat educated (Grallon excepted), and I think you have your answer.
I was joking around on the fact that so many of the dudes getting kicked out of the military for gayness happened to have a specialty we are desperately in need of. Hell it doesn't even make sense, why would unit morale be undermined by the sexuality of their linguist?
Are you kidding me? It makes perfect sense given the age of the average grunt. EWW GEHY.
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2009, 03:26:31 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:23:14 PM
Exactly. Attention whore does not deserve to be in the military.
Human beings don't really belong in the military.
:huh:
Explain?
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 03:29:43 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:25:52 PM
It also teaches loyalty, duty, respect, and selfless service - values he violated when he bitched on TV while still under contract.
How does sacrificing your career for something you believe in not selfless? Eh this is America maybe he will benefit somehow from his five minutes of fame.
Anyway pity to lose another Arabic linguist this way.
Only the marti's of the world benefit. So Choi needs to be crushed under the Obamahitler's boot heel.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2009, 03:13:45 PM
So this guy went on national television to force the Presidents hand?
He fought the law and the law won.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 03:38:57 PM
Only the marti's of the world benefit. So Choi needs to be crushed under the Obamahitler's boot heel.
Correction. Choi was out. Marti isnt even sure if he is in.
Is this Obama's fault? I thought don't ask don't tell was a law. He may not have had a choice.
Maybe this will get overturning that closer to the top of the agenda, though. The democrats have a filibuster proof majority, the only reason for delay that I can see is fundraising.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 03:38:57 PM
Only the marti's of the world benefit. So Choi needs to be crushed under the Obamahitler's boot heel.
It is a sweet and seemly thing to sacrifice your career to make Marty unhappy.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2009, 03:42:28 PM
Correction. Choi was out. Marti isnt even sure if he is in.
Yeah Marty would have shut up and kept his career...but bitched on languish alot.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 03:29:43 PM
How does sacrificing your career for something you believe in not selfless?
Nope. The point of military service is to sacrifice your beliefs for your career.
I am against why we went into Iraq, but I sure as hell ain't gonna go on national television and bitch about it. What many anti-war generals did was to first retire before they came out against the war and called for Rumsfeld's head.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:51:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 03:29:43 PM
How does sacrificing your career for something you believe in not selfless?
Nope. The point of military service is to sacrifice your beliefs for your career.
I am against why we went into Iraq, but I sure as hell ain't gonna go on national television and bitch about it. What many anti-war generals did was to first retire before they came out against the war and called for Rumsfeld's head.
He is not just doing this to be critical of policy he is creating a test case on the best possible facts to show how silly the law is. He needs to sacrifice himself to do that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2009, 03:55:02 PM
He is not just doing this to be critical of policy he is creating a test case on the best possible facts to show how silly the law is. He needs to sacrifice himself to do that.
Yes, the objective is understood. The consequence should be understood, too.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:51:23 PM
Nope. The point of military service is to sacrifice your beliefs for your career.
I am against why we went into Iraq, but I sure as hell ain't gonna go on national television and bitch about it. What many anti-war generals did was to first retire before they came out against the war and called for Rumsfeld's head.
Fair enough. Anyway he clearly intended for this exact outcome.
Pity he happened to be an Arabic linguist.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 04:02:39 PM
Pity he happened to be an Arabic linguist.
Indeed.
Though, I suppose he can go back to Iraq in a civilian status? I bet that would be quite lucrative, too.
Valmy, are you upset that the Army lost an Arab linguist? Just wondering :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 04:02:39 PM
Pity he happened to be an Arabic linguist.
Why? The US is fleeing the region anyways, tail between their legs.
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 04:12:30 PM
Why? The US is fleeing the region anyways, tail between their legs.
I actually met a Dari/Pashto speaker at a gas station, he expressed his interest, and now he is applying for a DoD civilian job as a linguist. :cool:
Quote from: Queequeg on May 08, 2009, 03:36:00 PM
:huh:
Explain?
I don't think that any person is disposable enough and that a lot that is inherent in being an indvidual isn't optimal for what the military needs (like self vs. selflessness).
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:51:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 03:29:43 PM
How does sacrificing your career for something you believe in not selfless?
Nope. The point of military service is to sacrifice your beliefs for your career.
How many years have you served, again?
This is about the dumbest thing I have heard on languish, and I have been here a long time.
Oh, and the answer for me is 26 years.
God I would have been bored to tears if I worked for the same employer 26 years.
But whatever. Dont ask don't tell is a law? Hilarious.
I served on the Love Boat. I set the course for adventure.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2009, 04:10:16 PM
Valmy, are you upset that the Army lost an Arab linguist? Just wondering :P
Oh was he an Arab linguist? Well that makes it twice as bad.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2009, 03:10:37 PM
Mind-blowing.
Actually outraged or not?
Anyway, this isn't the first. Some girl in the air force who wrote a letter to Obama asking if he would repeal DADT, and his response yes, also got kicked out.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 04:44:11 PM
How many years have you served, again?
This is about the dumbest thing I have heard on languish, and I have been here a long time.
Oh, and the answer for me is 26 years.
Thanks for calling me dumb. Now educate me.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 08, 2009, 05:16:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2009, 03:10:37 PM
Mind-blowing.
Actually outraged or not?
Anyway, this isn't the first. Some girl in the air force who wrote a letter to Obama asking if he would repeal DADT, and his response yes, also got kicked out.
Outraged. To think that in 2009 a government entity can fire someone for their sexual orientation is bind-blowing. So is the fact that this policy actually has serious support among population and politicians.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2009, 05:27:08 PM
Outraged. To think that in 2009 a government entity can fire someone for their sexual orientation is bind-blowing. So is the fact that this policy actually has serious support among population and politicians.
Don't worry. Attitudes are changing rapidly.
That an openly gay person can be the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces yet can't legally serve in it is beyond me.
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 05:32:26 PM
That an openly gay person can be the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces yet can't legally serve in it is beyond me.
I am highly confident that if a gay person gets elected President, then the military will be open to gays.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2009, 05:27:08 PM
Outraged. To think that in 2009 a government entity can fire someone for their sexual orientation is bind-blowing. So is the fact that this policy actually has serious support among population and politicians.
If it makes you feel better, Obama has the power to forbid nondiscrimination amongst federal employees (not including the military) by an executive order but has shown no inclination to do so. :)
Obama is a wonderful man.
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 05:32:26 PM
That an openly gay person can be the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces yet can't legally serve in it is beyond me.
Ah, the military person who thinks he knows better than the civilian government. What could possibly go wrong?
I'm not a military person. :huh:
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 05:50:16 PM
I'm not a military person. :huh:
You aren't a person.
Quote from: Martinus on May 08, 2009, 05:56:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 08, 2009, 05:55:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 08, 2009, 05:54:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 08, 2009, 05:53:28 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 05:50:16 PM
I'm not a military person. :huh:
Why not?
Perhaps he is a man of peace. Except in his domestic life.
Gay.
Indeed. I thought that makes the quote appropriate. ;)
You think I would quote a gay person?
Quote from: The Brain on May 08, 2009, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 08, 2009, 05:56:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 08, 2009, 05:55:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 08, 2009, 05:54:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 08, 2009, 05:53:28 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 08, 2009, 05:50:16 PM
I'm not a military person. :huh:
Why not?
Perhaps he is a man of peace. Except in his domestic life.
Gay.
Indeed. I thought that makes the quote appropriate. ;)
You think I would quote a gay person?
Gotcha. :nelson:
:lol:
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 05:16:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 04:44:11 PM
How many years have you served, again?
This is about the dumbest thing I have heard on languish, and I have been here a long time.
Oh, and the answer for me is 26 years.
Thanks for calling me dumb. Now educate me.
I asked a question. Can you answer a simple question, or can you not?
It isn't my job to educate you. I just wanna know how many years of actual experience stood behind such a claim. Just for curiousity's sake.
Why hasn't Martinus threatened to kill himself yet?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2009, 03:13:45 PM
So this guy went on national television to force the Presidents hand?
:yes:
If the President is anything like me, forcing our hand is not viewed well.
Hats off to Choi for trying, but I can't blame Obama for not dropping everything and addressing this issue.
Obama's foreign policy, now that I may blame him for, and it has me bed-wetting every night in terror. :(
:mad:
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:34:15 PM
Quote from: Phillip VThanks for calling me dumb. Now educate me.
I asked a question. Can you answer a simple question, or can you not?
It isn't my job to educate you. I just wanna know how many years of actual experience stood behind such a claim. Just for curiousity's sake.
And I asked you to explain your outrage, can you not? 3.5 years time-in-service. I ask you to educate me not for curiosity's sake, but for the benefit of myself and others that may have to deal with me in the future.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 07:03:00 PM
And I asked you to explain your outrage, can you not? 3.5 years time-in-service. I ask you to educate me not for curiosity's sake, but for the benefit of myself and others that may have to deal with me in the future.
So you served 3.5 years in the US military, and still have the idea that "the point of military service is to sacrifice your beliefs for your career"? Absolutely no one I ever encountered in the US military (and, I grant you, I never encountered Hans) would have agreed with the idea that one should sacrifice beliefs merely because it served one's career. Every serviceman is supposed to be trained to recognize lawful and unlawful orders, and to resist unlawful orders no matter the damage to career.
I suppose that if the US Army had hanged Lt Calley, as was right and proper, this discussion would not even be taking place. It boggles my mind that a serving (or former-service) US military member would argue that one's beliefs not only
should be sacrificed for one's career, but that this was "
the point of military service"! :blink:
Any other servicemembers or vets wanna weigh in on this? Maybe things have changed.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 07:22:18 PM
So you served 3.5 years in the US military, and still have the idea that "the point of military service is to sacrifice your beliefs for your career"? Absolutely no one I ever encountered in the US military (and, I grant you, I never encountered Hans) would have agreed with the idea that one should sacrifice beliefs merely because it served one's career. Every serviceman is supposed to be trained to recognize lawful and unlawful orders, and to resist unlawful orders no matter the damage to career.
I suppose that if the US Army had hanged Lt Calley, as was right and proper, this discussion would not even be taking place. It boggles my mind that a serving (or former-service) US military member would argue that one's beliefs not only should be sacrificed for one's career, but that this was "the point of military service"! :blink:
Any other servicemembers or vets wanna weigh in on this? Maybe things have changed.
Yes, I figured someone might point that out. It was a simple sentence and cast a wide generalization.
I had a drill sergeant who tried to fuck some trainees (in the field, yuck) and took some bribes to give good scores on PT tests. I cooperated with CID to reel him in, but it would have been inappropriate of me to go on television about it.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 07:22:18 PM
I suppose that if the US Army had hanged Lt Calley, as was right and proper, this discussion would not even be taking place.
Why would the US have hanged Calley? They didn't lose the Vietnam War.
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 07:37:32 PM
Why would the US have hanged Calley? They didn't lose the Vietnam War.
To encourage the others.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 07:38:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 07:37:32 PM
Why would the US have hanged Calley? They didn't lose the Vietnam War.
To encourage the others.
How would hanging random lieutenants encourage anyone?
Random executions didn't help the Soviets.
An interesting article:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jtsimpson/2009/05/08/why-reagan-was-a-better-friend-to-gays-than-obama/
Quote from: Faeelin on May 08, 2009, 05:41:55 PM
If it makes you feel better, Obama has the power to forbid nondiscrimination amongst federal employees (not including the military) by an executive order but has shown no inclination to do so. :)
No need. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 basically parallels normal non-federal anti-discrimination laws...but includes a ban on discriminating based on "conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others." This ban has been interpreted to include a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation.
So federal employees are already covered.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 07:43:00 PM
How would hanging random lieutenants encourage anyone?
Dunno even how that relates to my point. Are you a ransom lieutenant, to be concerned?
I thought you above such things. :(
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 07:32:13 PM
I had a drill sergeant who tried to fuck some trainees (in the field, yuck) and took some bribes to give good scores on PT tests. I cooperated with CID to reel him in, but it would have been inappropriate of me to go on television about it.
And that's relevant how? It would have been inappropriate for you to comment anyway, as you were not the man in question, a spokesperson for the CID operation to get him, or one of his victims.
Hardliners like you create these situations. You insist they have to serve without reservation, and then you tell them they have to keep their identity under wraps in order to serve. They have to live a lie, or be punished for honesty. How does that jive with your "duty, respect, and selfless service?"
QuoteA new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The "don't ask, don't tell" law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.
OK, I might misunderstand something here, but this seems incorrect. Isn't the whole point of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that the military was to stop investigating the sexual orientation of service members, but that any service member who openly declared themselves to be homosexual is still to be discharged?
I'm assuming they're saying the president can use his position as commander in chief to tell the military how to exercise its prosecutorial discretion in these cases.
It seems pretty weak.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 08, 2009, 11:12:11 PM
I'm assuming they're saying the president can use his position as commander in chief to tell the military how to exercise its prosecutorial discretion in these cases.
It seems pretty weak.
They're saying that the President's position puts him in charge of investigations of whether "don't ask, don't tell" was breached. If the President signs a gag order, there is no investigation; if there is no investigation, there are no findings; if there are no findings, there is no grounds for firing, and supposedly, it's all legal. The military are required by law to fire after the results of the investigations, but the investigations themselves are at the whim of the military.
Nothing to do with prosecutorial discretion; just this: if the President signs an order to cease investigating DADT violations, there's nothing to stop him legally doing so.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 10:58:35 PM
Hardliners like you create these situations. You insist they have to serve without reservation, and then you tell them they have to keep their identity under wraps in order to serve. They have to live a lie, or be punished for honesty. How does that jive with your "duty, respect, and selfless service?"
I only play politics when I cast my vote. I look to civilians like you and the government to tell me how to serve. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Change should be delivered by those out of uniform without the guns, not Lieutenant Choi. Don't blame me or the military. Blame yourselves.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 11:46:59 PM
I only play politics when I cast my vote. I look to civilians like you and the government to tell me how to serve. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Change should be delivered by those out of uniform without the guns, not Lieutenant Choi. Don't blame me or the military. Blame yourselves.
I
know you didn't just say that once you put on that uniform, your responsibility was magically taken away? So much of the military's public face is pride, ethics, and a commitment to responsibility. Many of "us civilians" view the DADT laws as a source of national embarrassment because they
strip those values from gay personnel. Not speaking for more than myself, but I see Lt. Choi's actions as commitment to those values, and outweighing your bleating the prejudice of your COs.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2009, 12:11:32 AM
I know you didn't just say that once you put on that uniform, your responsibility was magically taken away? So much of the military's public face is pride, ethics, and a commitment to responsibility. Many of "us civilians" view the DADT laws as a source of national embarrassment because they strip those values from gay personnel. Not speaking for more than myself, but I see Lt. Choi's actions as commitment to those values, and outweighing your bleating the prejudice of your COs.
The military should not meddle in politics. Just as the military was ordered by President Bush to invade Iraq in 2003 and followed orders, the military is now withdrawing from Iraq in accordance with President Obama's wishes. How would the military function in its duty to submit to the civilian government, if Soldiers began refusing to deploy en masse due to their opinions? Or if they did refused to withdraw from Iraq? From a financial and career point of view, perhaps I should campaign to continue and expand the war. It would ensure more pay, large military budgets, and increased promotion opportunities. I would say it is our duty and right to free the world and be safe.
If "you civilians" are embarrassed by the law, get your Congressmen and President to repeal it. Do not drag Soldiers into that political shit when they have a mission to do. That would set a dangerous precedent.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 09, 2009, 12:56:47 AM
The military should not meddle in politics. Just as the military was ordered by President Bush to invade Iraq in 2003 and followed orders, the military is now withdrawing from Iraq in accordance with President Obama's wishes. How would the military function in its duty to submit to the civilian government, if Soldiers began refusing to deploy en masse due to their opinions? Or if they did refused to withdraw from Iraq? From a financial and career point of view, perhaps I should campaign to continue and expand the war. It would ensure more pay, large military budgets, and increased promotion opportunities. I would say it is our duty and right to free the world and be safe.
If "you civilians" are embarrassed by the law, get your Congressmen and President to repeal it. Do not drag Soldiers into that political shit when they have a mission to do. That would set a dangerous precedent.
You keep missing the point: homosexuality is
not a belief; it is a part of your identity. Masking that is declaring yourself a John Doe, and DADT forces personnel to do so when they're not even active, for fear they won't be re-activated. This is putting unnecessary additional strain on homosexual servicemen, so until someone recognizes DADT as bad law and/or bad orders, you're going to keep seeing incidents like this. This is all strictly stating the obvious, BTW. I'm a little disappointed by your parroted "sir, yes, sir" responses; nothing's going to shake you from the belief that you had to turn your brain off to become a soldier, but at least we can be confident you'll welcome the change if/when it does arrive and simply continue to blindly follow your orders.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2009, 01:20:53 AM
You keep missing the point: homosexuality is not a belief; it is a part of your identity. Masking that is declaring yourself a John Doe, and DADT forces personnel to do so when they're not even active, for fear they won't be re-activated. This is putting unnecessary additional strain on homosexual servicemen, so until someone recognizes DADT as bad law and/or bad orders, you're going to keep seeing incidents like this. This is all strictly stating the obvious, BTW. I'm a little disappointed by your parroted "sir, yes, sir" responses; nothing's going to shake you from the belief that you had to turn your brain off to become a soldier, but at least we can be confident you'll welcome the change if/when it does arrive and simply continue to blindly follow your orders.
My point is not about whether the law is good or bad. It is about whether a Soldier should follow it.
When you sign that contract, you surrender part of your individuality - your identity - to execute the mission and defend our laws. There are currently two Sikh US Army officers who are complaining because their faith mandates that they wear a turban and beard, but that is against Army regulation. Do we let them be as they are even though they cannot properly wear their Advanced Combat Helmets or cannot form a proper seal on their gas mask? Even though the contract they signed in the beginning said that no religious accommodations could be made?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armytimes.com%2Fxml%2Fnews%2F2009%2F04%2Farmy_sikhs_042509w%2F042509at_sikhs_800.JPG&hash=b79b35fb4740d146f1294b95f490c412205919a8)
"I, Phillip V, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
This is a totally crappy comparison. Gays in the army are not asking for a right to wear rainbow uniforms or leather ass chaps - they are just asking to be able not to hide who they are. If anyone who declares himself to be a Sikh would be fired from the army, then yes the situation would be similar.
If they want gay uniforms, they should go for the Marines, anyways.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Fmpuag%2Fmile.jpg&hash=1ba322ce6f3f7c0149748bac8689dfe4aaae8c0b)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2009, 12:11:32 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 11:46:59 PM
I only play politics when I cast my vote. I look to civilians like you and the government to tell me how to serve. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Change should be delivered by those out of uniform without the guns, not Lieutenant Choi. Don't blame me or the military. Blame yourselves.
I know you didn't just say that once you put on that uniform, your responsibility was magically taken away? So much of the military's public face is pride, ethics, and a commitment to responsibility. Many of "us civilians" view the DADT laws as a source of national embarrassment because they strip those values from gay personnel. Not speaking for more than myself, but I see Lt. Choi's actions as commitment to those values, and outweighing your bleating the prejudice of your COs.
He is an Asian sub-human. They are drones who follow orders.
Maybe his father's work colleagues have a point when they mock him - after all, if he is anything like his son, he is a bleating idiot.
I see CdM is right when he says racism is alive and well in (new) Europe.
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:09:02 AM
I see CdM is right when he says racism is alive and well in (new) Europe.
:ike:
You guys are too hard on Phillip. All he is saying is that under current law, passed by congress and signed by the president, openly gay service members are discharged. He doesn't like the law, but as an officer sworn to uphold it, he can't override the constitution and nullify the law. The military nullifying constitutionally passed laws is a more dangerous precedent than DADT.
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:11:13 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:09:02 AM
I see CdM is right when he says racism is alive and well in (new) Europe.
:ike:
I don't see what invokes that smiley.
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:17:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:11:13 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:09:02 AM
I see CdM is right when he says racism is alive and well in (new) Europe.
:ike:
I don't see what invokes that smiley.
For responding to a pathetic troll.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 09, 2009, 02:11:56 AM
You guys are too hard on Phillip. All he is saying is that under current law, passed by congress and signed by the president, openly gay service members are discharged. He doesn't like the law, but as an officer sworn to uphold it, he can't override the constitution and nullify the law. The military nullifying constitutionally passed laws is a more dangerous precedent than DADT.
No, he isn't. He has a track record of being an anti-gay, homophobe. For example in a previous discussion about Dont Ask Dont Tell he said he is against repealing that policy because it would mean granting partner benefits to partners of gay soldiers, and that would take money away from heterosexual people like him.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 09, 2009, 02:19:42 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:17:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:11:13 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:09:02 AM
I see CdM is right when he says racism is alive and well in (new) Europe.
:ike:
I don't see what invokes that smiley.
For responding to a pathetic troll.
Not more pathetic than saying that for a gay person to live in a lie and deny the whole emotional/love/relationship side of their life is like taking off a turban.
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:17:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:11:13 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:09:02 AM
I see CdM is right when he says racism is alive and well in (new) Europe.
:ike:
I don't see what invokes that smiley.
Go fuck yourself, Syt. My sexuality is constantly used against me in flame wars; people wish AIDS on me and whatnot. Yet I never see you jumping to my defense and denouncing homophobia prevalent in America or Europe.
This is Languish. We insult each other here. If you are going to be upset and turn your nose on that from your ivory tower, perhaps you should seek a different board to post on?
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:25:25 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 09, 2009, 02:11:56 AM
You guys are too hard on Phillip. All he is saying is that under current law, passed by congress and signed by the president, openly gay service members are discharged. He doesn't like the law, but as an officer sworn to uphold it, he can't override the constitution and nullify the law. The military nullifying constitutionally passed laws is a more dangerous precedent than DADT.
No, he isn't. He has a track record of being an anti-gay, homophobe. For example in a previous discussion about Dont Ask Dont Tell he said he is against repealing that policy because it would mean granting partner benefits to partners of gay soldiers, and that would take money away from heterosexual people like him.
Okay, I thought he was against the law. I stand corrected.
You are still over the top on this.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 09, 2009, 02:32:51 AM
You are still over the top on this.
Aaaaand?
I'm over the top on everything here. Shrill hysterics are my shtick as much as garbo's jaded teen cynicism or Neil's low self esteem megalomania. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:30:00 AM
Go fuck yourself, Syt. My sexuality is constantly used against me in flame wars; people wish AIDS on me and whatnot. Yet I never see you jumping to my defense and denouncing homophobia prevalent in America or Europe.
Because you also use it as a weapon.
Marty, you are a xenophobe, racist, superficial consumerist twat. You cherish exclusivity, and a good lifestyle - why would you go back to Poland (where you lead an upper middleclass lifestyle) instead of going to London (where you would have been the average earner and "that Polish dude")? You can't bear to be average.
You use your sexuality as a status symbol, trying to outgay everyone else here and other gays I know. And it gives you access to a minority that makes you even more exclusive and - at least in Poland - a wonderful victim status that you pull whenever you can, making it hard to challenge you on your racist remarks. "I'm a poor, prosecuted gay, and everyone who hates gays SHOULD BURN IN HELL!!!1111" Fuck you, the poor gays are not on this board and you know it. Your gay problems are luxury problems.
If you really cared so much about gay rights I can't understand why you won't use your magic lawyer powers to fight the good fight instead of going into a frothing rage whenever you perceive something or soemone as anti-gay. You sure spend enough time to the cause on Languish. You, Marty, are the Hansmeister of gaydom, with the difference that Hansmeister is actually serving "his cause", i.e. his country, in a way he sees fit.
Syt hits the mark.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:34:15 PM
I asked a question. Can you answer a simple question, or can you not?
It isn't my job to educate you. I just wanna know how many years of actual experience stood behind such a claim. Just for curiousity's sake.
Actually isn't your job "educator"?
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:38:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:30:00 AM
Go fuck yourself, Syt. My sexuality is constantly used against me in flame wars; people wish AIDS on me and whatnot. Yet I never see you jumping to my defense and denouncing homophobia prevalent in America or Europe.
Because you also use it as a weapon.
Marty, you are a xenophobe, racist, superficial consumerist twat. You cherish exclusivity, and a good lifestyle - why would you go back to Poland (where you lead an upper middleclass lifestyle) instead of going to London (where you would have been the average earner and "that Polish dude")? You can't bear to be average.
You use your sexuality as a status symbol, trying to outgay everyone else here and other gays I know. And it gives you access to a minority that makes you even more exclusive and - at least in Poland - a wonderful victim status that you pull whenever you can, making it hard to challenge you on your racist remarks. "I'm a poor, prosecuted gay, and everyone who hates gays SHOULD BURN IN HELL!!!1111" Fuck you, the poor gays are not on this board and you know it. Your gay problems are luxury problems.
If you really cared so much about gay rights I can't understand why you won't use your magic lawyer powers to fight the good fight instead of going into a frothing rage whenever you perceive something or soemone as anti-gay. You sure spend enough time to the cause on Languish. You, Marty, are the Hansmeister of gaydom, with the difference that Hansmeister is actually serving "his cause", i.e. his country, in a way he sees fit.
What you seem not to understand is that on Languish we use racism, homophobia, sexism etc. as weapons. It does not mean we are actually necessarily racist, homophobic or sexist (except maybe if you belong to a ponytail commando, in which case you think everyone is).
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2009, 02:41:51 AM
Syt hits the mark.
If only you had his precision, that wouldn't had been a
failed suicide attempt.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2009, 02:42:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:34:15 PM
I asked a question. Can you answer a simple question, or can you not?
It isn't my job to educate you. I just wanna know how many years of actual experience stood behind such a claim. Just for curiousity's sake.
Actually isn't your job "educator"?
So is Tim's and Jaron's.
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:45:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2009, 02:41:51 AM
Syt hits the mark.
If only you had his precision, that wouldn't had been a failed suicide attempt.
Never made the attempt. Pole.
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:44:27 AM
What you seem not to understand is that on Languish we use racism, homophobia, sexism etc. as weapons. It does not mean we are actually necessarily racist, homophobic or sexist (except maybe if you belong to a ponytail commando, in which case you think everyone is).
And with some it's easier to tell how honest the jokes are than with others.
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:48:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:44:27 AM
What you seem not to understand is that on Languish we use racism, homophobia, sexism etc. as weapons. It does not mean we are actually necessarily racist, homophobic or sexist (except maybe if you belong to a ponytail commando, in which case you think everyone is).
And with some it's easier to tell how honest the jokes are than with others.
Well it wasn't a joke. It was an angry insult. I use "faggot" as an insult too. That doesn't make me homophobic. IMO, there is a difference between using a racist or a homophobic insult to hurt someone by using their race or sexuality against them, and being a racist or a homophobe. I realize some people see this differently though.
Essentially, the thing about stereotypes is that they are, to some extent, based in truth.
There is a stereotype that gay people are ecstasy popping idiots who fuck around carelessly and get AIDS. There is a stereotype that Asian people are mindless, hierarchy-following drones.
Both stereotypes are hurtful if applied as generalizations and used to denigrate entire groups (or used to judge members of these groups we know nothing about). And such cases are examples of homophobia, or racism, respectively.
However, if some stupid gay person gets high on ecstasy and then fucks around in darkrooms without a condom and gets AIDS, there is nothing homophobic in me calling him a stupid ecstasy-popping, AIDS-ridden faggot. And if some Asian guy says he just blindly follows orders and says that he should not have an opinion of his own, there is nothing racist in me calling him an Asian subhuman drone.
Asian people ARE drones. Americans ARE fat and stupid. Non-Germanics HAVE greasy hair and are lazy. The truth isn't racist.
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 10:28:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 07:43:00 PM
How would hanging random lieutenants encourage anyone?
Dunno even how that relates to my point. Are you a ransom lieutenant, to be concerned?
I thought you above such things. :(
You haven't really stated what your point is. You've been very evaisive.
Poor form. :(
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 03:25:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 03:22:57 PM
Well the army does talk about developing courage and honor. Maybe that idiocy led him to do that.
It also teaches loyalty, duty, respect, and selfless service - values he violated when he bitched on TV while still under contract.
Respect has to go both ways.
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2009, 06:34:44 AM
Asian people ARE drones. Americans ARE fat and stupid. Non-Germanics HAVE greasy hair and are lazy. The truth isn't racist.
I don't have greasy hair!
Quote from: Iormlund on May 09, 2009, 06:50:09 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2009, 06:34:44 AM
Asian people ARE drones. Americans ARE fat and stupid. Non-Germanics HAVE greasy hair and are lazy. The truth isn't racist.
I don't have greasy hair!
:hug:
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:30:00 AM
Go fuck yourself, Syt. My sexuality is constantly used against me in flame wars; people wish AIDS on me and whatnot. Yet I never see you jumping to my defense and denouncing homophobia prevalent in America or Europe.
This is Languish. We insult each other here. If you are going to be upset and turn your nose on that from your ivory tower, perhaps you should seek a different board to post on?
It's that not people are using your sexuality against you. They don't wish AIDS on you and what not because you're gay. They wish AIDS on you and what not because you're an asshole.
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:25:25 AM
No, he isn't. He has a track record of being an anti-gay, homophobe. For example in a previous discussion about Dont Ask Dont Tell he said he is against repealing that policy because it would mean granting partner benefits to partners of gay soldiers, and that would take money away from heterosexual people like him.
No. I said that such aspects should be considered. We need to be pragmatic and analyze all angles. An argument people (you?) brought up in that thread was that DADT was costing the taxpayer money in recruiting and retention costs. That was the other financial side. You can bring up finances, and I cannot? :huh:
I think Syt does have a good point though Marty. His mini-analysis does line up much of what you have told us about yourself.
Quote from: Strix on May 09, 2009, 09:11:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:30:00 AM
Go fuck yourself, Syt. My sexuality is constantly used against me in flame wars; people wish AIDS on me and whatnot. Yet I never see you jumping to my defense and denouncing homophobia prevalent in America or Europe.
This is Languish. We insult each other here. If you are going to be upset and turn your nose on that from your ivory tower, perhaps you should seek a different board to post on?
It's that not people are using your sexuality against you. They don't wish AIDS on you and what not because you're gay. They wish AIDS on you and what not because you're an asshole.
People ARE using my sexuality against me. Sure they do it because I'm an asshole but they do use my sexuality against me, in the same way I use Philip V's ethnicity against him, because he is an asshole, too.
Pee-Vee is just a kid.
The offensive thing, I think, Marty was bringing PV's family into it based on what he's said in the forum before.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2009, 04:11:48 PM
The offensive thing, I think, Marty was bringing PV's family into it based on what he's said in the forum before.
Fair, meet game.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2009, 04:11:48 PM
The offensive thing, I think, Marty was bringing PV's family into it based on what he's said in the forum before.
What Brain said.
I wish someone would tell me what to post in this thread.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2009, 05:32:17 PM
I wish someone would tell me what to post in this thread.
The truth. Post the truth.
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2009, 07:00:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2009, 05:32:17 PM
I wish someone would tell me what to post in this thread.
The truth. Post the truth.
You can't handle the truth!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2009, 05:32:17 PM
I wish someone would tell me what to post in this thread.
Just hate on Whitey.
Wait, is this thread pro-Obama or anti-Obama? I can't tell from the posts
Quote from: PDH on May 09, 2009, 09:08:45 PM
Wait, is this thread pro-Obama or anti-Obama? I can't tell from the posts
Obama's a fad. So we went with Languish default: anti-Marty :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 09, 2009, 09:37:18 PM
Quote from: PDH on May 09, 2009, 09:08:45 PM
Wait, is this thread pro-Obama or anti-Obama? I can't tell from the posts
Obama's a fad. So we went with Languish default: anti-Marty :)
Oh good - I am glad someone made sense of this.
Quote from: PDH on May 09, 2009, 09:08:45 PM
Wait, is this thread pro-Obama or anti-Obama? I can't tell from the posts
I'm waiting for Hans to tell me how this is Obama's biggest blunder to date.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 09, 2009, 11:40:56 PM
I'm waiting for Hans to tell me how this is Obama's biggest blunder to date.
What is amazing is that Hans can stay so objective.
:lol:
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:38:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:30:00 AM
Go fuck yourself, Syt. My sexuality is constantly used against me in flame wars; people wish AIDS on me and whatnot. Yet I never see you jumping to my defense and denouncing homophobia prevalent in America or Europe.
Because you also use it as a weapon.
Marty, you are a xenophobe, racist, superficial consumerist twat. You cherish exclusivity, and a good lifestyle - why would you go back to Poland (where you lead an upper middleclass lifestyle) instead of going to London (where you would have been the average earner and "that Polish dude")? You can't bear to be average.
You use your sexuality as a status symbol, trying to outgay everyone else here and other gays I know. And it gives you access to a minority that makes you even more exclusive and - at least in Poland - a wonderful victim status that you pull whenever you can, making it hard to challenge you on your racist remarks. "I'm a poor, prosecuted gay, and everyone who hates gays SHOULD BURN IN HELL!!!1111" Fuck you, the poor gays are not on this board and you know it. Your gay problems are luxury problems.
If you really cared so much about gay rights I can't understand why you won't use your magic lawyer powers to fight the good fight instead of going into a frothing rage whenever you perceive something or soemone as anti-gay. You sure spend enough time to the cause on Languish. You, Marty, are the Hansmeister of gaydom, with the difference that Hansmeister is actually serving "his cause", i.e. his country, in a way he sees fit.
What a magnificent post.
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2009, 06:34:44 AM
Asian people ARE drones. Americans ARE fat and stupid. Non-Germanics HAVE greasy hair and are lazy. The truth isn't racist.
The truth shall set us free. :uffda:
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 03:52:57 PM
Quote from: Strix on May 09, 2009, 09:11:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:30:00 AM
Go fuck yourself, Syt. My sexuality is constantly used against me in flame wars; people wish AIDS on me and whatnot. Yet I never see you jumping to my defense and denouncing homophobia prevalent in America or Europe.
This is Languish. We insult each other here. If you are going to be upset and turn your nose on that from your ivory tower, perhaps you should seek a different board to post on?
It's that not people are using your sexuality against you. They don't wish AIDS on you and what not because you're gay. They wish AIDS on you and what not because you're an asshole.
People ARE using my sexuality against me. Sure they do it because I'm an asshole but they do use my sexuality against me, in the same way I use Philip V's ethnicity against him, because he is an asshole, too.
Philip can't decide not to be asian.
And I certainly haven't seen any indication that he's an asshole.
METHINKS YOU DEJECT TOO MUCH.
I like Phil. He's not an asshole at all.
He's alright, but the fucker should play better at the Ryder Cup.
Quote from: Neil on May 10, 2009, 09:45:04 AM
I like Phil. He's not an asshole at all.
I didn't think anyone disliked him. He's seems a nice chap.
Quote from: Neil on May 10, 2009, 09:17:13 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 09, 2009, 02:38:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 09, 2009, 02:30:00 AM
Go fuck yourself, Syt. My sexuality is constantly used against me in flame wars; people wish AIDS on me and whatnot. Yet I never see you jumping to my defense and denouncing homophobia prevalent in America or Europe.
Because you also use it as a weapon.
Marty, you are a xenophobe, racist, superficial consumerist twat. You cherish exclusivity, and a good lifestyle - why would you go back to Poland (where you lead an upper middleclass lifestyle) instead of going to London (where you would have been the average earner and "that Polish dude")? You can't bear to be average.
You use your sexuality as a status symbol, trying to outgay everyone else here and other gays I know. And it gives you access to a minority that makes you even more exclusive and - at least in Poland - a wonderful victim status that you pull whenever you can, making it hard to challenge you on your racist remarks. "I'm a poor, prosecuted gay, and everyone who hates gays SHOULD BURN IN HELL!!!1111" Fuck you, the poor gays are not on this board and you know it. Your gay problems are luxury problems.
If you really cared so much about gay rights I can't understand why you won't use your magic lawyer powers to fight the good fight instead of going into a frothing rage whenever you perceive something or soemone as anti-gay. You sure spend enough time to the cause on Languish. You, Marty, are the Hansmeister of gaydom, with the difference that Hansmeister is actually serving "his cause", i.e. his country, in a way he sees fit.
What a magnificent post.
It brought a little tear to my eye...
I want to have Sweetass's man babies. Then he can eat them.
Quote from: Neil on May 10, 2009, 09:45:04 AM
I like Phil. He's not an asshole at all.
Yeah, if anything he's too nice.
In other news, the a national security advisor for Obama says he is unsure DADT will end--something I find amazing considering ending the policy has popular support plus comfortable majorities in both houses of congress and a supposedly agreeable white house.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/10/jones_unsure_if_dont_ask_dont_tell_will_be_repealed.html
Well, three possible options:
1) Obama knows something everyone else doesn't, and it actually is unpopular with the American people.
2) While the Dems have comfortable majorities, the Dems themselves don't wanna push on it.
3) Obama simply has no desire to push on this issue.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2009, 11:00:05 AM
3) Obama simply has no desire to push on this issue.
I think it's this one. He doesn't want to spend the political capital when he has higher priorities elsewhere.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 11:05:42 AM
Well, three possible options:
1) Obama knows something everyone else doesn't, and it actually is unpopular with the American people.
2) While the Dems have comfortable majorities, the Dems themselves don't wanna push on it.
3) Obama simply has no desire to push on this issue.
My guess is that they feel repeal is like gun control. In polls it may look popular, but for democrats to push for it makes them easy to characterize as "sissies" or whatever you want to call the image the Republicans are trying to put on them. Sort of a combination of #1-3.
ya, Phillip's too nice.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2009, 11:11:26 AM
My guess is that they feel repeal is like gun control. In polls it may look popular, but for democrats to push for it makes them easy to characterize as "sissies" or whatever you want to call the image the Republicans are trying to put on them. Sort of a combination of #1-3.
Of course, one wonders. More unpopular than talking with Chavez and closing Guantanamo?
I'd say it leans much more towards 3.
I think it's as simple as the sides are still too close. It would make sense from a legal standpoint, but with the amount still against, it wouldn't make sense from a political standpoint, especially for a guy whose political platform depends on the appearance of "bringing the country together." The polarization combined with the large, dissatisfied minority could potentially cripple Obama's future domestic efforts. So it gets put on the back burner until he gets infrastructure programs out of the way.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 11:15:11 AM
Of course, one wonders. More unpopular than talking with Chavez and closing Guantanamo?
I'd say it leans much more towards 3.
I agree. I am willing to bet, in fact, that Obama is instinctively much less tolerant of gays than he is intellectually. The "black cultures" in the US are not renowned for their tolerance of homosexuality.
Quote from: grumbler on May 11, 2009, 11:57:36 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 11:15:11 AM
Of course, one wonders. More unpopular than talking with Chavez and closing Guantanamo?
I'd say it leans much more towards 3.
I agree. I am willing to bet, in fact, that Obama is instinctively much less tolerant of gays than he is intellectually. The "black cultures" in the US are not renowned for their tolerance of homosexuality.
RACIST! I'm not sure it's so much Obama's own inclinations so much as the fact that his biggest base of support is black voters. But yes, there isn't much evidence to argue against that he's homophobic.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 12:11:31 PM
RACIST! I'm not sure it's so much Obama's own inclinations so much as the fact that his biggest base of support is black voters. But yes, there isn't much evidence to argue against that he's homophobic.
Actually, Obama has stated that as a Christian, he is against gay marriages, but is trying to keep a Chinese wall between the religious definition and the equal treatment issue, so there may be some merit to grumbler's argument.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 12:14:34 PM
Obama has stated that as a Christian, he is against gay marriages,
Plenty of Christian churches marry Gay people so I do not see how one means the other.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 12:17:50 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2009, 12:14:34 PM
Obama has stated that as a Christian, he is against gay marriages,
Plenty of Christian churches marry Gay people so I do not see how one means the other.
Indeed, the United Church of Christ, which he attended while in Chicago, explicitly endorses gay marriage.
GOD DAMN AMERICA
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 12:22:11 PM
Indeed, the United Church of Christ, which he attended while in Chicago, explicitly endorses gay marriage.
It could be argued, then, that any law passed that bans gay marriage is state interference in that church's religious practice, and thus a violation of the first amendment.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 11, 2009, 12:39:27 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 12:22:11 PM
Indeed, the United Church of Christ, which he attended while in Chicago, explicitly endorses gay marriage.
It could be argued, then, that any law passed that bans gay marriage is state interference in that church's religious practice, and thus a violation of the first amendment.
Only by an idiot.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 11, 2009, 12:39:27 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 12:22:11 PM
Indeed, the United Church of Christ, which he attended while in Chicago, explicitly endorses gay marriage.
It could be argued, then, that any law passed that bans gay marriage is state interference in that church's religious practice, and thus a violation of the first amendment.
Oddly, this never comes up in same-sex marriage debates, but yes, this is pretty clearly the state refusing to give a civil right to groups based on the religious beliefs of some groups over another.
I'm not sure how strong the argument is; would we recognize polygamy? But since the main argument against recognizing gay and lesbian families is "My God hates them," it seems pretty weird that everyone is okay with this.
Polygamy is not really the same though, even if it is commonly trotted out as a counter slippery slope argument.
Anytime the state restricts an individual liberty, it should be based on some compelling need to do so for the greater good of society. There are reasons beyond "My religion is against it" for banning polygamy. Personally, I think those reasons are not really suficient, but others think they are, so I can accept that as a society we have decided that polygamy is unacceptable.
Nobody has managed to credibly come up with a public good argument for banning gay marriage, with the exception of Martinus. And I don't think it is right to punish all homos for Marty's behavior.
Marriage isn't a liberty.
At any rate, the social utility of crushing those who agitate against society is worth it.
How is polygamy slippery slope?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 12:50:31 PM
I'm not sure how strong the argument is; would we recognize polygamy? But since the main argument against recognizing gay and lesbian families is "My God hates them," it seems pretty weird that everyone is okay with this.
Meanwhile, the main argument *for* making this rather significant social change is that "you're a big meanie if you're not for it".
NO SALE :D
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 02:42:55 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 12:50:31 PM
I'm not sure how strong the argument is; would we recognize polygamy? But since the main argument against recognizing gay and lesbian families is "My God hates them," it seems pretty weird that everyone is okay with this.
Meanwhile, the main argument *for* making this rather significant social change is that "you're a big meanie if you're not for it".
NO SALE :D
No, the main argument is that absent any compelling harm, the state should let people do what they like.
Are you really trying to tell us that your opposition to gay marriage is based on simply not liking the way gay people have asked to be allowed to marry?
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 02:42:55 PM
Meanwhile, the main argument *for* making this rather significant social change is that "you're a big meanie if you're not for it".
NO SALE :D
Uh, what?
It's pretty simple. If we as a society value families, then it seems ridiculous to say that gay and lesbian ones aren't entitled to the same protections as the rest of them. It's also not clear how it's a significant social change, since it's not like gays and lesbians aren't settling down and raising children, and, according to almost every study on it, doing about as well as straight couples.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:45:27 PM
Are you really trying to tell us that your opposition to gay marriage is based on simply not liking the way gay people have asked to be allowed to marry?
First off-- "ask"?? :lol:
I'm just saying they have not made a good case for making the change. Not everything in our culture should be changed "just 'cuz".
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:45:27 PM
No, the main argument is that absent any compelling harm, the state should let people do what they like.
Are you really trying to tell us that your opposition to gay marriage is based on simply not liking the way gay people have asked to be allowed to marry?
There was a fun talk at my school by one of the leading lights of the Federalist Society on this topic, coming from a self-described Burkean conservative. The argument was a bit rich:
1) Marriage as an institution in society is failing. This is bad.
2) Many gays aren't interested in a long term relationship.
3) Ergo, if we let gays get married, they will only end up getting divorced. Their divorces will end up destroying everyone else's marriage by setting a bad example.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 02:48:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:45:27 PM
Are you really trying to tell us that your opposition to gay marriage is based on simply not liking the way gay people have asked to be allowed to marry?
First off-- "ask"?? :lol:
I'm just saying they have not made a good case for making the change. Not everything in our culture should be changed "just 'cuz".
I concur. Their families are different, and less valuable to society.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 02:48:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:45:27 PM
Are you really trying to tell us that your opposition to gay marriage is based on simply not liking the way gay people have asked to be allowed to marry?
First off-- "ask"?? :lol:
I'm just saying they have not made a good case for making the change. Not everything in our culture should be changed "just 'cuz".
Weak.
They have made an excellent case, as has many others who are not gay. I am rpetty sure, in fact, that the one case that has not been made is that it should be changed "just 'cuz"...so why the strawman?
Is it because you don't actually have a defensible reason to oppose gay marriage, or cannot think of a good argument for why it should not be allowed?
And yes..."ask". They have not staged a coup or done anything that I am aware of is illegal. It has been approached in a similar manner than all these kinds of social liberty/equality have been approached.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:45:27 PM
No, the main argument is that absent any compelling harm, the state should let people do what they like.
Are you really trying to tell us that your opposition to gay marriage is based on simply not liking the way gay people have asked to be allowed to marry?
There was a fun talk at my school by one of the leading lights of the Federalist Society on this topic, coming from a self-described Burkean conservative. The argument was a bit rich:
1) Marriage as an institution in society is failing. This is bad.
2) Many gays aren't interested in a long term relationship.
3) Ergo, if we let gays get married, they will only end up getting divorced. Their divorces will end up destroying everyone else's marriage by setting a bad example.
Not only does that argument suck, but it should be relatively easy to make a Burkean argument against gay marriage, based on his defense of tradition and "prejudice."
I want Marti to suffer.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 02:48:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:45:27 PM
Are you really trying to tell us that your opposition to gay marriage is based on simply not liking the way gay people have asked to be allowed to marry?
First off-- "ask"?? :lol:
I'm just saying they have not made a good case for making the change. Not everything in our culture should be changed "just 'cuz".
There is no way you participate on this board and believe the argument for gay marriage is "just cuz."
I think you are: Trolling. :P
Burke sold out the Colonial Marines. Fuck him.
I find it very hard to believe that anyone who opposes gay marriage isn't gay. If they're not gay then how are they threatened?
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:58:32 PM
And yes..."ask". They have not staged a coup or done anything that I am aware of is illegal. It has been approached in a similar manner than all these kinds of social liberty/equality have been approached.
I guess we have different definitions of asking, then. I don't view circumventing the law, then suing to try & get your way as "asking".
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:58:32 PM
And yes..."ask". They have not staged a coup or done anything that I am aware of is illegal. It has been approached in a similar manner than all these kinds of social liberty/equality have been approached.
I guess we have different definitions of asking, then. I don't view circumventing the law, then suing to try & get your way as "asking".
They may be gay, but they are also Americans.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2009, 03:01:13 PM
There is no way you participate on this board and believe the argument for gay marriage is "just cuz."
I think you are: Trolling. :P
I am only: saying I'm not convinced of the merits of changing our laws & culture to allow same-sex marriage, and that those in favor of such changes have not made a compelling argument.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:58:32 PM
And yes..."ask". They have not staged a coup or done anything that I am aware of is illegal. It has been approached in a similar manner than all these kinds of social liberty/equality have been approached.
I guess we have different definitions of asking, then. I don't view circumventing the law, then suing to try & get your way as "asking".
So in fact your objection really is all about the form of the issue, rather than the content?
What about all the people who have not circumvented the law and then sued?
Frankly, I do not believe you. You are too smart to let something like that get in the way of an informed judgment.
I think you oppose it for the same reason most people do who oppose it - they just don't like gays, and don't like validating their existence. Prejudice, in other words.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:07:27 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2009, 03:01:13 PM
There is no way you participate on this board and believe the argument for gay marriage is "just cuz."
I think you are: Trolling. :P
I am only: saying I'm not convinced of the merits of changing our laws & culture to allow same-sex marriage, and that those in favor of such changes have not made a compelling argument.
Of course they have, and rather than respond to that argument, you have simply recast it into
A) "Just 'cuz", or
B) I don't like their tone!
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 11, 2009, 03:00:03 PM
I want Marti to suffer.
Oh, come now. Marti's never gonna actually get married to anybody. What did
I ever do to you?
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:58:32 PM
And yes..."ask". They have not staged a coup or done anything that I am aware of is illegal. It has been approached in a similar manner than all these kinds of social liberty/equality have been approached.
I guess we have different definitions of asking, then. I don't view circumventing the law, then suing to try & get your way as "asking".
What about the states where people either have or are about to get same sex laws passed through the legislature? Are you okay with same sex marriage there since they asked nicely and it is the law there, or do you want to make a compelling case to ban same sex marriage in those states?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2009, 03:13:04 PM
What about the states where people either have or are about to get same sex laws passed through the legislature? Are you okay with same sex marriage there since they asked nicely and it is the law there, or do you want to make a compelling case to ban same sex marriage there?
I find this objection to using the courts interesting. I wonder how many people have decided they will only appeal to the legislature if they suffer a tort claim or some other legal wrong?
I may not like gays but I would suffer mild and fleeting unpleasantness for their right to (ab)normal life.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 02:42:55 PM
Meanwhile, the main argument *for* making this rather significant social change is that "you're a big meanie if you're not for it".
NO SALE :D
Um...the fact it makes gay couples lives alot more difficult without any sort of legal recognition. The only reason I can see not to do this is simply to fuck with them and make their lives harder for no other reason than to be a petty bitch.
That and it oppresses a number of the greatest of all Americans: Arabic Linguists.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 03:07:48 PM
So in fact your objection really is all about the form of the issue, rather than the content?
Sorta. I was mildly in favor of civil unions (or could have at least been talked into supporting them) until the more radical elements annoyed me.
But I never favored legalizing same-sex marriages in any case.
Quote
What about all the people who have not circumvented the law and then sued?
I don't consider that "asking", either. Proposing/supporting legislation = asking, though.
Quote
Frankly, I do not believe you. You are too smart to let something like that get in the way of an informed judgment.
I'm flattered :hug:
Quote
I think you oppose it for the same reason most people do who oppose it - they just don't like gays, and don't like validating their existence. Prejudice, in other words.
You don't have to dislike gays to oppose legalized same-sex marriage, but I'm not going to waste any keystrokes trying to convince you otherwise.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 03:15:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2009, 03:13:04 PM
What about the states where people either have or are about to get same sex laws passed through the legislature? Are you okay with same sex marriage there since they asked nicely and it is the law there, or do you want to make a compelling case to ban same sex marriage there?
I find this objection to using the courts interesting. I wonder how many people have decided they will only appeal to the legislature if they suffer a tort claim or some other legal wrong?
Not to get off topic, but there is a sizeable segment of the business community that views the plaintiffs bar and their related litigation as a small step removed from criminality.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:20:26 PM
You don't have to dislike gays to oppose legalized same-sex marriage, but I'm not going to waste any keystrokes trying to convince you otherwise.
Oh yes you do. Why else would you want to make their lives more difficult for an arbitrary reason? Because you love them so much you want to fuck with them? Unless you are against same-sex marriage but want to compromise with some sort of Civil Union.
QuoteSorta. I was mildly in favor of civil unions (or could have at least been talked into supporting them) until the more radical elements annoyed me.
Ok I missed this. Ok if you don't dislike gay people so much why are you using the fact they annoy you as your entire justification for opposing Civil Unions? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:20:26 PM
You don't have to dislike gays to oppose legalized same-sex marriage, but I'm not going to waste any keystrokes trying to convince you otherwise.
Of course not - in theory there could be all kinds of other good and not so good reasons.
That is the predominant reason though, and your stated reasons are too infantile to accept at face value. And you have almost categorically refused to even attempt to refute the arguments in favor of gay marriage.
I suspect you won't waste any keystrokes because in fact you know I am exactly right, and this is just another form of the "just 'cuz" or "I don't like the way they asked!" evasion.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:20:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 03:07:48 PM
So in fact your objection really is all about the form of the issue, rather than the content?
Sorta. I was mildly in favor of civil unions (or could have at least been talked into supporting them) until the more radical elements annoyed me.
Wow. You're pretty stupid, aren't you?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:20:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 03:07:48 PM
So in fact your objection really is all about the form of the issue, rather than the content?
Sorta. I was mildly in favor of civil unions (or could have at least been talked into supporting them) until the more radical elements annoyed me.
Wow. You're pretty stupid, aren't you?
Except that he isn't. Which is why I know this isn't the real reason.
You would have to be pretty stupid to base your opinion on issues on the perceived annoyance factor of the most radical of its proponents.
Besides, when it comes to annoyingly stupid radicals, the anti-gay-marriage "god hates fags crowd" has the pro-gay marriage crowd beat all to hell.*
*Except for Marty of course. He gives Phelps a run for his money.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:20:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 03:07:48 PM
So in fact your objection really is all about the form of the issue, rather than the content?
Sorta. I was mildly in favor of civil unions (or could have at least been talked into supporting them) until the more radical elements annoyed me.
Wow. You're pretty stupid, aren't you?
Smarter then you.
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 03:30:16 PM
*Except for Marty of course. He gives Phelps a run for his money.
Fortunately as Marty will never leave Poland Gay Marriage in the US can never benefit him. :yeah:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2009, 03:31:42 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 11, 2009, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:20:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 03:07:48 PM
So in fact your objection really is all about the form of the issue, rather than the content?
Sorta. I was mildly in favor of civil unions (or could have at least been talked into supporting them) until the more radical elements annoyed me.
Wow. You're pretty stupid, aren't you?
Smarter then you.
:cry: Honorable men can differ.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 03:30:16 PM
*Except for Marty of course. He gives Phelps a run for his money.
Fortunately as Marty will never leave Poland Gay Marriage in the US can never benefit him. :yeah:
Wtf. Why do you hate me? <_<
Quote from: Martinus on May 11, 2009, 03:39:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 03:30:16 PM
*Except for Marty of course. He gives Phelps a run for his money.
Fortunately as Marty will never leave Poland Gay Marriage in the US can never benefit him. :yeah:
Wtf. Why do you hate me? <_<
Maybe you should ask why anyone likes you.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2009, 03:24:19 PM
Oh yes you do. Why else would you want to make their lives more difficult for an arbitrary reason? Because you love them so much you want to fuck with them? Unless you are against same-sex marriage but want to compromise with some sort of Civil Union.
I don't dislike or like gays as a group. I try to judge each person individually. I like some people who happen to be gay; I dislike others who happen to be gay. But I don't feel the need to prove that to you, Berkut, or anyone here.
Did I decide to oppose civil unions in 2004 to spite the radicals? Yeah.
Could I possibly support civil unions sometime in the future if the activists become less annoying? Perhaps.
QuoteSorta. I was mildly in favor of civil unions (or could have at least been talked into supporting them) until the more radical elements annoyed me.
Quote
Ok I missed this. Ok if you don't dislike gay people so much why are you using the fact they annoy you as your entire justification for opposing Civil Unions? :huh:
See above.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2009, 05:32:17 PM
I wish someone would tell me what to post in this thread.
You're not supposed to ask, and we're not supposed to tell. that's the whole point.
Quote from: Martinus on May 11, 2009, 03:39:17 PM
Wtf. Why do you hate me? <_<
I don't :hug:. I am only participating in the anti-Marty Languish meme.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2009, 03:43:38 PM
[Maybe you should ask why if anyone likes you.
FYP. First things first.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2009, 02:59:19 PM
Damn it! What are the chances so many gays know Arabic?
A lot. Most fags from muslim countries have to emigrate.
My main civic argument against gay marriage is one of example.
If we have gay couples, then our children will be expoused to them.
And gayness will become accepted in society.
I don't have children but if I did, I wouldn't want them to be gay.
This would be the end of the world for me.
I have no problem with gays being gay, as long as they keep it private.
Or at least out of line-of-sight from the children.
Quote from: Siege on May 11, 2009, 07:29:16 PM
My main civic argument against gay marriage is one of example.
If we have gay couples, then our children will be expoused to them.
And gayness will become accepted in society.
I don't have children but if I did, I wouldn't want them to be gay.
This would be the end of the world for me.
I have no problem with gays being gay, as long as they keep it private.
Or at least out of line-of-sight from the children.
Dumb.
Quote from: Ronald Reagan
"Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."
If we have gay couples, then our children will be expoused to them.
And gayness will become accepted in society.
I don't have children but if I did, I wouldn't want them to be gay.
This would be the end of the world for me.
[/quote]
And if your child ended up gay, would you prefer a world where he is stigmatized and knows that his father ultimately thinks he's a wicked person?
Quote from: Siege on May 11, 2009, 07:29:16 PM
I don't have children but if I did, I wouldn't want them to be gay.
This would be the end of the world for me.
Does anyone want to have gay kids? :unsure:
Anyway, don't go to any major city in the West. I hear gays flaunt their sexuality in public. :o
This is so mean. Is this the CHANGE that he's talking about during his campaign? Well, it's not for the better.
Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2009, 03:05:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 11, 2009, 02:58:32 PM
And yes..."ask". They have not staged a coup or done anything that I am aware of is illegal. It has been approached in a similar manner than all these kinds of social liberty/equality have been approached.
I guess we have different definitions of asking, then. I don't view circumventing the law, then suing to try & get your way as "asking".
Our entire system of law is designed to permit and even encourage precisely that. The federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any enactment in derogation of it is ultra vires. Anyone adversely affected by an unconstitutional enactment can and should challenge it - and sometimes the best (or even only) way to get the requisite standing is to break it and then sue.
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2009, 03:10:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 08, 2009, 03:04:08 PM
Spanky knows Arabic. :ph34r:
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
AND he's in the NAVY.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
:menace: :lol:
Quote from: Siege on May 11, 2009, 07:29:16 PM
My main civic argument against gay marriage is one of example.
If we have gay couples, then our children will be expoused to them.
And gayness will become accepted in society.
I don't have children but if I did, I wouldn't want them to be gay.
This would be the end of the world for me.
I have no problem with gays being gay, as long as they keep it private.
Or at least out of line-of-sight from the children.
with so many gays and bi around here, it's a wonder you haven't turned gay yet!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2009, 12:11:40 PM
Our entire system of law is designed to permit and even encourage precisely that. The federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any enactment in derogation of it is ultra vires. Anyone adversely affected by an unconstitutional enactment can and should challenge it - and sometimes the best (or even only) way to get the requisite standing is to break it and then sue.
That sounds wonderful in theory, but when you get to the point of legislating from the bench, the system is being abused.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 01:03:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2009, 12:11:40 PM
Our entire system of law is designed to permit and even encourage precisely that. The federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any enactment in derogation of it is ultra vires. Anyone adversely affected by an unconstitutional enactment can and should challenge it - and sometimes the best (or even only) way to get the requisite standing is to break it and then sue.
That sounds wonderful in theory, but when you get to the point of legislating from the bench, the system is being abused.
Sure, but since we aren't at the point, who cares?
":Legislating from the bench" == "A decision made by a court I do not like".
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:16:10 PM
Sure, but since we aren't at the point, who cares?
":Legislating from the bench" == "A decision made by a court I do not like".
:yes:
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:16:10 PM
Sure, but since we aren't at the point, who cares?
":Legislating from the bench" == "A decision made by a court I do not like".
My, I'm shocked to see you of that opinion :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on May 12, 2009, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:16:10 PM
Sure, but since we aren't at the point, who cares?
":Legislating from the bench" == "A decision made by a court I do not like".
:yes:
:yes:
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 01:19:56 PM
My, I'm shocked to see you of that opinion :lol:
No more stunning than to find that you have yet another contrived reason to be against gay marriage, I am sure. :P
What's hard about coming out and saying that you hate gays? I hate gays with a passion.
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:21:59 PM
No more stunning than to find that you have yet another contrived reason to be against gay marriage, I am sure. :P
If you want to think I just hate gay people, go ahead. I won't lose any sleep over it.
I don't think you have to hate them, but it is curious how you always come up with contrived reasons to be against gay marriage...when it seems like you don't really care much about it either way. It is more like selfish best interest, in that you don't see any benefit for you...so it isn't needed.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 01:30:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:21:59 PM
No more stunning than to find that you have yet another contrived reason to be against gay marriage, I am sure. :P
If you want to think I just hate gay people, go ahead. I won't lose any sleep over it.
Nah, nothing as strong as hate. More of a mix of dislike and partisan loyalty with a healthy dose of simple conservatism thrown in.
What is more relevant are the reasons I do NOT think are real, rather than the ones that I do think are real.
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:16:10 PM
Sure, but since we aren't at the point, who cares?
":Legislating from the bench" == "A decision made by a court I do not like".
I think Roe v. Wade would be a good law and it's legislating from the bench.
I don't think court decisions can be laws. Would that be judiciating from the legislature?
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 01:45:57 PM
I don't think court decisions can be laws. Would that be judiciating from the legislature?
they are not statutory law but they certainly form part of the common law.
The court can always decide the other way the next time if they want to.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 01:03:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2009, 12:11:40 PM
Our entire system of law is designed to permit and even encourage precisely that. The federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any enactment in derogation of it is ultra vires. Anyone adversely affected by an unconstitutional enactment can and should challenge it - and sometimes the best (or even only) way to get the requisite standing is to break it and then sue.
That sounds wonderful in theory, but when you get to the point of legislating from the bench, the system is being abused.
Since the legislature already gave the Courts the jurisdiction to find any enactment unconstitutional, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2009, 01:43:10 PM
I think Roe v. Wade would be a good law and it's legislating from the bench.
A common misconception is that Roe v Wade represented "legislating from the bench," though this misconception is held only by those who haven't looked closely at the case.
The USSc in RvW defined the limits of the powers of legislatures to act, and described the conditions that existed where the state lacked the standing to act, and that is all. Court decisions do precisely what RvW did in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2009, 02:01:22 PM
Since the legislature already gave the Courts the jurisdiction to find any enactment unconstitutional, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
In the US, this isn't the case; courts get their "judicial power" from the Constitution, not legislation.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2009, 02:06:22 PM
A common misconception is that Roe v Wade represented "legislating from the bench," though this misconception is held only by those who haven't looked closely at the case.
The USSc in RvW defined the limits of the powers of legislatures to act, and described the conditions that existed where the state lacked the standing to act, and that is all. Court decisions do precisely what RvW did in the overwhelming majority of cases.
With the difference that in the overwhelming majority of cases they reference actual words actually written in the actual document.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 12, 2009, 01:49:18 PM
The court can always decide the other way the next time if they want to.
I believe that's difficult because of the idea of stare decisis and precedent. Ironically Thomas, who's considered a conservative judge, apparently doesn't believe in stare decisis - according to Scalia.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2009, 02:21:50 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 12, 2009, 01:49:18 PM
The court can always decide the other way the next time if they want to.
I believe that's difficult because of the idea of stare decisis and precedent. Ironically Thomas, who's considered a conservative judge, apparently doesn't believe in stare decisis - according to Scalia.
But Scalia's support for stare decisis makes little sense to me, since he supports a strong textualist view. If this is the case, then many old cases
were wrongly decided.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 12, 2009, 02:26:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2009, 02:21:50 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 12, 2009, 01:49:18 PM
The court can always decide the other way the next time if they want to.
I believe that's difficult because of the idea of stare decisis and precedent. Ironically Thomas, who's considered a conservative judge, apparently doesn't believe in stare decisis - according to Scalia.
But Scalia's support for stare decisis makes little sense to me, since he supports a strong textualist view. If this is the case, then many old cases were wrongly decided.
I agree. I think Thomas's view makes a lot more sense and is more coherent.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2009, 02:07:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2009, 02:01:22 PM
Since the legislature already gave the Courts the jurisdiction to find any enactment unconstitutional, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
In the US, this isn't the case; courts get their "judicial power" from the Constitution, not legislation.
I don't think even the constitution expressly delegates to the courts "the power to find any enactment unconstitutional". That's simply false.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 12, 2009, 02:26:15 PM
But Scalia's support for stare decisis makes little sense to me, since he supports a strong textualist view. If this is the case, then many old cases were wrongly decided.
Like, say, Dredd Scott.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 11, 2009, 07:35:29 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 11, 2009, 07:29:16 PM
My main civic argument against gay marriage is one of example.
If we have gay couples, then our children will be expoused to them.
And gayness will become accepted in society.
I don't have children but if I did, I wouldn't want them to be gay.
This would be the end of the world for me.
I have no problem with gays being gay, as long as they keep it private.
Or at least out of line-of-sight from the children.
Dumb.
Quote from: Ronald Reagan
"Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."
Wow, Reagan actually said that? My opinion of him just improved a lot. No wonder Jack Kemp considered him a puppet of the gay lobby. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2009, 11:22:44 PM
Does anyone want to have gay kids? :unsure:
I do. :unsure:
Quote from: viper37 on May 12, 2009, 12:53:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 11, 2009, 07:29:16 PM
My main civic argument against gay marriage is one of example.
If we have gay couples, then our children will be expoused to them.
And gayness will become accepted in society.
I don't have children but if I did, I wouldn't want them to be gay.
This would be the end of the world for me.
I have no problem with gays being gay, as long as they keep it private.
Or at least out of line-of-sight from the children.
with so many gays and bi around here, it's a wonder you haven't turned gay yet!
I always thought that "straight" people who claim that homosexuality is a choice must have
chosen to be straight, and thus they must have at least considered the question... ;)
Quote from: The Brain on May 12, 2009, 01:28:40 PM
What's hard about coming out and saying that you hate gays? I hate gays with a passion.
I thought you just hated me. :(
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:46:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 12, 2009, 01:28:40 PM
What's hard about coming out and saying that you hate gays? I hate gays with a passion.
I thought you just hated me. :(
Nope! :hug:
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:43:21 PM
I do. :unsure:
Why? Raising kids seems to be already hard enough without adding extra challenges.
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 02:51:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:43:21 PM
I do. :unsure:
Why? Raising kids seems to be already hard enough without adding extra challenges.
That wouldn't be a challenge for me, and I'd hope that by having gay parents, the challenge for the kids involved in being gay would also be significantly diminished. I wouldn't of course love the kids less if they were straight, but to want them to be straight would be like for black parents to want to have white kids.
I'm going to guess you just posted that mess of crazy for kicks...and thus it isn't worthy of response. :D
Actually, I'll respond. Is hide in the closet till your 30s really something to teach children?
What is it about my Forbidden Closet of Mystery??!?
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 02:57:46 PM
Actually, I'll respond. Is hide in the closet till your 30s really something to teach children?
Well, I am not saying that I would actively seek to have gay children, but if some kids out there are to be gay, it's better than they have a gay parent. That way they can at least grow up in the family environment which accepts their sexuality (even if the outside world is less tolerant). :)
Also, I never said I'd be a good role model, personally. :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 03:00:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 02:57:46 PM
Actually, I'll respond. Is hide in the closet till your 30s really something to teach children?
Well, I am not saying that I would actively seek to have gay children, but if some kids out there are to be gay, it's better than they have a gay parent. That way they can at least grow up in the family environment which accepts their sexuality (even if the outside world is less tolerant). :)
So they cannot grow up in a family environment that accepts their sexuality unless their parents are gay?
Stereotype much?
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 02:56:26 PM
I'm going to guess you just posted that mess of crazy for kicks...and thus it isn't worthy of response. :D
I think he is afraid if he doesn't post something like that regularly, someone else may steal his title of Most Bigoted Languish Poster.
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 03:01:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 03:00:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 02:57:46 PM
Actually, I'll respond. Is hide in the closet till your 30s really something to teach children?
Well, I am not saying that I would actively seek to have gay children, but if some kids out there are to be gay, it's better than they have a gay parent. That way they can at least grow up in the family environment which accepts their sexuality (even if the outside world is less tolerant). :)
So they cannot grow up in a family environment that accepts their sexuality unless their parents are gay?
Stereotype much?
They can. But I would assume that kids in a gay household would have a contact with the concept of same sex sexuality earlier than kids in the household of even the most accepting straight couple. I mean, even if your parents are accepting and tolerant, you still have a lot of angst associated with growing up as a gay kid, because you are not like them etc.
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 03:02:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 02:56:26 PM
I'm going to guess you just posted that mess of crazy for kicks...and thus it isn't worthy of response. :D
I think he is afraid if he doesn't post something like that regularly, someone else may steal his title of Most Bigoted Languish Poster.
What's so bigoted in my response? I am not saying straight parents can't raise happy gay children. I am saying that all other things being equal, probably a gay kid would find himself slightly less conflicted when raised by a gay couple than by a straight couple.
I pity your parents.
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:42:19 PM
Wow, Reagan actually said that? My opinion of him just improved a lot. No wonder Jack Kemp considered him a puppet of the gay lobby. :lol:
It's from a piece he wrote in opposition to the Briggs Initiative (prop 6) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Initiative). It would have barred gays from being able to have jobs as schoolteachers. Harvey Milk and a bunch of Log Cabin types asked him to help defeat it, and they say his intervention was the deciding factor. So yeah. Kudos to him.
Edit: Wasn't it in the recent movie about Milk? I didn't see it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 12, 2009, 03:08:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:42:19 PM
Wow, Reagan actually said that? My opinion of him just improved a lot. No wonder Jack Kemp considered him a puppet of the gay lobby. :lol:
It's from a piece he wrote in opposition to the Briggs Initiative (prop 6) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Initiative). It would have barred gays from being able to have jobs as schoolteachers. Harvey Milk and a bunch of Log Cabin types asked him to help defeat it, and they say his intervention was the deciding factor. So yeah. Kudos to him.
Yeah, I saw the movie. Didn't know Reagan actually did that.
Edit: And no, there was no mention of Reagan, as far as I remember.
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 03:02:13 PM
I think he is afraid if he doesn't post something like that regularly, someone else may steal his title of Most Bigoted Languish Poster.
:)
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 03:02:13 PM
I think he is afraid if he doesn't post something like that regularly, someone else may steal his title of Most Bigoted Languish Poster.
:)
Why are you so mean to me?
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 03:11:23 PM
Why are you so mean to me?
:huh:
Why do you say such horrible things?
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 03:02:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 02:56:26 PM
I'm going to guess you just posted that mess of crazy for kicks...and thus it isn't worthy of response. :D
I think he is afraid if he doesn't post something like that regularly, someone else may steal his title of Most Bigoted Languish Poster.
What's so bigoted in my response? I am not saying straight parents can't raise happy gay children. I am saying that all other things being equal, probably a gay kid would find himself slightly less conflicted when raised by a gay couple than by a straight couple.
I suspect that a kid growing up is going to find himself conflicted or not absed on much more than the sexuality of his parents.
For example, if he were raised by a gay drama queen who insisted on making every single issue in his life about his homosexuality, that would probably fuck him up more than anything else.
"What? You got a B in social science! That teacher is a homophobe!"
2-21 Marty doesn't want kids. he just wants a clone.
:minime:
Quote from: Berkut on May 12, 2009, 03:14:52 PM
"What? You got a B in social science! That teacher is a homophobe!"
I can't imagine how Marty would take it if his child came out as straight :o
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 12, 2009, 03:24:58 PM
I can't imagine how Marty would take it if his child came out as straight :o
He'd be like a black person raising a white child! :o
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2009, 02:07:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2009, 02:01:22 PM
Since the legislature already gave the Courts the jurisdiction to find any enactment unconstitutional, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
In the US, this isn't the case; courts get their "judicial power" from the Constitution, not legislation.
In the US presumably the constutitution was drafted and amended by US legislators.
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2009, 03:25:53 PM
He'd be like a black person raising a white child! :o
No, that's fine. That would be like a normal gay person raising a straight kid.
Marty's not a normal gay person :p
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:45:04 PM
I always thought that "straight" people who claim that homosexuality is a choice must have chosen to be straight, and thus they must have at least considered the question... ;)
You can't choose to be what you are. Everyone is straight, until they decide that it would be trendy to be gay.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2009, 03:26:51 PM
In the US presumably the constutitution was drafted and amended by legislators.
The Constitution was delivered to George Washington by Jesus. :angry:
Quote from: Valmy on May 12, 2009, 03:29:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2009, 03:26:51 PM
In the US presumably the constutitution was drafted and amended by legislators.
The Constitution was delivered to George Washington by Jesus. :angry:
"Here are your 15" *drops one tablet* "umm 10 commandments". :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2009, 03:31:51 PM
"Here are your 15" *drops one tablet* "umm 10 commandments". :D
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:42:19 PM
Wow, Reagan actually said that? My opinion of him just improved a lot. No wonder Jack Kemp considered him a puppet of the gay lobby. :lol:
the guy worked in Hollywood, how homophobic could he be?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 12, 2009, 02:37:01 PM
I don't think even the constitution expressly delegates to the courts "the power to find any enactment unconstitutional". That's simply false.
It doesn't - Marshall found the power to be inherent in the nature of judicial power in the context of a written constitution.
Controversial perhaps but that bus long left the station long ago.
Quote from: derspiess on May 12, 2009, 01:03:16 PM
That sounds wonderful in theory, but when you get to the point of legislating from the bench, the system is being abused.
yeah - that was the old argument against Brown v. Board of Ed.
The requirement of equal treatment under the law is pretty basic - you don't need to reach deep into the substantive due process grab bag. If a state passed a law that said that Fred can enter into a real estate contract with Mary but not with Joe because Joe is a man, that wouldn't fly. The same analysis holds if you change real estate contract to marriage contract.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2009, 03:54:15 PM
yeah - that was the old argument against Brown v. Board of Ed.
The requirement of equal treatment under the law is pretty basic - you don't need to reach deep into the substantive due process grab bag. If a state passed a law that said that Fred can enter into a real estate contract with Mary but not with Joe because Joe is a man, that wouldn't fly. The same analysis holds if you change real estate contract to marriage contract.
Actually, I've been wondering how to broach this without sounding like a Marti sock, but does anyone know if this
has been tried as a gender equality issue? I would think that would be pretty much a slam dunk, as the requirement isn't waived with multiple tests:
Person A (male) applies for a marriage license, and is refused because Person B is not female. Same for the converse.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2009, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:42:19 PM
Wow, Reagan actually said that? My opinion of him just improved a lot. No wonder Jack Kemp considered him a puppet of the gay lobby. :lol:
the guy worked in Hollywood, how homophobic could he be?
That guy from Lethal Weapon and the Road Warrior also worked in Hollwood...
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:45:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 12, 2009, 12:53:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 11, 2009, 07:29:16 PM
My main civic argument against gay marriage is one of example.
If we have gay couples, then our children will be expoused to them.
And gayness will become accepted in society.
I don't have children but if I did, I wouldn't want them to be gay.
This would be the end of the world for me.
I have no problem with gays being gay, as long as they keep it private.
Or at least out of line-of-sight from the children.
with so many gays and bi around here, it's a wonder you haven't turned gay yet!
I always thought that "straight" people who claim that homosexuality is a choice must have chosen to be straight, and thus they must have at least considered the question... ;)
Everybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.
Quote from: Siege on May 12, 2009, 06:14:07 PM
Everybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.
Sorry, but no. :(
Quote from: Siege on May 12, 2009, 06:14:07 PM
Everybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.
Are you talking about some skinny, stupid Jewish kid that can't resist the taste of bacon.
Quote from: Siege on May 12, 2009, 06:11:59 PM
That guy from Lethal Weapon and the Road Warrior also worked in Hollwood...
Hans said he wasn't anti-semetic. In fact I remember he wrote an editorial to in his local paper to that effect.
Quote from: Siege on May 12, 2009, 06:14:07 PM
Everybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.
In other words, you have struggled and have managed to overcome your latent homosexual tendencies?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 12, 2009, 07:00:05 PM
In other words, you have struggled and have managed to overcome your latent homosexual tendencies?
Latent? Overcame? :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2009, 02:10:56 PM
With the difference that in the overwhelming majority of cases they reference actual words actually written in the actual document.
Not even sure what this means. RvW certainly referenced words in the US constitution.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2009, 03:26:51 PM
In the US presumably the constutitution was drafted and amended by US legislators.
No. It was drafted by a constitutional convention and ratified by states (almost always in ratification conventions, but if not by the state legislatures and executives acting together).
There was, in fact, no legislature to draft such a document - the Congress of the Articles of Confederation expressly lacked such a power.
Amendments are enacted, or not, by legislatures and executives acting together, both on the Federal and state levels. No legislature can enact an amendment by itself.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2009, 08:03:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2009, 03:26:51 PM
In the US presumably the constutitution was drafted and amended by US legislators.
No. It was drafted by a constitutional convention and ratified by states (almost always in ratification conventions, but if not by the state legislatures and executives acting together).
And yet, there's a lot of overlap between the signatories of the Constitution and the 1st Congress...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2009, 02:10:56 PM
With the difference that in the overwhelming majority of cases they reference actual words actually written in the actual document.
Every case, including Roe, references the words actually written. Where they go from there . . .
Justice Scalia is held out by some as a champion of strict construction, but he signed onto the majority in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, which struck down a state statute as unconstitutional under the 11th Amendment, even though the plain language of the text of the 11th amendment was to the contrary. This is one example, I could easily name others.
This is not to pick on Nino - anyone who has served on the Supreme Court for more than a couple months can be similarly criticized.
Nor is it an "everyone does it, so it's OK" excuse. The fact is that every jurist eventually gets confronted with the difficult choice of deciding a case according to the strict text, or deciding a case according to the spirit and intent of the law.
How and when one makes the call to pick one approach over the other typically determines the ideological box people put that jurist into.
How and when an observer cries "legislation from the bench" typically determines the ideological box you can place that observer into.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2009, 10:42:33 PM
Every case, including Roe, references the words actually written. Where they go from there . . .
[/quote]
Which ones did Roe reference?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2009, 11:51:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2009, 10:42:33 PM
Every case, including Roe, references the words actually written. Where they go from there . . .
Which ones did Roe reference?
[/quote]
It references several different provisions; the Blackmun opinion specifically relied on the 14th amendment.
Of course they can't simply follow stare decisis, or they'd have to uphold every moronic case of ages past. The problem is that since stare decisis can't be used universally, they have to pick when and where to apply it and what cases to apply. There can be no objective standard. (Unless you want to revoke the citizenship of all black people and a bunch of other completely nonsensical stuff.)
The only way to apply past decisions objectively and fairly is to take the stance that stare decisis is completely nonbinding and need only be applied when convenient.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2009, 10:42:33 PM
How and when an observer cries "legislation from the bench" typically determines the ideological box you can place that observer into.
What it the observer is someone who actually does it, like Sotomayor? ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2009, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:42:19 PM
Wow, Reagan actually said that? My opinion of him just improved a lot. No wonder Jack Kemp considered him a puppet of the gay lobby. :lol:
the guy worked in Hollywood, how homophobic could he be?
Well, that's not a certainty in itself - after all, there are also many Jewish people in Hollywood, yet some Hollywood actors and directors can be pretty antisemitic, too.
Quote from: Siege on May 12, 2009, 06:11:59 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 12, 2009, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2009, 02:42:19 PM
Wow, Reagan actually said that? My opinion of him just improved a lot. No wonder Jack Kemp considered him a puppet of the gay lobby. :lol:
the guy worked in Hollywood, how homophobic could he be?
That guy from Lethal Weapon and the Road Warrior also worked in Hollwood...
OMG I made the same argument as Siegy. :(
Quote from: ulmont on May 12, 2009, 08:12:19 PM
And yet, there's a lot of overlap between the signatories of the Constitution and the 1st Congress...
A legislat
or /= a legislat
ure.
Quote from: Siege on May 12, 2009, 06:14:07 PMEverybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.
Seige: the soldier psychologist :)
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2009, 07:21:16 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 12, 2009, 06:14:07 PMEverybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.
Seige: the soldier psychologist :)
Don't use "soldier" as a synonym for "stupid". :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2009, 05:23:51 AM
Quote from: ulmont on May 12, 2009, 08:12:19 PM
And yet, there's a lot of overlap between the signatories of the Constitution and the 1st Congress...
A legislator /= a legislature.
Yes, as crazy canuck noted previously...
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2009, 03:26:51 PM
In the US presumably the constutitution was drafted and amended by US legislators.
Quote from: ulmont on May 13, 2009, 08:39:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2009, 05:23:51 AM
A legislator /= a legislature.
Yes, as crazy canuck noted previously...
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2009, 03:26:51 PM
In the US presumably the constutitution was drafted and amended by US legislators.
And, as I noted, the fact that there were legislators there does not make it a legislature, just as the fact that there were generals there didn't mean it was drafted and amended by a junta, and the fact that there were governors there meant that it was drafted and amended by an executive.
Quote from: Siege on May 12, 2009, 06:14:07 PM
Everybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.
Yeah because it is so much easier to be gay and you really have to overcome so much to be straight. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2009, 12:20:58 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 12, 2009, 06:14:07 PM
Everybody is born straight.
Then you choose to be physically, mentally, and morally weak.
Yeah because it is so much easier to be gay and you really have to overcome so much to be straight. :lol:
Hey, for Siege that may very well be the case! He might have to tell himself he isn't gay and he doesn't want to blow his fellow soldiers
every single day.
I admire his willpower and willingness to resist his natural state for the good of America. We promise not to ask if he promises not to tell.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2009, 12:24:11 PM
Hey, for Siege that may very well be the case! He might have to tell himself he isn't gay and he doesn't want to blow his fellow soldiers every single day.
Correct. He figures once a week (each) is enough, and wants no more than that.
And there's more (http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/11/gay-soldier-dont-fire-me/)
Quote
By Lt. Daniel Choi
Special to CNN
Open Letter to President Obama and Every Member of Congress:
I have learned many lessons in the ten years since I first raised my right hand at the United States Military Academy at West Point and committed to fighting for my country. The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important.
At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught us to "choose the harder right over the easier wrong" and to "never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won." The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.
Following the Honor Code never bowed to comfortable timing or popularity. Honor and integrity are 24-hour values. That is why I refuse to lie about my identity.
I have personally served for a decade under Don't Ask, Don't Tell: an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception and lying. These values are completely opposed to anything I learned at West Point. Deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force.
As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.
I am committed to applying the leadership lessons I learned at West Point. With 60 other LGBT West Point graduates, I helped form our organization, Knights Out, to fight for the repeal of this discriminatory law and educate cadets and soldiers after the repeal occurs. When I receive emails from deployed soldiers and veterans who feel isolated, alone, and even suicidal because the torment of rejection and discrimination, I remember my leadership training: soldiers cannot feel alone, especially in combat. Leaders must reach out. They can never diminish the fighting spirit of a soldier by tolerating discrimination and isolation. Leaders respect the honor of service. Respecting each soldier's service is my personal promise.
The Department of the Army sent a letter discharging me on April 23rd. I will not lie to you; the letter is a slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers.
My subordinates know I'm gay. They don't care. They are professional.
Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.
After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I "negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard." I refuse to accept this statement as true.
As an infantry officer, I am not accustomed to begging. But I beg you today: Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force – we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.
When I was commissioned I was told that I serve at the pleasure of the President. I hope I have not displeased anyone by my honesty. I love my job. I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.
Please do not wait to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Please do not fire me.
Very Respectfully,
Daniel W. Choi
1LT, IN
New York Army National Guard
He claims to know shit about truth and honesty and he effectively lied for years instead of quitting the service?
After that letter, I hope they toss him so fast, he gets whiplash.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2009, 02:59:52 PM
Quote
By Lt. Daniel Choi
I have personally served for a decade under Don't Ask, Don't Tell: an immoral law and policy that forces American soldiers to deceive and lie about their sexual orientation. Worse, it forces others to tolerate deception and lying. These values are completely opposed to anything I learned at West Point. Deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force.
As an infantry officer, an Iraq combat veteran and a West Point graduate with a degree in Arabic, I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.
When was he forced to lie?
Quote from: The Brain on May 13, 2009, 03:02:43 PM
He claims to know shit about truth and honesty and he effectively lied for years instead of quitting the service?
So he is taking a stand on principle, and your bitch is that he didn't do it sooner?
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2009, 03:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 13, 2009, 03:02:43 PM
He claims to know shit about truth and honesty and he effectively lied for years instead of quitting the service?
So he is taking a stand on principle, and your bitch is that he didn't do it sooner?
Frankly, he's a disagrace to the country. He knows that we are vitally short on Arabic translators. Yet he chooses to bring to light something which he knows will get him kicked out, forced to take a cushy job in the private sector instead of defending our nation against its enemies.
For what? Because he thinks the policy's unjust? What a pompous ass.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 13, 2009, 04:48:31 PM
Frankly, he's a disagrace to the country. He knows that we are vitally short on Arabic translators. Yet he chooses to bring to light something which he knows will get him kicked out, forced to take a cushy job in the private sector instead of defending our nation against its enemies.
For what? Because he thinks the policy's unjust? What a pompous ass.
Just an explanation of Brain's post? :unsure:
Quote from: The Brain on May 13, 2009, 03:02:43 PM
He claims to know shit about truth and honesty and he effectively lied for years instead of quitting the service?
Sorry, how did he "effectively lie?" By following the "don't tell" part of the policy?
I must admit that it would be hard for anyone to "know shit about truth and honesty" and sit still for a policy that effectively disposes with both as inconvenient, nut I find it hard to understand how anyone could not see how that would grate on a truthful and honest person over time.
It grates on me, and I am not even gay, nor any longer in the military. DADT is politics at its most ugly and its most detrimental to good order and discipline. If I were a commander in chief, I would not tolerate it for one second. Better the open bigotry of a "gays expelled the moment detected" than this pansy-assed pretense that the US military can simultaneously not survive having a single gay member and not survive kicking them out.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 13, 2009, 04:48:31 PM
Frankly, he's a disagrace to the country. He knows that we are vitally short on Arabic translators. Yet he chooses to bring to light something which he knows will get him kicked out, forced to take a cushy job in the private sector instead of defending our nation against its enemies.
Frankly, his country is a disgrace to his service. It doesn't deserve him.
QuoteFor what? Because he thinks the policy's unjust? What a pompous ass.
Yes, fighting perceived unjustice is the mark of a pompous ass. But supporting injustice is the mark of a pompous ass
hole.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2009, 08:09:23 PM
Sorry, how did he "effectively lie?" By following the "don't tell" part of the policy?
I must admit that it would be hard for anyone to "know shit about truth and honesty" and sit still for a policy that effectively disposes with both as inconvenient, nut I find it hard to understand how anyone could not see how that would grate on a truthful and honest person over time.
It grates on me, and I am not even gay, nor any longer in the military. DADT is politics at its most ugly and its most detrimental to good order and discipline. If I were a commander in chief, I would not tolerate it for one second. Better the open bigotry of a "gays expelled the moment detected" than this pansy-assed pretense that the US military can simultaneously not survive having a single gay member and not survive kicking them out.
:cheers: Our servicemen deserve better behavior and treatment on our parts, precisely
because they do not/cannot ask for it themselves.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 13, 2009, 08:22:41 PM
:cheers: Our servicemen deserve better behavior and treatment on our parts, precisely because they do not/cannot ask for it themselves.
That's a very good way to put it. :cheers:
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2009, 08:11:26 PM
Frankly, his country is a disgrace to his service. It doesn't deserve him.
Fuck him. He's a traitor.
Of course, you love siding with America's enemies, so you'll defend this piece of shit with your dying breath.
Quote from: Berkut on May 13, 2009, 03:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 13, 2009, 03:02:43 PM
He claims to know shit about truth and honesty and he effectively lied for years instead of quitting the service?
So he is taking a stand on principle, and your bitch is that he didn't do it sooner?
No. My "bitch" is that he comes across as a retarded moron.
Patton would know the correct way to deal with this pansy.
Btw, as I type this, I'm riding in my brother's car in Smokey Mountain National Forest, using my EVDO phone tethered to my netbook. Technology is teh kool.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2009, 02:12:07 PM
Patton would know the correct way to deal with this pansy.
Invite him over to his tent for the night? :boff:
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2009, 02:12:07 PM
Btw, as I type this, I'm riding in my brother's car in Smokey Mountain National Forest
:wub:
Jon Stuart - the god among men:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=227351&title=moral-kombat
:lol:
So fucking true.
Quote from: Martinus on May 17, 2009, 05:32:22 AM
Jon Stuart - the god among men:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=227351&title=moral-kombat
:lol:
So fucking true.
:lol:
Stewart is awesome.