Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban
 

http://tinyurl.com/2wtny43

So repubs don't want gays to get married, be eligible to be considered for hate crimes against them, or be in the military.

It's pretty sad when pretty much every other first world country in existence today has already given these rights to their citizens.

The 'right' to be in the millitary isn't on the top of my list of things to worry about, though. I wonder why they care so much. If anything, it's a nice safeguard against potential future drafts.

Which doesn't mean it's not a stupid law. Just one that I could see working out in people's favor.

Yah as much as it is indeed discriminating if I were gay, I would be completely happy knowing that I would never have to be in the military.

So the Republicans block an entire military spending bill, a bill required to fund the defense of our nation, just so they can keep out Americans who want to serve their country.

I am so disgusted by the stupidity of our "leaders". SO FUCKING STUPID!

Who cares if an entire group's right to free speech is violated and their status as second-class citizens reenforced? Just so long as I can maintain my anti-establishment street cred and hypothetically use widespread prejudice and bigotry to my own advantage in the future?

I consider the fact that open homosexuality is not allowed in the military as my safeguard if there's ever a draft.
But that DOES NOT mean that a whole demographic should be suppressed from integration in society; saying so would just be stupid or stupidly egotistic.

I think: That the draft should be expanded to cover all orientations and genders.

I once thought like Raza and Alan. But then I found out you could file as a conscientious objector with the state.

Basically, I don't blame you guys for using it as a loop hole, but the service NEEDS to be more integrated and nebulous.

Honestly, I'm not surprised that Raza would say something like this.

Not to mention that a draft is much more likely to occur when the military is understaffed because it turns away/discharges thousands of competent, able-bodied VOLENTEERS because some people are uncomfortable by what they do with consenting adults behind closed doors.

Also, I'm willing to wager it's more complicated than simply saying "I'm gay". Most people think all you have to do is marry an American to get a green-card, but my cousin has been married to this Dutch dude for over a year and immigration still won't let him in the country.

I have a feeling that if there was a draft, you pussies would have a much harder time avoiding it than you think.

In what context would there be a draft anyway again? And I mean, ever.

Short of another World War, there's no way the government would try to pull off a Vietnam again.

The point is though that there are many people in the army trying to make a living, and to make that living they need to keep their sexuality secret or they'll get fired, and that's bullshit. You wouldn't allow that with any other job.

I don't really agree with military service either, but plenty of people do, plenty of people feel they need to do it too, I know if we had DADT here a lot of people would be shafted because a lot of people join the army so they can get an education they would otherwise have to dig themselves in debt for.

Don't ask don't tell is a horrible policy. It is a gross violation of the first amendment.

All of these anti-gay policies are getting really, really old and the sad thing is that so many people who don't see themselves as a part of the LGBT community are quite apathetical about all of it in general, or have really stupid reasoning as to why its somehow ok that people are being denied the same rights that they enjoy every day.

A lesser known fact about the "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue." policy letter is that it's actually just a supportive document of the already long established Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's essentially a vague (or comprehensive, depending on how you want to look at it) list of "Don'ts" in the military, and the things that you can be punished with for doing them. For example, did you know that missionary is the only authorized sexual position? Sodomy, of any kind, to include that of occurrence between a man and a women, is a crime? Oral sex, flirting, even foreplay depending on how you want to interpret it.

The entire document is essentially a catch-all way to fuck you, because ultimately crime and punishment is decided by your immediate commander. You can be discharged for any number of retarded reasons that aren't even crimes anywhere but the military if your commander doesn't like you. If he can't figure it out, he passes it up. And sometimes it keeps going up, and it becomes what you might call "High Profile." I've read the DADT policy letter out of curiosity. It says "commander's discretion" as well.

Talking about anything sexual in the military is almost always technically inappropriate anyway. I'll bullshit with my immediate co-workers all day, but as soon as a female walks by I have to pretend like I'm not interested in women in the slightest. It's especially awkward for those of us whose job is specifically an aspect of combat because we have very minimal exposure to women on account that they are restricted from those particular occupations. I'm don't mean to insensitively compare the threat of sexual assault/harassment to a life of bigotry and discrimination, but in practicality it's not much different. Just replace co-workers with civilians, and women with other soldiers, and you have what I would imagine as the work life of a gay service member.

Ultimately, "Don't ask, don't tell" doesn't mean anything. Other then the obvious discrimination, I wouldn't be too upset about this because it doesn't really change anything. It doesn't stop gay and lesbian American's from enlisting, and that's what is important, right?

I don't know. I'm in the army, so I have slightly more insight concerning the rules and regulations. But I'm also not gay. Maybe I'm speaking from a perspective that is lacking the experience in anything homosexual necessary to make a valid point. Understand that I'm speaking from a practical perspective, not an ethical one.

Like I said, it's a stupid law. No need to reitterate it in heavier and more generalized terms, I get what's wrong about it.

And I will definitely use bigots' prejudice against them. Their poor judgement on the subject of their bigotry is their unifying weakness, and if I can play that against them I won't pass up the chance.

Wow, you sound horrible, Raza.

You tend to listen to me horribly, so that's not wholly unexpected.

I'm talking about things like getting away with being somewhere you're not supposed to by pretending to be a wholesome heterosexual couple making out with your partner-in-crime, or using the fact that macho guys will see you as physically harmless when you're wearing makeup and nailpolish to your advantage. Avoiding military 'duty' by being (or pretending to be) gay is a good example, too. I've heard stories about activists infiltrating nationalist meetings by virtue of being white and having the right local accent, coming out with useful info.

Prejudice at it's core is just a kind misjudgement. People suffer from it, yes, but the people doing it also suffer from their own poor decision making. This can be a good thing when they make themselves your enemy.

@ Raza

Alan kind of said it already. The point you are trying to make is really just circumstantial of an extremely unlikely occurrence.

But there is a some validity in the policy, however insensitive it may be. The fact of the matter is, the United States military tries to appear as conformist as possible. It simply reacts to the current social standards. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but I'm not wrong when I say that it's not accepted in American society. As such, the military maintains it's retarded laws.

Think about it this way, though. Without the "Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't pursue" policy, it would not be illegal for the military to investigate you with just a suspicion of your sexual orientation. As there is no gay-test, the only way to be discharged from the military for being gay is to admit that you are gay under investigation. It's kind of like a sneaky way of saying "It's okay to join, but keep it on the down-low because I can't save you yet." In that sense, DADT protects homosexual service members until they receive equal rights in America.

In my mind, DADT is kind of like the START treaties. Meaningless, but a step in the right direction.

As a side note, service members don't have Freedom of Speech regardless of if they are gay or not. Look in the UCMJ if you want, but it's there. Don't rules suck?!

Me being drafted into the US military? Yeah, I'd say it is. =P

Bolded part. Wouldn't that hold up with or without DADT in place? If admission is the limit of their investigations, DADT is pretty much the worst they can do - and if that's the case, writing it down as a rule can only fortify worst-case practise.

I see what you mean about it sort-of kind-of reassuring purposefully covert homosexuals in the military, but not making a dedication to prosecute something you have no power over anyway is really just saving face, and not particularly generous to the people that you're admitting you can't catch.

Then again, a lot of sucky rules got struck starting with that kind of pragmatism. Maybe 's'more of a turn towards the right direction than a full-blown step, but I do get what you're saying.

Not necessarily. Admission would not be the limit of an investigation without DADT, but the end-state. Believe me when I say that personal freedoms do not exist for us.

Don't worry your pretty little head, Raza. If there ever WAS a draft, you'd be perfectly useless anyway. It's not like you could fake being fit for duty.

Seriously, I know what you're talking about and I used to think exactly like you on the issue. Problem is, it's dishonest and down right cowardly. Want to avoid a draft or military service? Then be a fucking adult and do it the honest way. If it bothers you that god damned much then go file as a conscientious objector, you fucking wuss. Christ, you're lame.

Yeah, I know. Rules like that need to be broken, not circumvented. Although CO status isn't really that much better, in that regard.

Nothing 'adult' about that realization though, so don't flatter yourself.

Kind of (very) off topic... but what's wrong with the draft?

A draft? You need to ask?

It's a bunch of people - a government, in this case - telling innocent people to either serve and fight to the death at their command, or face harsh punishment of some kind.

I honestly can't see anything that isn't wrong about it. It's "I'm stronger than you and you will do what I tell you or I'll kick your ass" at it's purest, and cleverly applied to create a cycle that sustains the balance of power as it is.

To the first: I disagree. I believe It's only one method of mobilization to serve the country's defense. America is a representative democracy. It's not forcing innocent people to do anything, because everyone that could be drafted also has a vote of who will represent them and make the chose to have a draft or not.

To the second: Could you provide an example?

Yeeeaaaahhhh.... no.

Representative democracy? Isn't. At no point during the life of an average voting citizen of a representative 'democracy' will anything they put on their ballot affect how their government interacts with them. Even if it worked as advertised, multiple choice is not the same as freedom... and it does not work as advertised, especially in the USA where you have all of two options and each party is guaranteed to rule whenever the other was last to screw up.

Representative democracy is somewhat like homeopathic autonomy; diluted until no traceable amount of the original substance remains, then packaged and sold for placebo comfort to naive consumers.


So no, they never really get a say. Their assigned nationality is the product of birth, not choice. The government was there when they were born and it is there when they come of age and get drafted, and at no point have they been anything but the suffering object in that one-sided relationship. And even if by freak accident of living in the right county in a swing state during an election where realistically viable candidates had different opinions of the execution of a draft and would have been willing and able to execute these when elected (do you see this happening?) so that a cast vote had, say, a hundredth decimal chance of affecting the voter's life on this issue - how often do people generally get to vote before the age for military service?

Hm, do you think we should make a different thread? I'm interested in discussing this further, but I don't want to derail. XD

No no, you see on Gothic.net our aesthetic isn't regarding the cliche argument of what makes up this silly psuedo-culture, our real concept of beauty is the digression of EVERY SINGLE THREAD on this board.

Especially when it comes to arguments. Proceed, as it only extends the popularity of the posted link/article.

Hahaha. Instigator.

I think it's established I'm new here and I only lurked professionally sometime after registration was disabled... so I'll take your word for it.

That's weird. Because consistently since the American draft was abolished, it has stayed that way. Overwhelmingly so. Periodic polls have indicated this and every time someone suggests bringing it back, the decision reflects those polls.

There is an explanation for that.

It's called change. It happens sometimes. And every time I hear that word, I think of this.

A government doesn't give anything to it's citizens, huh? I don't have any idea how we could continue if you seriously believe that.

Do you expect a country to vote on everything every time someone becomes old enough to do it? I'd hate to live in India.

India does that?
Other than that, awesome argument, man. I do dislike plurality elections because of this.

It was my attempt at humor. India has a ridiculous population, so it would be the same if they were to do that.

Damn, sorry, I can't believe I didn't read that right.

Haha, it's fine. I won't lie that I did a double take, though. XD

Also. I have sneaking suspicion Sinjob was being sarcastic. I don't know him very well (read: at all), so I couldn't say. Fuck it, though. This thread kind of died, anyway.

isnt saying yer gay when yer not circuscizing the law anyway?

I mean, if it's against the law to be gay you shouldnt be saying your gay when your not. Why would u even want to?

"I don't get my way every single time I vote, therefore my vote is meaningless and democracy is a lie!"

Wow, you are a real bimbo Raza.

Anybody can claim success by lowering their expectations to zero. It's easy to be proud of your acquired ability to endure hardship and futility, calling it 'realism', 'courage' and 'maturity', but fatalism has never improved the world.

WTF are you even talking about? Do you have a Rolodex of pithy phrases that you keep by the computer and then throw around during a discussion to make yourself sound smart or something?

So representative democracy works out when people already mostly agree, and you're with that majority opinion. That's not really much to boast.

I'm not saying that drafts aren't affected by votes. They are. But no individual voter has any real power over how their lives are affected, even if all votes added up have some value to counterpoint the power of politicians. And I know that that's 'just how the system works'; that's why I'm saying it's a sucky system.

Nation States are a crappy model for community organization and way too bloody big for this kind of thing, but when people thought of democracy they never bothered changing the borders they inherited from their kings and imperialistic tyrants. 'Rule of the people' is a very good idea, but we have it half-arsedly implemented at best.

Of course there is, but that doesn't make it a good thing. It's a nice article, but it doesn't really favor the US democratic system.

I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing here. 'Change' does not describe what I was talking about in any way that I can see.

I'm not saying it never 'gives anything' for what it takes - I'm saying that the government decides what it gives and what it takes, and the individual is simply subjected to that decision. It is one-sided in that it is not mutually decided upon, not in that the benefits and services go purely one way (although that's heavily slated too).

Of course not. But I am expecting you to acknowledge that a draftee that has never voted cannot be said to have had a say in the matter on that account.

You're looking at this from a 'if you can't fix it, don't bash it' perspective. That is often constructive, to a degree. But you do have to acknowledge the limitations of your system, even if you don't know how to improve it. 'Democracy' isn't true or false in a binary sense; it is achieved or not achieved to varying degrees. Your system (and ours, too) achieves very little of it, so its existence carries equally little relevancy to the ethics of a draft.

You really aren't paying any attention, are you?

The words you're typing are english, but they don't make any sense in-context.

I made fun of you because of your ridiculously self-centered outlook, and you went off talking about fatalism.

You don't seem to really understand the concept of this whole "debate" thing.

All forms of government work out when people mostly agree. That's the whole point of popular consensus.

What would you suggest in it's place? A dictatorship? A theocracy? Even in an annarcho-communist state which runs itself on direct democracy, the individual is still subject to the will of the majority, so what are you getting at? Straight Anarcho capitalism? Even then you're subject to the will of the market ie: popular consensus.


...and the government is held responsible for those descisions during the next election.

No one here is arguing that representational democracy has no limitations, so why even bring this up?

Dude...stop with the word salad. I know you think artificially elevating your language makes you sound smart, but the problem is, you're not smart. You're throwing in extra words which only serve to obfuscate(<---See, I can do it too) the very simple point that you're trying to make.

A draft is perfectly ethical. You enjoy the protection of the military, and the government under which you live. You are able to spend your time dressed like a gay pirate because of the stable situation provided by that government. (Otherwise you might have been killed by some redneck for 'dressing like a fag' a long time ago)

If the state finds itself in a situation dire enough as to warrant a draft, it's your duty as an able-bodied citizen to defend that state. Especially when the state provides you with plenty of legal avenues to avoid selective service, and the people who make that descision, by popular consensus, were themselves elected BY POPULAR CONSENSUS.

If you don't like that situation, you are certainly free to vote against anyone you think would institute a draft/leave the country for one less likely to draft you (good luck).

But let's put this where it belongs: Being happy that gays live as second-class citizens because it unintentially makes it less likely that you'll be hypothetically drafted into a hypothetical war is beyond selfish. you should be ashamed of yourself.

You're still not paying any attention.

Care to explain why you think that?

You're right. Someone that is old enough to vote is generally old enough to be drafted. Until they are old enough to vote, they can't really do much other then raise awareness of their opinion.

I brought it up because you said this:

I figured your objection was the conscript's interaction with their government, so I was trying to point out one example of how the government's decision is influenced by the would-be conscript in the first place. There are other models for conscription in less democratic countries, but you said you think it's irrelevant to the ethics of it, so I won't go into that.

Let's start over.

On what grounds would you imagine another American draft would be appropriate?

Under what conditions would it be acceptable, to you? For example, Germany allows conscientious objectors or those with religious conflicts to serve either in non-combat roles or civil service occupations. Israel drafts women, but it doesn't draft Muslims or Christian Arabs. Some countries allow you to be exempt if you are in school, or already in a civil service role.

Versus, he's not going to make a point. Clearly, he likes the idea of gays not being treated as equals because it can hypothetically give him a reason to pretend he's gay so he can get discharged on a section 8 for being crazy. He would capitalize on the suffering of others because it's there so he can continue to be oggled by bimbos with dreadlocks at the club. If he were at all serious about the idea of treating everyone as equal citizens, he'd rail against the republicans blocking the ban of DADT instead of seeing it as an opportunity to avoid doing something he doesn't want to do. He's just a selfish prick. That's fine. But yeah, fuck that guy.

Hahaha. I don't think it's too much of a stretch of the imagination for someone to legitimately be opposed to the idea of a draft, but Raza's argument went from "because the government forces you to do it" to "the people's choice to allow the government to do it is irrelevant" so I'm at least a little inclined to agree at this point.

Personally, unless absolutely necessary, I abhor the idea. I don't want to be on a patrol with someone who doesn't want to be there with me, and everybody that I work with feels the same. We try our best to weed those pieces of shit out. Anything less then an all-volunteer, professional military will not do. The military has given a lot to me, but I fucking earned it. And it boils my fucking blood when I see people trying to slide by and get something for nothing. Which is why I feel a draft isn't really unfair. So many people expect something for nothing.

But anyway. Boo for discrimination.

To be fair, after my time was up, I realized I simply wasn't cut out for it. At any rate, thanks for your service, man. And you're right. Being a service member is a 24 hr job. You earn everything you get in it. :-/ True enough.

Stop. You're making me feel like a douche bag. -_-;

As it is now, anyone can serve in the military. They can be the most flamboyantly gay person ever, or the most undoubtedly straight person. So long as they serve, it doesn't matter whether or not they are homosexual. Should the law be changed so that gays can serve in the military openly? I see no reason why not. At the same time though, should the law be changed in support of gays? I see no reason why. The law should say that no matter an individual's sexuality, they should be able to serve. And that's what's the current law says.

Sure, I'd like the law to say that they can be openly gay, but at the same time, if they can be gay and be soldiers at the same time, is that really so wrong, even given the current "don't ask don't tell" law? Is being openly gay so really necessary in the modern army? Or is it only necessary to the modern liberal?

BtS, I think you're missing the point.

Simply put, everything you said was true. BUT, the thing is, even if their demeanor is outwardly homosexual, they can get FIRED FROM THEIR JOB for saying that they are indeed, gay. A service member can go around all day long and say that they're straight and not be penalized for it. But a gay service member says they're gay, they get the boot. Not only that, but I think it's a section 8 discharge which says that you are crazy. But being gay doesn't mean you're crazy.

It's not something the liberals want to get rid of for the sake of being liberal. It's about what's bloody fair under the law.

Now I KNOW you understand completely what I've said here. So your line of thinking can now change on to a more correct course. I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you, man.

All of which is why I said that I would like the law to allow them to be openly gay. My point was that I just don't see why this is such a major issue. (I was drunk last night, so I suppose my points didn't come through quite like I planned, and for that I apologize. That post sounded a lot better in my head.) I just don't get why conservatives would be so opposed to gays (openly) in the military. One would think that seeing a gay man put himself into a situation where he might die would make them happy. Simply put, I don't comprehend the conservative mind-set. (As for my jab at liberals, it seems these days that many liberal politicians are more interested in trying to appear as liberal as they can without actually doing anything worthwhile. I'm just sick of the American political scene through and through.)

I was not aware of that. If that's true, that's fucking retarded.