Obama to call for repeal of DADT in State of the Union

[MobBoss]

Ah. You just think it is "odd" they are classified that way, and...

You see, even I can musunderstand you at times. The diffferences seem to be that I am willing to admit it, and I don't make such a big deal out of it when you do so, even though it frequently happens as it just did yet again.

Uhm. If you dont make a big deal out of it, then why did you mention it first? And then keep on bringing it up over and over, even after I clarified my point?

 

[dirtyparrot]

Except that a choice of sexual preference has nothing to do with genetic pigmentation. Otherwise you guys would be correct.

How exactly do you know this? I'll admit and say that I don't know whether people are gay by choice or by nature, not that it really ought to matter anyway.

 

[The Imp]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/27/obama.gays.military/index.html?hpt=T1

Populisim, populisim, populisim or real change?

He should issue an executive order to stop the discharges of gays. Only congress can repeal the law permanently, but he can stop it for the duration of his presidency. The fact that he hasn't shows me that he doesn't give a damn about repealing DADT.

Edit: His deference to the legislature has ruined his first year of his presidency, and will wreck the rest of it if he doesn't reign them in. DADT is as good a place as any to start. Force there hand by signing the executive order.

 

[Karalysia]

Rule by decree is undemocratic.

 

[The Imp]

Rule by decree is undemocratic.

Obama is the democratically elected president of the United States, and as President, he is the commander in chief of the military according to the constitution. I don't understand how it is undemocratic in regards to my suggestion of an EO stopping people from getting discharged for being gay. It is well within his democratically elected power.

 

[PiMan]

It is a matter for the legislature, not the executive.

 

[The Imp]

It is a matter for the legislature, not the executive.

Permanently, it is. Temporarily, he can de facto repeal the law for the duration of his presidency.

 

[PiMan]

I dislike an executive who actually does anything proactive. I doubt we'll ever agree on this point.

 

[bhsup]

You're both right and wrong. It was not an issue for Congress until they made it one by pre-empting Bill Clinton by...well, just read wiki...

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those who are not heterosexual. The concept was rejected by Congress in its passage of the Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993, which simply codified the existing standard set by the Defense Department in 1981. Clinton established the policy through Executive Order in December 1993.[1]

How exactly do you know this? I'll admit and say that I don't know whether people are gay by choice or by nature, not that it really ought to matter anyway.

Choosing to engage in a homosexual act is obviously a choice.

 

[The Imp]

I dislike an executive who actually does anything proactive. I doubt we'll ever agree on this point.

Seems like it, though I assume you agree with me that DADT is wrong?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Uhm. If you dont make a big deal out of it, then why did you mention it first?

Making a big deal out of it means coming up with 11 paragraphs to whine about it, especially after you just did the same thing! But I bet you already knew that.

You should really try to apply the same sort of rules to yourself that you enjoy using on others so much.

Choosing to engage in a homosexual act is obviously a choice.

And so is choosing to engage in a heterosexual one. But I don't see what it has to do with anything here. Are you suggesting that homosexuals abstain from sex while heterosexuals don't?

 

[bhsup]

Would you two hurry up and just kiss and make up???

 

[The Imp]

You're both right and wrong. It was not an issue for Congress until they made it one by pre-empting Bill Clinton by...well, just read wiki...




Choosing to engage in a homosexual act is obviously a choice.

Interesting, for some reason I assumed the law established don't ask don't tell, and Clinton just went along with it mad it didn't go far enough. I didn't know the law simply codified the existing department of Defense rules in regard to homosexuals, and that Clinton simply went around it by a DADT executive order.Well, you know what they say about those who assume...

 

[Gustave5436]

Choosing to engage in a homosexual act is obviously a choice.

If a person has anorexia (as in lack of appetite, not a refusal to eat), while he may choose to eat a meal, he cannot choose to actually desire to eat a meal. Similarly, normal individuals may choose not to eat a meal, but they cannot choose to lack the desire to eat.

Sexuality is the same way, except made slightly more complex because it's not an asexual:sexual binary.

 

[MobBoss]

Making a big deal out of it means coming up with 11 paragraphs to whine about it, especially after you just did the same thing! But I bet you already knew that.

You should really try to apply the same sort of rules to yourself that you enjoy using on others so much.

Again, I wasnt the one that was whining at all. Just not sure why you accused me of not saying the MPs were not combat arms when I absolutely did.

Now back to your regularly scheduled channel. Is there anyone that needs to know anything as pertains DADT from a army perspective? Seems there is more than a bit misperception in this thread about it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: Discuss the topic, not each other

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Now back to your regularly scheduled channel. Is there anyone that needs to know anything as pertains DADT from a army perspective? Seems there is more than a bit misperception in this thread about it.

Alright, it seems to me to be a shame when an army misses out on some skilled professionals on the basis of their sexual orientation.

I work with two guys who are gay, I never experienced any tension because of that in a work environment that is predominantly male. I am wondering that the difference is between my experience and the army one.

 

[MobBoss]

Alright, it seems to me to be a shame when an army misses out on some skilled professionals on the basis of their sexual orientation.

But do we?

I work with two guys who are gay, I never experienced any tension because of that in a work environment that is predominantly male. I am wondering that the difference is between my experience and the army one.

You dont work in a military environment. What if you lived, ate, and showered/bathed with them on a near constant basis? And thats just not all, as there are many other stress environments that military have to experience and civilians dont. Its not the same.

 

[PiMan]

So I assume you guys must ban gay astronauts too, since that involves working in even closer environments than the military for long periods of time. Would there then be major problems if someone from another nation on the ISS was gay?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But do we?

Well, I already know of a translator who was kicked out of the army because he was gay (and did tell presumably).

Why should we assume that gay people cannot be the same kind of skilled professional that straight people are?

You dont work in a military environment. What if you lived, ate, and showered/bathed with them on a near constant basis? And thats just not all, as there are many other stress environments that military have to experience and civilians dont. Its not the same.

And that is why I asked what the difference was, as you requested. Just telling me, it's not the same doesn't help me understand your position.

I stand next to those guys when I take a piss. My first thought is not, "my wiener is exposed to teh gay!".

What difference does showering with a gay or a heterosexual person make?