DADT perspectives

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by temp, Nov 16, 2010.

  1. temp

    temp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/o...t_tell_thats_immoral_-_not_homosexuality.html

    This is a very good article in general about the effects of DADT. I only posted it because I think it is a good concise summary of many points of DADT and GLBT rights in general.

    PLEASE don't use this thread to debate the legality or DADT, the correctness/constitutionality of the repeal process ongoing, etc. We already have a thread for that. :wink: This is just meant to be about perspectives. I learned a few things from this article!
     
  2. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,753
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    My personal opinion, DADT was an ill-conceived Clinton policy that cannot be easily erased now.
     
  3. temp

    temp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    LITS, I agree. I think it did more damage in many ways. It was a policy which changed nothing from the previous practice and simply was a semi-feel good idea. No additional rights were granted. The GLB were there already and were going to be there anyway. DADT was just an attempt as fuzzy feelings. "You can be in the military! But no one can know!" OK, cause that changed anything!

    It was more damaging because people could state "You can be here, you aren't prohibited! Just don't show yourself!" So, somehow the sense was born that GLB rights were enhanced so no more needed to be done. It was a compromise that hardly compromised anything.
     
  4. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    I think that the writer of the article; "Debra W. Haffner", is a freakin idiot. First; she has no right or in a position to tell religions, religious leaders, or followers of that religion, what they are "SUPPOSE" to believe or how they should behave, when it comes to their religion. There is a legitimate argument for religious leaders in the military being forced into a position to counsel or advise an individual whom then totally disagree with their lifestyle. Personally; I think this is a very small issue and can be worked around. But for the writer to make the faith based comments she did, show's she's an idiot.

    While we're at it, this writer is convinced that somehow DADT is affecting gays and lesbian's rights. She really needs to get her head out of her back side. The DADT policy has nothing to do with rights. No one has the RIGHT to be in the military. And even the current DADT policy doesn't stop a homosexual from being a homosexual. But talking about rights??? That's stupid. DADT has nothing to do with rights. Is a girl's "Rights" being taken away if she isn't allowed to join the boy scouts? No. Is a woman's rights being taken away because she can't be a member of the Masonic Lodge? No. Anyone who thinks this is about rights, is simply a pissed off person who can't look at the policy objectively and without emotion. It has absolutely nothing to do with gay/Lesbian rights.

    What DADT is: Was a weak attempt by President Clinton to not have to address a topic he found controversial among voters. And he cared more about his political career than the military. He, and the congress, should have simply ruled once and for all either: YES, gays can serve in the military openly; or NO, gays can't serve in the military. This isn't just Clinton's fault. He campaigned on an open military, but as usual, that was mostly talk. This was also a congressional POS. The 103rd congress compromised with Clinton and came up with the DADT policy. Mind you, the 103rd congress was Democratic controlled. Both the house and senate. It wasn't until the American people got pissed an voted heavily for a change in 1994 and the new congress in 1995 was Republican controlled. Sort of like Obama's first 2 years and a democratic party controlled congress. Totally ineffective and all talk.

    But now; this writer, and people who think like her, are all saying how the whole DADT policy exists and isn't being changed, because of the Republicans. I will always respect any person's right to freedom of speech. But I also recognize their right to prove they are an idiot. The DADT policy is not about rights. Religion does play a part in it, because the overwhelming majority of citizens in our country has some form of religious belief. So as much as this writer wants to believe that she knows how Religions should act, she doesn't. The DADT policy was created by a Democrat president and democrat party controlled congress. That same party president and congress has been in office for the last 2 years. They had all the votes to rescind the policy. Don't blame republicans, the military, or religious leaders. This is totally Obama's problem. With one phone call to Pelosi and Reed, they could have the DADT policy terminated before Thanksgiving. But they won't. Why? Because the is par for the democrat party. Talk a lot; don't do anything you can be held accountable for; and try and stay in office by saying why we shouldn't vote for the other parties.

    Yea; I learned a lot from this article too. There's a lot of people who write articles; who are considered somewhat legitimate and educated sources; who don't know the law, the constitution, or the government. They have their own agenda. Worse of all, are the lemmings who read and follow their opinion because they believe them to be trustworthy. Just like all the people who voted for Obama because Oprah endorsed him. "Ooooo, if Oprah said he's good; he must be. She wouldn't lie to us".

    I want to see DADT disappear. I want Obama and his cronies to grow a set of cojones and simply make a decision. If Obama and the Democrats really cared about this issue, they could have taken care of it at any time in the last 2 years. Matter of fact, the congress could have take care of this at any time in the last 6 years. I'm not defending the Republicans. I have enough issues with them as it is. But don't blame them for a policy that the president and current congress (All one party) has total capability of rescinding with the stroke of a pen. If they can shove some B.S. health care down our throats with not one Republican voting for it; they could rescind the DADT policy. And if this columnist "Debra W. Haffner", new ANYTHING about what she was talking about, she'd realize this and bring out the truth, instead of her narrow minded and biased opinion.
     
  5. raimius

    raimius USAFA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    272
    Well, I'll admit that was a new perspective to me. I've never heard anyone argue that homosexuality is a gift from God.



    (I don't agree.)
     
  6. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,753
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Certainly species attempting to reproduce wouldn't last long as homosexuals.
     
  7. futureAFA

    futureAFA Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is she talking about women’s rights so much in it:confused:
    DADT is completely separate from the fact that women aren’t in combat roles.
     
  8. temp

    temp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    well, great. Went no where near where I was hoping. Quite a bit of intense insults to myself. So I'll narrow what part I really was trying to highlight and care about.

     
  9. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    I think we responded as mentioned. But in response to your quoted section: What do you want as a response? There hasn't been one person on this forum, in any version of this topic, who has said that DADT should stay in place and that it's a good policy. Are you expecting someone to respond: "The gays should stay in the military closet"? I doubt you'll find anyone who's going to say that.

    The ONLY debates that have happened with the whole DADT topic has been "HOW" it should be rescinded. Also to include the time frame to accomplish the "How" part of it. You just said you don't want anyone talking about that; so, my question again is: "What do you want or expect for a response". Are you wanting a sympathy response such as: "I feel your pain. I have a friend in the same situation". Is that what you're looking for. I'm not trying to be rude, but you're making it sound like this is a "Debatable" topic. There hasn't been 1 contrary response to the DADT topic here. EVERY RESPONSE included their support in rescinding the policy. I don't know what you are looking for. If we can't talk about HOW to rescind it; or the difficulties involved with rescinding it; then there's absolutely nothing to discuss. And you entered this writer's article and opinion and said you learned a lot from it. Well, that's what I commented on. I learned a lot too. This lady doesn't know what she's talking about. But if there's something specific you're wanting a retort on; please state it.
     
  10. temp

    temp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted it, like many things on other topics in the past, as an informative piece. I didn't ask for your sympathy. I wasn't looking for a debate. I was providing a well-worded piece about the direct effect on GLB military members living under DADT. Since people love to jump off-topic on these forums to advocate their own positions, I placed the caveat there, as many do elsewhere, to hold those particular arguments in the thread where they are already ongoing.

    My mistake was in putting up the whole article instead of the part I thought relevant.
     
  11. tallbutshort

    tallbutshort Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very annoying article IMO. I found her stance on Christianity both offensive and bone-headed.

    Christcorp, I disagree that this is not about GLB rights. Wouldn't you consider blacks not being able to serve in the military a civil rights issue?
     
  12. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,275
    Likes Received:
    606
    I actually think that her stance on Christianity cuts right to the heart of the issue. Many of the oft-cited passages banning homosexuality occur in close proximity to some other pretty ridiculous stuff. Parsing Leviticus to find useful passages to fuel homophobic views is a long-standing techique of the religious right.
     
  13. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    See, that's where some people view this improperly. Your analogy is: "... NOT BEING ABLE TO SERVE...". So, tell me where in the DADT policy, that is says that a Gay/Lesbian isn't ALLOWED to serve? Now, we can go through all the legalism of DADT, but there's already numerous discussions on that. Plus, you haven't heard me or anyone else say that DADT is good and should remain. My point is; and will continue to be; that this isn't about rights. Even if your analogy about Blacks not being ALLOWED to serve was true, there is no "Right" to serve in the military. There could be discrimination laws and such in violation, but RIGHTS is NOT what it's about.

    Just like when you hear the ignorant people speak of: "People have a right to healthcare".... "People have a right to affordable housing"..... Sorry, but NO THEY DON'T!!! Find me where it's a right. We have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If that means you want to BUY a house or PURCHASE exceptional healthcare, then you should be allowed to do so. But it shouldn't be GIVEN to anyone. Because anything GIVEN to one person, had to be PAID for by another. As such, you are being forced to give away your possessions. I have the RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms. But that doesn't mean the government is going to BUY ME A GUN. When they start using tax payer's money to do that, then they can use some of those taxes for healthcare, housing, etc...

    The DADT policy simply states that the government won't inquire about a person's sexuality and preferences, and people aren't to speak about and display their sexual preferences. Yes, one preference is "Socially Acceptable" and the other isn't. And that's why the DADT policy should be abolished. But it has nothing to do with rights. The gay person is allowed to serve in the military if they are qualified. If they feel they must tell the world openly of their sexuality, then they are free to leave the military. But serving in the military is not a right, and as such, DADT isn't about rights either.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2010
  14. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Scout; the problem is: As long as the legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch of the government condones article 125 of the UCMJ, it would be totally hypocritical and counter productive to openly allow homosexuality in the military. Article 125 is a rule that needs to be dealt with hand in hand with the DADT policy. And the fact that you don't agree with christianity, is totally irrelevant. Why? Because our country's freedom of religion allows individuals to practice such beliefs. I totally believe that the Muslim religion is bogus; but people should be allowed to practice it if they want to. So I disagree that this writer's stance cuts right to the heart of the issue. Religious beliefs among military members are instructed to be tolerant of other's beliefs. That's why the military has numerous chaplains of different faiths. If a person doesn't like the religious beliefs of other military members; whether they are the majority or a minority, that individual is free to leave the military. No one is forcing anyone into being in the military.
     
  15. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    So you believe that the EPC of the 14th Amendment covers everyone except gay members of the military?

    Explain.
     
  16. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    Substitute "sexual preference" with "religious beliefs" in the DADT law.

    For example, DADT states:

    "... anyone who demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts from serving in the armed forces of the United States"

    Let's change it to:

    "... anyone who demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in Christianity from serving in the armed forces of the United States"

    or

    "... anyone who demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in Judaism from serving in the armed forces of the United States"

    Would you feel the 14th Amendment should be enforced to equally protect them or should they just resign their commission, as they are free to leave leave the military, no one is forcing anyone into being in the military?
     
  17. tallbutshort

    tallbutshort Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alright well I wrote a long reply and then the computer deleted it all :rolleyes:
    So here's the short version, which is probably better anyway.

    Scoutpilot:
    Citing Leviticus generally causes problems because lots of the Old Testament law is no longer valid. However, there are passages in the New Testament that condemn homosexuality as well. Also, you don't have to be homophobic to consider it a sin. But that's not really the part I have an issue with. I was more referring to her statement that Christianity is also oppressive to women.

    Christcorps:
    I dunno where you were going with "Plus, you haven't heard me or anyone else say that DADT is good and should remain" or your anti-socialist rant (which I agree with :thumb:).
    Blacks could serve as cooks/deckhands long before they were allowed to fight. They could still serve; they weren't treated the same.
    I think it comes down to whether open homosexuality is something that would be in any way detrimental to the military (I'm not saying you think it is, so no need to get defensive).
    Being an African American isn't detrimental, so it's a rights thing.
    Being a woman in combat would be detrimental, so it's not a rights thing.

    Just one ignorant teenager's opinion...
     
  18. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Scout; the problem with the analogy is: Religion IS a protected right. Sexual preference isn't. Might as well continue talking about: "Right to healthcare". There is no such thing as a RIGHT to that. And the difference with the DADT is that it doesn't forbid gays from serving in the military. In ANY CAPACITY. Not just cooks like tallbutshort was eluding to. And as for religion, a person is not allowed free reign of their religious beliefs in the military. They can't wear religious clothing freely in place of or in conjunction with their military uniform. The military; as an entity created separately and with purpose within the constitution, allows for the congress and president to set standards that would normally not be imposed on the civilian populous. And they are constitutionally within their rights to do such a thing. But again; we're now discussing DADT as though one of us is for it and another is against it. That is incorrect. My position is: 1) Know where the authority exists to change or rescind the DADT policy. (It lies in the legislative and executive branch of the government.) and 2) DADT is not a "Rights" issue. When you join the military; voluntarily; you also voluntarily allow certain constitutional rights to be denied, or at least limited. You have a limited freedom of speech. A limited freedom of religion. A limited freedom to keep and bear arms. And all the subsets of the bill of rights; such as the right to assemble, to form a union, to go on strike, to simply quit and not come back to work. You agree to all of these things when you voluntarily join the military. DADT is not about rights. It's about what's socially acceptable and social norms becoming part of the military personality. That's why it needs to be rescinded. Even desegregation in the military happened because of congress and the president. Not because a law was changed or created. Constitutionally, the congress and president is allowed to make any rule/policy that they believe is in the best interest of the country, security, and discipline and order of the military. And it doesn't matter if you like it or not. And by social pressure on the congress and president, is how such rules/laws/policies get changed.
     
  19. temp

    temp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will add again, Desegregation was vehemently opposed by Congress. Only the EO by President Truman desegregated the military.
     
  20. tallbutshort

    tallbutshort Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point was that African American soldiers weren't treated the same as everyone else. And now homosexual soldiers aren't being treated the same as everyone else.

    Yet they won't kick you out of the military for telling someone you're a Christian.

    You have a point. But using this same logic, it's completely fine for African Americans to not be allowed to serve in an undiminished capacity.

    All of those sacrifices have valid reasons behind them. If DADT requires homosexuals to give up certain rights for valid reasons, then that's sacrificing your rights for the good of the military. My argument is that if there is no valid reason homosexuals shouldn't serve in a full, undiminished capacity, then it becomes a rights issue.
     

Share This Page