DADT perspectives

temp said:
I will add again, Desegregation was vehemently opposed by Congress. Only the EO by President Truman desegregated the military.
Click to expand...

And as I've said in the past; I totally agree. The congress and the president is where this decision came from. The president issuing an executive order is basically agreed/condoned by congress. Because congress COULD have voted against the president. They didn't; therefor they condoned. Point is: It wasn't a judicial matter like DADT has become. Desegregation was eliminated through the proper branches of government; brought on by social pressure. "The way it's suppose to me".

tallbutshort: you are trying to determine what is a valid reason. That's like trying to legislate morality. Are there valid reasons that a woman can be a member of the masonic lodge? Probably not. And if the masons eventually choose to allow women to become masons, it will be because of their social norms and pressure. Not because of judicial rulings. But again, don't talk to me about whether DADT is right or wrong. No one is saying DADT is right. It's simply that some people think DADT is wrong for "Different" reasons. Some think it's wrong because it violates gay/lesbian's rights. No, it doesn't. There's a lot of reasons DADT is wrong and should be rescinded. Infringing on rights is NOT one of the reason. Unless of course you are affording rights that don't currently exist, to people. "My example of Right to Healtcare". No such right. Are gays/lesbians being discriminated against? YES! Many people are discriminated against each and every day. You deciding what's valid discrimination is not legally meaningful. However; your opinions can lead to the social pressure and change that needs to occur. Point is, when people mention "Rights", the topic goes off track and nothing gets accomplished. People concentrate on rights; the accusations are reviewed; it's determined that congress/president have the constitutional right to determine such; therefor there are no rights being infringed on. However, if people would concentrate on the actual grievance, and promote the social pressure needed to change such policies, this issue would have been resolved years ago. People need to realize that the military is NOT the civilian world. The congress/president have the constitutional right to do a lot of things with the military that would be considered unconstitutional in the civilian world.
 
I think the major purpose of the article was simply to point out that some chaplains now have problems counseling members. Many religions teach tolerance. Many religions teach honesty.

On another note, I noticed somewhere last week that a group of fundamentalist chaplains was questioning the repealing of the DADT directive in that it would force them to teach that homosexuality was proper behavior.

I am most positive that it will eventually work out satisfactorily either way.

Nevertheless, as the OP pointed out, an interesting perspective not before mentioned on this forum.
 
I think the religious aspect of the military/gays will easily work itself out. Currently we have Protestant chaplains who are generic chaplains that cater to the non-catholic christians; e.g. baptist, Presbyterian, methodist, etc... and they are able to handle the differences in the various beliefs. I'm sure this will also be an issue that is easily handled. Wouldn't surprise me to see a gay chaplain hired on.
 
Christcorp said:
Wouldn't surprise me to see a gay chaplain hired on.
Click to expand...
I would be shocked if there are not already a substantial number of gay chaplains in the military. DADT, with all its flaws, is a lot more permissive than any number of religious denomination's dogma.
 
Mongo said:
I would be shocked if there are not already a substantial number of gay chaplains in the military. DADT, with all its flaws, is a lot more permissive than any number of religious denomination's dogma.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
Guess I should have said "Openly Hired". Just another AFSC. But without DADT, an openly gay minister/priest/pastor/whatever, could be hired/enlisted/commissioned.
 
Mongo said:
Many religions teach tolerance.
Click to expand...

Few actually practice it.

Precluding gays from military service is a vestige of the same institutionalized hatred that segregated blacks and excluded women. Religion has long been the foundation which provides the means for otherwise logical people to engage in acts of cruelty and exclusion without owning up to the decision to do so, because the fatalist cry of "But the (insert religious text here) says so!" appears to absolve them of any choice in the matter.

I'd take 12 physically fit and highly motivated gay cross-dressing post-op transexuals if they can put a weapon into operation reliably and like to brawl.

We have way too many real challenges to overcome to spend our time and leadership effort worrying about who the hell someone kisses at night.
 
Last edited:
Christcorps, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. We both keep saying the same thing and I guess we're missing each others' points. But for the record, I was never under the impression you thought DADT was right, and I didn't right anything that suggested that either (at least not on purpose). No need to get defensive. And if you weren't being defensive, well then I'm sorry I misread your posts.
 
Being this thread is about "Perspective" and not the legal or other issues; here's a perspective to start wondering:

"Assume that DADT is repealed; how, when, procedures, etc... aren't important. But assuming the day comes where it's rescinded and gays are no longer restricted from serving openly in the military. Does being gay, now become considered a "Minority" or a "Diversity" group? So while the academy strives to make the incoming classes more diverse by races, gender, economic, social, first generation going to college, regional, etc.... Would they now consider sexuality a "Diversity" that they would actually include in their attempt to make the academies/military more diverse? In other words, would they now actually ATTEMPT to appoint MORE GAYS to an incoming academy class to make it more diverse?

Wouldn't that be a kicker? Go from not allowing openly gay individuals at all, to actually seeking out gay applicants to give MORE appointments? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.

Just a perspective!
 
Christcorp said:
Scout; the problem with the analogy is: Religion IS a protected right. Sexual preference isn't.
Click to expand...

Slight correction, Federal law was recently amended (I think only around 1-2 months ago IIRC) to afford LGBT individuals minority status, and thus grant them protection as a minority group under federal law.
 
uniform 419 said:
Slight correction, Federal law was recently amended (I think only around 1-2 months ago IIRC) to afford LGBT individuals minority status, and thus grant them protection as a minority group under federal law.
Click to expand...

Against discrimination and such; yes. Constitutional right, no. However, there are people who associate a law; whether it's local, state, or federal as the same thing as a constitutional right. If you translate something loose enough; like how the courts sometimes do; you can make anything appear to be a constitutional right. Anyway, there's a lot of laws designed to "protect" individuals; but that's much different than a constitutional right. Religion is specifically mentioned in the bill of rights; sexual preference isn't. But if you translate sexual preference as "Freedom of Expression", I guess you can make that argument. That's why you see so many arguments of such ignorant comments as: "Right to health Care"..... "Right to affordable housing"..... "Right to clean drinking water"...... A lot of people associate the word "RIGHT(s)" inappropriately. If city/county/state tax dollars are used in part to provide clean drinking water, that is a contractual obligation by said government entity; not a right of the individual.
 
Last edited:
Christcorp said:
That's why you see so many arguments of such ignorant comments as: "Right to health Care"..... "Right to affordable housing"..... "Right to clean drinking water"......
Click to expand...

I think "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" cover those.
 
Actually, it doesn't. But if you believe it does, then you would also agree that pure communism is the best society. All labor, contribution, skills, and product would be given to the collective. Why not then just have every cent a person earns, put into the government coffers. Then, you just go to the store and sign for what you need.

The constitution was written; especially the bill of rights; specifically to put LIMITATIONS on the federal government. If there's going to be issues with health care, housing, etc... then that is to be done at the State level. Which is covered in the 10th amendment. Then again, there are those who believe that the federal government gives power to the states, and the states give power to the individual. Remember, it's the declaration of our independence where our rights are stated.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Federal government works for the state, who in turn work for the people. Unfortunately, most citizens don't know that or don't believe it. And many not only believe that we are subservient to the federal government, but that we actually SHOULD be, and that the government knows what's best for us. The constitution was written so that the federal government could NOT infringe on our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution is a set of limitations on the government. Unfortunately, the meaning has been turned around to have people believe it means that the GOVERNMENT has given us "X" amount of rights. Sorry, but no man has given me ANY RIGHTS. And rights are such that no man can take them away. He, the government, may make it so I can't exercise my rights, but they don't give rights.

Now however, we are mixing legalism with the DADT policy on a level that isn't conducive. The example was about a person not serving in the military because of a particular religion they believed in. The federal government is specifically forbidden from telling a person what religion they can believe in. HOWEVER: When we voluntarily join the military; we concede certain levels of rights voluntarily. We voluntarily give up levels of our freedom of speech. Freedom to protest. Freedom to strike. Freedom to simply quit. (In the case of the military). But this is all voluntary. Gay, Straight, Bi, etc... doesn't matter. Military service is completely voluntary. It's not a right to be in the military. And no one says you have to stay.

But this thread was about perspectives. We should leave the judicial and constitutional arguments to the other DADT type threads. I brought up a "Perspective", in keeping to the spirit of this thread. But no one seems to want to respond to it. I'll re-state it. With the years of declination towards gays in the military; if the DADT policy is rescinded, and gays can voluntarily join the military openly, and being they have in some sense been classified a "Minority", would the academies and military in general go to the OTHER EXTREME and try to INCREASE the recruitment of gays, in the name of "Diversity". If diversity is indeed important to the military, so that allows for a better military through expanded experiences; wouldn't recruiting MORE gays seem in line with that diversity goal??? Sort of ironic. Go from banning to working overtime to recruit more.
 
Last edited:
Christcorp said:
Actually, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't basic health care be one of the "blessings of liberty" specified in the United States?

What more could a government do to "promote the general welfare" of it's own citizens than to provide medical care for them when they are sick?

Christcorp said:
The Federal government works for the state, who in turn work for the people. Unfortunately, most citizens don't know that or don't believe it. And many not only believe that we are subservient to the federal government, but that we actually SHOULD be, and that the government knows what's best for us. The constitution was written so that the federal government could NOT infringe on our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution is a set of limitations on the government. Unfortunately, the meaning has been turned around to have people believe it means that the GOVERNMENT has given us "X" amount of rights. Sorry, but no man has given me ANY RIGHTS. And rights are such that no man can take them away. He, the government, may make it so I can't exercise my rights, but they don't give rights.

Now however, we are mixing legalism with the DADT policy on a level that isn't conducive. The example was about a person not serving in the military because of a particular religion they believed in. The federal government is specifically forbidden from telling a person what religion they can believe in. HOWEVER: When we voluntarily join the military; we concede certain levels of rights voluntarily. We voluntarily give up levels of our freedom of speech. Freedom to protest. Freedom to strike. Freedom to simply quit. (In the case of the military). But this is all voluntary. Gay, Straight, Bi, etc... doesn't matter. Military service is completely voluntary. It's not a right to be in the military. And no one says you have to stay.
Click to expand...

I'm so glad you are in favor a allowing gays to serve in the military, I would hate to see your posts if you were against that policy.
 
I don't remember there being free healthcare to the masses in Washington's time...I assume they weren't looking ahead to the time of Social Security and Obama-care though....

I don't think the framers had social healthcare when they wrote "blessings of liberty"...maybe they meant porn.....or free car washes....or sidewalks through parks... or Bonzi trees for everyone...or puppy dogs...or Monday night football. Maybe they meant all of that! or maybe we're reading it too liberally. Something tells me there was a more basic understanding of the "blessing of liberty".
 
Again; "Temp" (The original Poster) wanted this thread to be more about perspective on the DADT policy. His perspective was on how it affected friends. I've tried to keep my comments, in this thread, about perspective. I brought up a perspective that apparently is quite provocative, because no one's really been able to respond to it. I'd prefer we stick with the topic.

If you want to truly debate the DADT policy philosophically, legally, or logically, we can do that. Ask anything you want in the OTHER DADT thread. Let's try and respect the original poster's objectives in this thread.
 
Christcorp said:
Being this thread is about "Perspective" and not the legal or other issues; here's a perspective to start wondering:

"Assume that DADT is repealed; how, when, procedures, etc... aren't important. But assuming the day comes where it's rescinded and gays are no longer restricted from serving openly in the military. Does being gay, now become considered a "Minority" or a "Diversity" group? So while the academy strives to make the incoming classes more diverse by races, gender, economic, social, first generation going to college, regional, etc.... Would they now consider sexuality a "Diversity" that they would actually include in their attempt to make the academies/military more diverse? In other words, would they now actually ATTEMPT to appoint MORE GAYS to an incoming academy class to make it more diverse?

Wouldn't that be a kicker? Go from not allowing openly gay individuals at all, to actually seeking out gay applicants to give MORE appointments? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.

Just a perspective!
Click to expand...

Certainly wouldn't be surprising. I would not like that at all. Then again, I very much dislike minority recruiting with the exception of socio-economic. I agree with that one because often there is a major exposure issue of service academies in low socio-economic neighborhoods. I digress.

I will be very disappointed if a sexual orientation box joined application forms. It has a proper place in medical forms and partner-related forms. But I see no point for it anywhere else. Then again, I'd say the same thing about race and most times with gender.

My gut tells me that active recruitment won't happen soon. But I can see it happening if someone decides they want a pretty bullet on their officer reports saying they improved LGB recruitment by x%.

However, initially, I'd say don't bet on it. You'll have plenty of open LGB show up at recruiters with the repeal and a percentage actually come out within the ranks. Recruiting open LGB will not become a talking point for a few years, IMO.
 
I agree with your assessment. I just thought it would be quite profound, to go from: "No, you can't be in the military, because you're gay".... to..... "Please sign here. We need MORE like you in the military, because you're gay"....
 
Christcorp said:
I agree with your assessment. I just thought it would be quite profound, to go from: "No, you can't be in the military, because you're gay".... to..... "Please sign here. We need MORE like you in the military, because you're gay"....
Click to expand...

lol, it sure would. It probably will happen, but it will be a few years when the numbers of open LGB stabilize. I think the prompting factor will be if they collect statistics on LGB. Even then, that could be difficult. They could only account for open LGB. Race and gender cannot be covered up (usually!) but orientation can.

My guess is that when orientation reaches the social level of race/gender, in terms of taboo-ness such that the number of LGB would be relatively accurate (meaning most LGB are open) and that it is tracked (box on a form), only then I think recruiting would be initiated since someone could make that a bullet!

Complicated paragraph, I hope it makes some sort of sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top