Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,363
Quote:

From what authority do you make the claim that homosexuality is immoral?





I'm not talking about how I feel. Whether or not I feel it is immoral has nothing to do with what I said. These comments are about society in general. My personal feelings about the lifestyle are mine, and none of your business. But I'm sure you would love to tell me what they should be.

As far as talking politics, that's exactly what the thread is about. Obama's politics.

What authority says it isn't? I'm not qualified to make that judgement, and neither are you. But you are proving one of my points. If the media and special interest groups say it is a moral thing, then I have to believe it is.

Individuals have the right to their own opinion, how they reach that opinion is base in different morality. I just object to others telling someone else what to think.

Look up the word "morality". Most peoples "morals" come from family traditon or religious backround, not from special interest groups.


#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Legend
Online
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Quote:

All these arguments are so right on! How could this guy think he's above the military? I mean, doesn't he understand that there are RULES?! He SIGNED UP for it!!!

It's like freaking Rosa Parks. I mean, she knew when she got on that bus that there was a Montgomery city ordinance segregating passengers by race. Just move to the back, or don't ride! You're not special. You're just like everyone else, don't think that your "personal cause" it more important than CITY LAW. You break the law, expect to pay the consequences. Don't cry about being hauled off to jail. I have no sympathy, and I can't believe that anyone would be surprised by the consequences.

(/sarcasm over)

In all seriousness, to all of you saying that the don't ask don't tell policy is irrelevant here and is another debate... seriously. WAKE UP. Stop making the same mistakes that people made 50 years ago. Christ.





Pleeeze read my post again... this time, with different 'thinking cap' on.

The difference between this man's situation and Rosa Parks' is patently obvious: Rosa Parks was an American civilian making a stand (or sit) for a personal cause in a public forum. She had no expectation of any treatment other than what she received... and was willing to pay the price that her actions prompted. She was tired that day, and sat down in a spot that she knew would land her in trouble, and made a decision to follow through. That she was made an example of, and became a "cause celebre" was purely coincidental. Numerous interviews and biographical accounts have shown that Rosa Parks just wanted to sit down because she was exhausted... not because she wanted to become a spokesperson for the civil rights movement. Her honesty, forthrightness, and innocence in this matter was exactly WHY she became the household name we all know today. If a high-profile Civil Rights activist had done the same thing, it would have been a fleeting, momentary publicity stunt... and wouldn't have had the lasting impact that her actions did... trust me on this.

As a 'citizen of color,' I'm proud that my fellow American made the choice she did (and paid the price for it), so that I could have the chance to see my life made better for her her actions. I view her as a 20th c. hero, as do the rest of my family and friends.

This young man's situation is very different, however. He entered into a contractual arrangement with an employer to ply his livelihood. By signing that contract, he promised to abide by the conditions of that contract. When he decided to go public, he violated the terms of that contract, which automatically gave his employer the right to terminate his employment. Case closed.

Rosa Parks was beholden to no such contractual arrangement with the Public Transit System of Montgomery, Alabama.She could be legally prosecuted for 'civil disobedience,' but could NOT be fired from the job she held.

It's that simple.... and you can bust my chops all you want, but the law is the law, for better or for worse.

When I was a teenager, I had a long talk with My Pops about civil injustice, civil disobedience, and the relative merits of 'bucking the system' to make a point. He told me something that I've since learned to be true:

"If you want to change the system, you do what's necessary to rise through it. Then, you can make the changes you think are proper when your decisions will actually make a difference."

There was much wisdom in that advice, given over 30 years ago... because My Pops (... a law enforcement administrator who came up through the ranks, and a WWII vet) knew that a young man's convictions must stand the test of time to be found valid when he's an older man. If a policy is unfair or unjust, a dedicated young man will fix it when he becomes an older man with the power to do so. Right is right... and progress WILL be made.

The system is in place precisely for that reason... we ALWAYS have the ability to make changes, but by necessity, change must happen slowly... otherwise, policy that determines our country's safety could be changed daily, based upon nothing more than a whim or the "trend of the day."

There's every possibility that this young man could be the next Rosa Parks, as far as our country's policy on gays in the military are concerned. If such is the case, then I applaud his efforts. BUT- for the time being, he's an employee who is legally in breach of his contractual obligations to his employer... and as such, has only a lame leg to stand on.

Like I said in my original post: if the focus of this thread is narrowed, and I am asked what I think about homosexuals serving their country in ANY capacity... you might find a completely different answer from me.... and I meant sincerely.

Until then... the law is the law.... and I stand on the points of my previous (and present) post.


Feel free to PM me, if you want some other, more nuanced answer to more specific questions. I might surprise you.


best,
Clemdawg


"too many notes, not enough music-"

#GMStong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
M
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
M
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Quote:

I'm not talking about how I feel. Whether or not I feel it is immoral has nothing to do with what I said. These comments are about society in general.




Oh yeah? So when you said "Homosexuality is not a "normal" behaviour" in your original post, that wasn't what you thought? Just what society thinks? Either you are lying or you need to improve on your communication skills.

Quote:

My personal feelings about the lifestyle are mine, and none of your business.




Why not express your opinion instead of telling us what "society in general" thinks? Everyone else is expressing their beliefs. Why can't you? Don't have the courage or faith in your convictions?

Quote:

As far as talking politics, that's exactly what the thread is about. Obama's politics.




That is what the original post is about. My post, which you responded to, is about homosexuality itself and the reaction people have to it.

Quote:

What authority says it isn't? I'm not qualified to make that judgement, and neither are you.




If I'm not qualified and you aren't qualified, then who is qualified? The only qualification that is needed here is the desire to discuss the issue rationally and precisely. All you have done so far is debate the symptoms. What good is it to argue about how many people are on your side when you have not even established what your side is or why your side is justified. Everyone else is expressing their personal opinions. Why don't you step out of the shadows, Eryze, and tell us what you actually believe?

Quote:

But you are proving one of my points. If the media and special interest groups say it is a moral thing, then I have to believe it is.




Well, considering I am not a member of the media or a special interest group I would say your point has not been proved yet, at least not by me.

Quote:

Individuals have the right to their own opinion, how they reach that opinion is base in different morality. I just object to others telling someone else what to think.




True, people do come to particular moral beliefs based on their experiences (or lack thereof). This does not mean, however, that every moral system is true. (Unless you are a moral relativist . . . And perhaps you are?).

If you don't want to talk about this, fine. But arguing about whose side is bigger while ignoring the more pertinent question is not going to get you very far on this issue.

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,188
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268952606832391.html

MAY 19, 2009

Obama Avoids Test on Gays in Military

By JESS BRAVIN and LAURA MECKLER

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has decided to accept an appeals-court ruling that could undermine the military's ban on service members found to be gay.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the government must justify the expulsion of a decorated officer solely because she is a lesbian. The court rejected government arguments that the law banning gays in the military should have a blanket application, and that officials shouldn't be required to argue the merits in her individual case.

The administration let pass a May 3 deadline to appeal to the Supreme Court. That means the case will be returned to the district court, and administration officials said they will continue to defend the law there.

The move comes as President Barack Obama attempts a balancing act on gay rights. He was elected with strong support from the gay community and promised action on a number of issues. But mindful of the complex politics, the White House has moved slowly.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which dates back to the Clinton administration, is a case in point. As one of his first acts as president in 1993, Bill Clinton attempted to end the military's ban on service by homosexuals. An uproar ensued, and eventually Mr. Clinton signed legislation allowing gays to serve as long as they weren't open about their sexual preference.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama said he would seek to repeal the ban on gays in the military. But since he has taken office, administration officials have been less clear about the matter and its timing.

Last week, the White House was pressed to explain whether the administration would intervene to protect Lt. Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and Arabic speaker in the Army National Guard. He announced he was gay as part of a plan to challenge the law. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president believes the issue should be dealt with through legislation.

In the appeals court case last year, the Bush administration argued that Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt, who was discharged after authorities discovered she had a relationship with a woman, had no grounds to challenge her expulsion in light of congressional findings that gays and lesbians in uniform "create an unacceptable risk" to military morale and "unit cohesion."

But the court ordered the government to show why military discipline would be imperiled by the specific presence of Maj. Witt.

President Obama faced an early March deadline to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. Obama aides twice filed requests asking for a one-month extension, which the court granted. The administration let the most recent deadline pass without seeking another extension.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the government would defend the law at the trial over Maj. Witt's dismissal. The decision not to appeal to the Supreme Court "is a procedural decision made because the case is still working its way through the regular judicial process," she said.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the president remains committed to repealing the law "in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security" but added: "Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

Some advocates for gay rights say they are becoming frustrated with what they see as mixed messages on the law on gays in the military. "This is a positive step but it's in the middle of a slew of negative steps so we're not really sure what's going on," said John Aravosis, an advocate who blogs on the issue.

Mr. Aravosis said he is concerned that the White House Web site section on civil rights was recently edited and some of Mr. Obama's promises to the gay and lesbian community were no longer listed, including his promise to repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy. After complaints, a reference to the military policy was restored.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that the changes were made to "reflect the president's broad agenda," but that his commitment to gay and lesbian issues has not changed. "Any suggestions to the contrary are false," he said.

Other gay-rights advocates are more patient. "We are convinced that the administration is committed to overturning this policy and has plans in place to accomplish this goal and it will be accomplished in due time," said David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group.

Other priority issues for gay advocates loom as well. Mr. Obama will soon nominate a new Supreme Court justice, who will likely be forced to answer questions by the Senate about his or her view of various gay-rights issues that may arise -- particularly the constitutionality of bans on gay marriage, which has advanced in many states in recent months. The administration also must decide whether to allow gay and lesbian partners of workers at the federal court to qualify for health-care benefits.

Maj. Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and received multiple commendations and decorations for her service. She "was made an Air Force 'poster child' in 1993," the opinion from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said, and the service used her photo in recruitment materials for more than a decade.

Maj. Witt also had a relationship with another woman from July 1997 through August 2003, the opinion said. The partner was not a military employee and the couple's home was in Spokane, Wash., 250 miles from the base where she was stationed.

According to the lawsuit, Maj. Witt did not tell anyone in the military that she was homosexual. In July 2004, however, the Air Force began investigating her for homosexuality and five months later began proceedings to discharge her. The action left her less than a year short of the 20-year service requirement to obtain a full Air Force pension.

The Ninth Circuit had rejected similar suits in the 1990s. In 2003, however, the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, ruling that the Constitution gives homosexuals "the full right to engage in their conduct without the intervention of the government."

Citing that case, the Ninth Circuit held that the government would have to do more than show that the don't ask, don't tell policy furthered an important interest. Rather, at trial it must show how expelling Maj. Witt "significantly furthers the governments' interest and whether less intrusive means would" have worked just as well.

"Only then can DADT be measured against the appropriate constitutional standard," Judge Ronald Gould wrote for the court.

The ruling suggested the judges were skeptical that Maj. Witt, a nurse, posed a threat to military discipline.

thought some may be interested in this ... its being challenged in the courts right now ...

and Toadie ... do u still believe that this dude DID NOT KNOW THE OUTCOME of him coming out ..

its right there in BLACK and WHITE ... it was PART OF A PLAN to challenge the law ...

AND ... I am QUITE SURE that every gay in the military KNOWS ABOUT THIS CASE ... and if he for a second thought that him ANNOUNCING it to the world would not get him booted after what the military did in this case .. HES AN IDIOT .. and Idiots don't graduate from West Point ..

Your Welcome ....




Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Continues Under Obama

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5