Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/19/10 10:15 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: I love how people reasonably believe that a gay person who is willing to enlist will obviously not have the professional bearing that is expected of all members, and will simply act in stereotypical fashion to anger straight people.

This is why i don't get why they had to repeal it. If they don't act stereotypically gay then no one is gonna wonder if they are gay.

At 12/20/10 04:45 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: This is why i don't get why they had to repeal it. If they don't act stereotypically gay then no one is gonna wonder if they are gay.

Because it doesn't matter if they act stereotypical or not, if it is found out they are gay in any way their military career is over, as said by many others it was an unjust policy that should of never been in place to begin with.

Oh, and by the way, acting stereotypically gay sort of SHOULD warrant a suspension from the military. There's a reason the cast of Queer Eye aren't suited for military service, and it has little to do with their craving for mangina.

At 12/19/10 10:52 PM, Proteas wrote: Uh, duh... that's why I wasn't commenting on it.

No; you clearly did comment on it.
"enlisted people do not have the same rights that you and I take for granted under the constitution."

I really don't get this notion that other than orders pertaining to the execution of your job or the stability of the military, you have every right granted to anyone else under the Constitution. My superiors cannot walk into my house right now. I am free to say whatever I want within the exact same confines that another person with a job would be (and sure; if I said "fuck the military," I would be held to similar repercussions as if you were to say "fuck (whatever fast food restaurant you work at)!"). Any "limitations" that you must endure are only because you are under a contract that stipulates your fulfillment in exchange for entitlements. Honestly; my 1 month worth of paid vacation days a year, full health and dental insurance, and $40,000/year salary feels more "free" than most other people that I know.

Plus, he didn't supply that one bit of information that would have really cynched his case for him; did the guy hand his cell phone to the superior willingly ("hey, check this picture out my friend sent me") and the guy came across the homoerotic stuff by accident, or did the superior actually take the cell phone and start searching through it like what you're talking about? Maybe the subordinate gave the phone to him so he could make a call and left the pictures up.

I will agree that the merits of the case without specific details or solid evidence of actual information makes it hard to make a clear argument, but honestly the debate is if a situation is fundamentally correct, and/or warranted under any conditions? Should anyone really care other than informing the person that they don't care to see or know personal information?

Even in the most extreme of scenarios that people tend to give, like assuming that openly gay service members will lead to rampant gay sex 24/7, or people flirting with unwilling co-workers, have rules and regulations already in place to deal with. Trust me; if you walk into your barracks room and see your roommate blowing another guy, or your commanding officer gives you better treatment because the two of you are romantically involved, then it's the same as if those situations are between heterosexual people.

I'm sorry that gay people scare and disgust you and you can't come to terms with them serving your country. I take it that you must be extremely up in arms about this because you do serve in the military, and the amount of discomfort that this causes is making you reconsider joining? In that case, I'm very sorry and hopefully you can turn your respectable service into a more comfortable career elsewhere, almost the same as if you're uncomfortable working around women, or blacks, or some other pointless differentiating factor that people have no reasonable control over.

.....I mean, you are in the military, right?

No, seriously. This goes back to what I was saying earlier, it's false dilemma. Since I'm not sitting here rejoicing with you all that it was repealed, you're assuming I'm some homophobic bigot who's pissed that it was repealed. Quit trying to paint me as something I'm not, it's getting old.

I'm not really rejoicing myself. Sure I'm happy that there's a greater chance that competent individuals will have more of an incentive to enlist. I think if there's any way to increase the number of people without dropping ASVAB requirements, waiving prior lapses in moral character, or ignoring other standards like mental health capacity or physical readiness, then by all means. But if you aren't a homophobic bigot, then what is your concern about it's repeal?

However, a clear majority of service members surveyed

*face palm*

Half of US troops think a repeal of the policy will have mixed or no effect, while another 15 to 20 percent said that the repeal's effect would be "positive," according to the survey.

I'd call 65-70% of surveyed individuals a pretty clear majority. Hell; you could amend the Constitution with that much of a majority. But you're right, it includes reservists and military spouses; and obviously they are not a part of the military whatsoever. I guess they should've just asked active-duty personnel. Better yet; they should've only asked STRAIGHT active-duty personnel, although the irony is that they technically wouldn't be able to ask that they only interview heterosexuals. Damn.

At 12/20/10 04:45 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: This is why i don't get why they had to repeal it. If they don't act stereotypically gay then no one is gonna wonder if they are gay.

Because not all gay people have a propensity to act flamboyant, and maybe the unfortunate reality of curiously nosy people within close quarters has resulted in enough cases of people honoring the "don't tell" portion being ousted by people who clearly never bothered to follow the "don't ask" part. If you're requiring that for the sake of cohesion, people must lie about their identity, then everyone should just wear full-body suits with masks and not be allowed to speak, so that you cannot discriminate based on race, gender, place of birth, etc. It's only fair.

I want to start off by saying that since 2005-2006 I have spoken out for repealing DADT and allowing gay and lesbian citizens to serve openly in the US military.

However, I have to come to Proteas' defense here. Everyone who is dog-piling on him is focused on the morality of DADT's repeal and how it is a good thing b/c it is an expansion of civil rights.

But as I've perused his arguments...I don't think that's what he's arguing.

Once the repeal is signed into law, the military is going to be responsible for implementing the policy. And the reality is a commander cannot simply get in front of his troops and say:

"Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, as you may have heard DADT has been repealed. As such you are going to turn-off your emotions and your belief structures. Like a light switch, the military is going to respond to this new order and integrate homosexuals quickly and easily."

Some commanders may say that, but that doesn't mean that there is not going to be a transitionary phase and that integration of openly homosexual members is going to be as easy and smooth as turning on a light.

The military is a very conservative organization and as you move from the professional & technical specialities to the combat arms specialties you go from more libertarian to very socially conservative.

You have ppl whose passions are enflamed on both sides. Unfortunately, there are elements of the military (as in society in general) that are capable of being violent towards homosexuals.

Also you have issues of how you are going house these individuals. Currently we do not house men and women in open barracks and have them take showers together b/c of the chance of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment. How do we take measures so that the chances for either one of these are minimized?

In the end I think Proteas' point is that while the political struggle over this issue is over...the work of making it a reality is just now beginning.

At 12/20/10 04:45 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:

At 12/19/10 10:15 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: I love how people reasonably believe that a gay person who is willing to enlist will obviously not have the professional bearing that is expected of all members, and will simply act in stereotypical fashion to anger straight people.

This is why i don't get why they had to repeal it. If they don't act stereotypically gay then no one is gonna wonder if they are gay.

Not true. You see, many people have been discharged because others found out that they were gay/lesbian once they started to connect the dots about why the person(s) in question never talks about his/her boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband like everyone else.

At 12/20/10 06:23 PM, TheMason wrote: I have to come to Proteas' defense here. Everyone who is dog-piling on him is focused on the morality of DADT's repeal and how it is a good thing b/c it is an expansion of civil rights.

But as I've perused his arguments...I don't think that's what he's arguing.

Look, I read all of Proteas' posts, and what I take away from them is this:

At 12/20/10 06:15 AM, Proteas wrote:

No, I have a problem with the idea that somebody would willingly become part of an organization they knew did not want them to be there and then got fired for it. Why would anyone want to put themselves through that kind of torture?

What he's saying, I think, is that the law is the law, and DADT as it has been stated that if you are ever exposed as being gay in the military, then you will be discharged. To use a phrase from Dungeons and Dragons, he's what you'd call Lawful Neutral; you have to abide by the letter of the law; the law being fair or unfair is unimportant. So if the law is changed, great, follow the new law to the letter, but it's no use complaining about the unfairness of the old law; people knew the rules and they joined anyway.

I couldn't disagree more, being Neutral Good myself, but I can sort of see where he's coming from, and it's not that he's bigoted against gays.

Go ahead and correct me if I got the wrong idea about you, Proteas.

At 12/20/10 06:23 PM, TheMason wrote:

Once the repeal is signed into law, the military is going to be responsible for implementing the policy.

Hey, like I said, the military is funded by taxpayers and that means they have to abide by the constitution and the laws.
A bunch of units and commanders would probably LOVE to keep women / black people / atheists / Jews / whatever out of their sights.

But, too bad, you can't. Deal with it.

b/c of the chance of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment. How do we take measures so that the chances for either one of these are minimized?

How about, if we catch you, we put you on a fucking catapult and throw you into the ocean?

In the end I think Proteas' point is that while the political struggle over this issue is over...the work of making it a reality is just now beginning.

My prediction: it's a smooth transition and nothing happens except one or two minor incidents which Fox News will spin and blow out of proportion to try and make the point that repealing DADT was a terrible idea.

And the bigger issue here is that DADT HAD to happen eventually ANYWAY.
The sooner the better. There will never be a time where suddenly, all the biggots are gone and you can safely repeal this without repercussion.

Imagine if we had had to wait until there were no more racists to give people the right to sit where they want on a bus.

At 12/20/10 10:00 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: The standard being, "don't be gay"? Kind of difficult for a gay person to live up to that standard, wouldn't you say?

No, the standard of "don't be an idiot." The only difference between what I'm talking about and the guy getting fired from the McDonald's job for his facial piercings is that we're talking about a special interest group.

At 12/20/10 03:43 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: sure sounds like you're defending it, though.

... how? I haven't said one word in favor of the policy, I haven't said one word defaming gay people for being gay, I haven't said one word that could be misconstrued as being homophobic in any way. The only thing I've asked is why we should feel sympathy for somebody who set themselves up for "OMG LIVEJOURNAL DRAMA!!!" from the get-go.

so, are you sympathetic towards them?

Not particularly, because our Nation's military had an all out ban on homosexuals prior DADT in practice since the Revolutionary War. The only reason DADT was signed into law was because it was a compromise between Bill Clinton and the Joint Cheifs of Staff to keep from having an already standing military practice signed into permanent law. The military hating on homosexuals didn't just start 20 years ago, steve, it's been around for a LONG TIME.

Hell, ever watch M*A*S*H? Klinger trying to get dishonorably discharged on a Section 8 violation? There really was a Section 8 code in our nation's military which you could be discharged under for being mentally unfit, and homosexuality for the longest time was considered a sexual perversion caused by mental instability by our nation's military. This policy started in WW2 and went on through the end of Vietnam, that's how it wound up as a plot device in the show.

its an entirely unrealistic argument to make.

Does the term "contract negotiations" mean anything to you?

We're all adults here, if you don't know too read a contract through before you sign it, and you wind up getting screwed over on the matter, it's nobody else's fault but your own.

honestly you're doing a great job of painting yourself. it's not like everyone is colluding against you to make you say shit you don't mean.

Nope, they're taking my arguments and assuming I'm saying one thing instead of addressing what I'm actually saying. Same shit as always, different topic.

you're blaming the discharges on the personnel themselves, claiming they should've known not to enlist in the first place, rather than simply recognizing DADT was unjust from the get-go.

Which begs the question; why would you sign up if it's an unjust policy?

There's a phrase some of the old folks around here used to use, and I think it can be very aptly applied to this situation; "Sooner or later you're going to have to learn to quit pissing on the electric fence." If you know something is stupid, if you know there's a great potential for personal harm, don't do it... you only have yourself to blame when you get hurt. No one else.

then does a straight soldier getting shot in the face not warrant any sympathy either?

Depends, is it the military's policy to shoot it's own members in the face just for the fuck of it? Was there a standing law passed saying "You can be shot in the face at any point in time for no reason by any of your colleagues or superiors whatsoever and there won't be a thing you can do in terms of legal recourse against us?" No? Then you just made a REALLY bad comparative analogy about my argument.

Oh, wait, I just took your argument and completely missed the point and skewed it into something else entirely, didn't I? Ouch, sorry about that.

</sarcasm>

At 12/20/10 05:56 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: No; you clearly did comment on it.
"enlisted people do not have the same rights that you and I take for granted under the constitution."

Which could easily be understood to mean "I don't know what rights to privacy they do or do not have." You clearly must have understood this on some level because you felt the need to clarify those rights for the next paragraph.

.....I mean, you are in the military, right?

See this?

It's people like you that make me want to run into the woods and scream until my vocal chords rupture, because you're taking one little fact about my argument and assuming a whole bunch of shit about me as a person that you have NO FUCKING EVIDENCE TO BASE THESE STATEMENTS ON. You don't know jack shit about me, you'd just sooner sit around and make shit up about me as apposed to address what I say, thank you kind retard for playing. Cookies and milk will be served on your way out, don't forget your football helmet.

Interesting factoid about me; I actually have and have had gay friends in real life, and this guy is one of my favorite comedians ranking right up there with George Carlin, Sam Kinison, and Bill Hicks. There's a surprise halfway through the video, keep your eyes peeled for it.

At 12/20/10 06:23 PM, TheMason wrote: In the end I think Proteas' point is that while the political struggle over this issue is over...the work of making it a reality is just now beginning.

THANK YOU MASON!!! Finally, somebody gets it!

At 12/20/10 07:34 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: so he's basically suggesting that the poll of servicemen/reservists/spouses means nothing and that the DADT policy will be vindicated in the future by some eventual demonstration that its repeal was harmful to the military. i mean, he either thinks that's going to happen, or, he hopes that's going to happen.

I didn't say DADT would be vindicated, I said the poll in question was MISLEADING. I said it was SKEWED. The military has an anti-gay policy going back as far as the Revolutionary War, so why would I -- or anyone else for that matter -- honestly believe any poll that says that our servicemen and women are okay with homosexuals serving openly in the military?

So yeah, when lawsuits over gay discrimination in the military start popping up left and right and this poll is subsequently shown false, I will be laughing MY BALLS OFF. Get it? Do you get it now? Have I made myself perfectly clear, or do I need to hire a sky-writer and put the message in con-trails over your house?

At 12/20/10 07:36 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Go ahead and correct me if I got the wrong idea about you, Proteas.

A WINNER IS YOU!!! You got it! :-D

We actually had a topic about this a while back where instead of doing the political compass test, people did the D&D Alignment Test and mine actually did come out Lawful Neutral. I was "The Judge," which was really interesting because I believe I was still a forum mod at that point. Maybe it was something I posted in the reg's lounge, who knows... I wish I could find it.

At 12/20/10 08:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/20/10 10:00 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: The standard being, "don't be gay"? Kind of difficult for a gay person to live up to that standard, wouldn't you say?

No, the standard of "don't be an idiot." The only difference between what I'm talking about and the guy getting fired from the McDonald's job for his facial piercings is that we're talking about a special interest group.

Not all gays are card carrying members of the "gay movement", and being gay is far from the same thing as choosing to get your face pierced. What you're saying is that, knowing that they're gay, and then making the choice of signing up for a job which expressly prohibits openly gay individuals, is just the same as making the coice of getting your face pierced when you work at McDonalds, and leaves them no right to complain once they get outed as gay and are expelled because of it. Complaining about an unfair law, I guess, makes them idiots.

At 12/20/10 07:36 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Go ahead and correct me if I got the wrong idea about you, Proteas.

A WINNER IS YOU!!! You got it! :-D

We actually had a topic about this a while back where instead of doing the political compass test, people did the D&D Alignment Test and mine actually did come out Lawful Neutral. I was "The Judge," which was really interesting because I believe I was still a forum mod at that point. Maybe it was something I posted in the reg's lounge, who knows... I wish I could find it.

Well, hot dang, I thought I recognized that uncaring attitude towards fairness in favor of following the rules. As I said though, I'm Neutral Good, so in my view, you should only follow the law insofar as it promotes fairness and equality; if a law is unfair or promotes inequality, I won't hesitate to undermine it in every possible way. This is also why I couldn't care less if DADT was repealed through legislation, overturned in court, or simply ignored by the military and not enforced; the end result, the unfair law becoming obsolete, is what's important.

You acknowledge that excluding people from the military because of their sexuality is unfair, you just don't particularly care.

At 12/21/10 12:37 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Complaining about an unfair law, I guess, makes them idiots.

No... agreeing to abide by an unfair law and then complaining about getting a raw deal when they got fired for violating that law makes them idiots. They set up and starred in their own drama, just like the fry boy at McDonald's did when he decided to go work one day looking like he made out with a tacklebox.

I'm not against gays, this has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a conservative, it has everything to do with the fact that I have no sympathy for idiots, regardless of creed or ethnicity.

At 12/21/10 10:45 PM, Proteas wrote: No... agreeing to abide by an unfair law and then complaining about getting a raw deal when they got fired for violating that law makes them idiots. They set up and starred in their own drama, just like the fry boy at McDonald's did when he decided to go work one day looking like he made out with a tacklebox.

So, you're telling me, that doing what on ebelieves to be right is subverted by violating a rule in all cases? That there is never a situation where the greater good requires that a side rule be broken? That they should have known their place never joined the military? Even if most everyone would agree it is an honorable decision that benefits us all?

I'm not against gays, this has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a conservative, it has everything to do with the fact that I have no sympathy for idiots, regardless of creed or ethnicity.

Perhaps it is those, who hold the trivial above the significant, for the mere reason that the trivial is a rule and the significant an idea, that are the true idiots here. (not meant to be insulting, just mirroring your language)

At 12/22/10 12:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So, you're telling me, that doing what on ebelieves to be right is subverted by violating a rule in all cases? That there is never a situation where the greater good requires that a side rule be broken? That they should have known their place never joined the military? Even if most everyone would agree it is an honorable decision that benefits us all?

Welcome to the idiocy that is "lawful neutral". Status quo uber alles, and don't you dare struggle against the system, cuz if you get hurt it's all on you, you stupid son-of-a-bitch.

At 12/21/10 10:45 PM, Proteas wrote:

No... agreeing to abide by an unfair law and then complaining about getting a raw deal when they got fired for violating that law makes them idiots. They set up and starred in their own drama, just like the fry boy at McDonald's did when he decided to go work one day looking like he made out with a tacklebox.

I'm not against gays, this has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a conservative, it has everything to do with the fact that I have no sympathy for idiots, regardless of creed or ethnicity.

By your reasoning, anyone who has knowingly broken any law and gotten punished for doing so are idiots and can blame nobody but themselves, regardless of how evil or unfair the law was to begin with. Take the underground railroad from 19th century America, anyone caught sheltering runaway slaves would probably have been hanged. Should they not have done that, Lawful Neutral? Were they idiots for breaking the law?

Or how about in 1940's Nazi Germany, when people would hide Jews in their homes from the Nazis? Would they not be punished severely for breaking that law? Have they no one to blame but themselves?

Another situation that comes to mind is fictional, but nonetheless seems relevant. Disney's Mulan. Near the end, the General of the army finds out that Mulan is a woman after she is injured while rescuing his life. According to the law, she should be executed for impersonating a man and joining the army, but the General decides to spare her life instead. According to you, he shoulda killed that bitch dead, without any regrets about doing so. War heroism be damned, she deserved it for breaking the law, which clearly states that no women are allowed.

My point being, that it is sometimes heroic to break an unjust law, and the risk of punishment makes it even more so.

At 12/22/10 10:29 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: By your reasoning, anyone who has knowingly broken any law and gotten punished for doing so are idiots and can blame nobody but themselves, regardless of how evil or unfair the law was to begin with.

Ehh... I wouldn't go so far to say Proteas is going after this Hatman. What Prot is going after is that the entirity of entering the military is HIGHLY optional. I'd throw out a guess that 85% have never joined the military and 99% are not in the military right now. This is not like slavery, or the persecution of Hitler where this persecution was mandatory and unavoidable. He is trying to say the Gay people intentional put themselves in a position of persecution knowing full well they could avoid it. Your general point is right, but Proteas think he's avoiding it by shoving it into the little fine area between mandatory persecution and no persecution whatsoever.

At 12/22/10 01:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Ehh... I wouldn't go so far to say Proteas is going after this Hatman. What Prot is going after is that the entirity of entering the military is HIGHLY optional. I'd throw out a guess that 85% have never joined the military and 99% are not in the military right now. This is not like slavery, or the persecution of Hitler where this persecution was mandatory and unavoidable. He is trying to say the Gay people intentional put themselves in a position of persecution knowing full well they could avoid it.

I wasn't referring so much to the Jews or black slaves themselves as I was the people who'd provide them shelter from their persuers. The Jews and the slaves had no choice, but the people who'd protect them had a choice; they could either choose to obey the law and turn them in (or at least refuse to help them), or they could choose to break the law and do the morally righteous thing and protect them.

The Mulan example doesn't need any further explanation; it's almost an allegory for DADT and gays in the military.

My point is the same, putting yourself at risk by breaking the law to protect someone, when the law is obviously unjust, is incredibly admirable, not idiotic.

Prepare to take a peek into how my mind works.

At 12/22/10 12:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So, you're telling me, that doing what on ebelieves to be right is subverted by violating a rule in all cases?

Would you accept a loan from me if the terms of the loan contract I could take a pound of your skin and call it even if you default on the loan? No?

How about this; let's say I had a room to rent, and I let you and your girlfriend live here rent free for a month on the condition that I get to sleep with her NIGHTLY, no condom. Would you sign up to that? I don't think so.

I got a better one; say it's summer time and I'm looking to have someone mow my front lawn. I'll pay you to mow my lawn, but you've got to do it wearing Borat's Mankini while I blare The Village People's greatest hits over a sound system loud enough to drown out the sound of the mower while my neighbors watch. I'll pay you at slightly less than your going rate, but if you quit halfway through I'm not paying you dime and I'll tell the rest of the community to never hire you for lawn care service AGAIN.

Do you see what all these scenarios have in common? They are all contracts that have ridiculously unreasonable terms that are morally reprehensible and have great potential to do psychological/physical/financial harm to the person signing their name on the dotted line. No individual with a decent brain in their head would ever agree to these things. But the logic that's being presented is that you should sign up anyway because somehow doing everything I ask you to do is going to undermine or hurt ME, not YOU, even though the contract is specifically designed to hurt YOU and NOT me.

Pox had the best argument in this thread; DADT was unconstitutional because it discriminated against gay people, and the government could not discriminate against such individuals when they were allowed to be employed in other government positions. I would have LOVED to have seen somebody take and present this to the Supreme Court at some point, because then DADT would have been overturned in a heartbeat. But no, everybody tried to undermine and protest the law or try to get it thrown out on a technicality as apposed to taking it on directly, which is pure cowardice on the part of the law's opponents.

So, I guess my next question is this; where are your BALLS?

At 12/22/10 05:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

Would you accept a loan from me if the terms of the loan contract I could take a pound of your skin and call it even if you default on the loan? No?

Proteas, like it's been said, a bunch of those gay men were outed by people other than themselves.
So they thought they were safe if they kept it to themselves, but they were outed by their peers or by the army peeping into their personal lives, even though it says "Don't ask".

Personally, I think gay people would have to be completely insane to want to serve in the military under DADT, but again, should people wait until legislation passes until they do what they think they should be able to do?

I mean, imagine you're gay and you want a career in the military. Would you wait a lifetime for it to be repealed or just join and try to hide it?

Is that stupid?

At 12/22/10 05:12 PM, Proteas wrote: even though the contract is specifically designed to hurt YOU and NOT me.

Oh, and "it's the right thing to do."

At 12/22/10 05:45 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/22/10 05:12 PM, Proteas wrote: even though the contract is specifically designed to hurt YOU and NOT me.

Oh, and "it's the right thing to do."

That you even think that this is a valid metaphor just shows how little you really get the subject, or the ideas of morality and justice and equality... nevermind law itself.

At 12/22/10 05:12 PM, Proteas wrote: Would you accept a loan from me if the terms of the loan contract I could take a pound of your skin and call it even if you default on the loan? No?

How about this; let's say I had a room to rent, and I let you and your girlfriend live here rent free for a month on the condition that I get to sleep with her NIGHTLY, no condom. Would you sign up to that? I don't think so.

I got a better one; say it's summer time and I'm looking to have someone mow my front lawn. I'll pay you to mow my lawn, but you've got to do it wearing Borat's Mankini while I blare The Village People's greatest hits over a sound system loud enough to drown out the sound of the mower while my neighbors watch. I'll pay you at slightly less than your going rate, but if you quit halfway through I'm not paying you dime and I'll tell the rest of the community to never hire you for lawn care service AGAIN.

Do you see what all these scenarios have in common? They are all contracts that have ridiculously unreasonable terms that are morally reprehensible and have great potential to do psychological/physical/financial harm to the person signing their name on the dotted line. No individual with a decent brain in their head would ever agree to these things. But the logic that's being presented is that you should sign up anyway because somehow doing everything I ask you to do is going to undermine or hurt ME, not YOU, even though the contract is specifically designed to hurt YOU and NOT me.

None of the examples you've provided, I feel, are relevant to the discussion at hand, which is, what is better for the greater good?

Would I sacrifice a pound of my skin to make sure that the life of an innocent child was spared? Yes.

Would I sell someone else into sexual slavery in order to protect a family from certain death? No, I'm not at liberty to make that choice for another, but I'd offer to sacrifice myself in the same manner.

Would I mow your lawn in a Borat mankini for less than minimum wage if it meant that a village of innocent men, women, and children were spared the gas chamber ? No question about it.

All of your examples are ones where you only stand to gain something personally. I'm talking about matters in which your sacrifice, or willingness to sacrifice, of yourself, in exchange of breaking an unfair law, works to improve the well being of others. Why submit myself or an innocent other to such unreasonable sacrifices, just to advance myself?

Pox had the best argument in this thread; DADT was unconstitutional because it discriminated against gay people, and the government could not discriminate against such individuals when they were allowed to be employed in other government positions. I would have LOVED to have seen somebody take and present this to the Supreme Court at some point, because then DADT would have been overturned in a heartbeat. But no, everybody tried to undermine and protest the law or try to get it thrown out on a technicality as apposed to taking it on directly, which is pure cowardice on the part of the law's opponents.

So, I guess my next question is this; where are your BALLS?

Hey, like I said, I don't care about laws. I don't care if the constitution of the united states specifically states that gays cannot be discriminated against, or not. If it did expressly state that gays should be discriminated against, I'd be against it anyway. I don't care if the highest court of the land says that an unfair, discriminatory law is ok, and I don't particularly care if they say that it isn't ok. The answer is obvious either way.

At 12/22/10 05:43 PM, poxpower wrote: Is that stupid?

What you don't get, pox, is that when you get dishonorably discharged from the military, it's not a simple termination of your job and they show you the door. Oh no... it's a lot more than that.

A dishonorable discharge (DD), like a BCD, is a punitive discharge rather than an administrative discharge. It can only be handed down to an enlisted member by a general court-martial. Dishonorable discharges are handed down for what the military considers the most reprehensible conduct. This type of discharge may be rendered only by conviction at a general court-martial for serious offenses (e.g., desertion, sexual assault, murder, etc.) that call for dishonorable discharge as part of the sentence. It is colloquially known as a "Duck Dinner".

With this characterization of service, all veterans' benefits are lost, regardless of any past honorable service. This type of discharge is regarded as shameful in the military. In many states a dishonorable discharge is deemed the equivalent of a felony conviction, with attendant loss of civil rights.[2] Additionally, US federal law prohibits ownership of firearms by those who have been dishonorably discharged.[3]

You still want to try and preach this heroism and honor thing with me?

At 12/22/10 06:03 PM, Ravariel wrote: That you even think that this is a valid metaphor just shows how little you really get the subject, or the ideas of morality and justice and equality... nevermind law itself.

Way to gloss over and ignore the part where I was perfectly cool with homosexuality being protected from discrimination as a part of the law, rav.

At 12/22/10 06:23 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: All of your examples are ones where you only stand to gain something personally.

Uh, yeah, because the gay person who signs their name on the dotted line stands to loose a whole fucking lot under DADT. All that "greater good" stuff you're talking about is for naught if you're dishonorably discharged, you actually wind up being less of a person under the law.

At 12/22/10 06:34 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/22/10 06:23 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: All of your examples are ones where you only stand to gain something personally.

Uh, yeah, because the gay person who signs their name on the dotted line stands to loose a whole fucking lot under DADT. All that "greater good" stuff you're talking about is for naught if you're dishonorably discharged, you actually wind up being less of a person under the law.

How?

Answer me on my Mulan point. The moral of the entire movie was explained by the emperor in the first couple of minutes: "A single grain of rice can tip the scales." Mulan stood to lose "a whole fucking lot"; her LIFE. But she joined the army anyway to save the life of another; her father. And during her service, she managed to ultimately save the entire Empire. How would the empire have been better served, had she followed the law and not joined the army, or had the General followed the law and executed her in the snow?

At 12/22/10 06:23 PM, Proteas wrote:

You still want to try and preach this heroism and honor thing with me?

Some people in history were willing to die for what they believed in. The possibility of a dishonorable discharge is hardly something that would prevent many people from having their dream career for however long.

Not like it matters, but the Pres. Obama has just signed the DADT repeal into law today. Link.

Delete this post if someone else mentioned this before me please.

At 12/22/10 06:46 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: How?

Because in the end, it accomplishes nothing. This person now suffers a fate worse than death because he's essentially been stripped of all his civil liberties and is seen as a criminal in the eyes of the law, and that's the way he'll have to spend the rest of his days. Good luck getting a decent job, good luck getting a visa to travel outside the country with, you'll never be able to own a firearm (even though you're probably more qualified than anyone else to own or operate one), you'll never get to run for an elected office, and you'll never get to vote ever again... which is the cruelest bit of irony there ever was.

At 12/22/10 07:11 PM, poxpower wrote: Some people in history were willing to die for what they believed in.

But is this one of those things you should die for the right to do? I don't think so, especially in light of the fact that you pointed out a very simple way for this to have been solved earlier if someone would have had the cajones to stand up and try to tackle this head on. Nobody had to die over this, nobody's life needed to be ruined over this.

At 12/22/10 11:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/22/10 06:46 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: How?

Because in the end, it accomplishes nothing.

Except that it accomplishes the goal they have set their life toward. They wanted to be part of the military. Just because they happen to be of a certain group, and certain people dislike, does not mean they should forsake what they see as the purpose of their life. Or should they? Should they have known better? Sounds to me like you're saying "You know you're gay, so just accept your lower status. If you try to achieve like us normal people it's only YOUR fault for attempting to be better than you are."

At 12/22/10 07:11 PM, poxpower wrote:

But is this one of those things you should die for the right to do? I don't think so, especially in light of the fact that you pointed out a very simple way for this to have been solved earlier if someone would have had the cajones to stand up and try to tackle this head on. Nobody had to die over this, nobody's life needed to be ruined over this.

Sorry, but it took evidence of how the removal of 13,000 hurt the army to get a mere 6 out of 41 of your ilk in the Senate to overturn it. It took 13,000 lives ruined to get just a handful of a certain powerful group the change their minds. This did not need to happen, bit because of a certain conservative movement they HAD to happen. Get it? Sometimes you have to sacrifice yourself to open up doors for others like you.

At 12/20/10 05:56 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: I really don't get this notion that other than orders pertaining to the execution of your job or the stability of the military, you have every right granted to anyone else under the Constitution. My superiors cannot walk into my house right now. I am free to say whatever I want within the exact same confines that another person with a job would be (and sure; if I said "fuck the military," I would be held to similar repercussions as if you were to say "fuck (whatever fast food restaurant you work at)!").

Well, actually, you're not. You're not allowed to comment on politics AT ALL while in uniform. Going to any rally, even a pro-military one, in uniform is not allowed. While in combat, or in warzone, your free speech does not exist.

There are all kinds of military rules that abridge the 1st amendment. They don't have the same rights as us.

I'm sorry that gay people scare and disgust you and you can't come to terms with them serving your country. I take it that you must be extremely up in arms about this because you do serve in the military, and the amount of discomfort that this causes is making you reconsider joining? In that case, I'm very sorry and hopefully you can turn your respectable service into a more comfortable career elsewhere, almost the same as if you're uncomfortable working around women, or blacks, or some other pointless differentiating factor that people have no reasonable control over.

Unfortunately, this is 1/2 of our combat forces. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this has the capacity to cripple our military as about half of the people in combat now say they will not accept this.

Moreover, the vast majority of gays in the military don't want this.

I'm not really rejoicing myself. Sure I'm happy that there's a greater chance that competent individuals will have more of an incentive to enlist. I think if there's any way to increase the number of people without dropping ASVAB requirements, waiving prior lapses in moral character, or ignoring other standards like mental health capacity or physical readiness, then by all means. But if you aren't a homophobic bigot, then what is your concern about it's repeal?

Homosexuals are less than 1% of the population. Most have no desire to enlist. However, overall, 1/4 of our troops are considering dropping out over this. We stand to lose a lot of troops for this non-existant gain.

I'd call 65-70% of surveyed individuals a pretty clear majority. Hell; you could amend the Constitution with that much of a majority. But you're right, it includes reservists and military spouses; and obviously they are not a part of the military whatsoever. I guess they should've just asked active-duty personnel. Better yet; they should've only asked STRAIGHT active-duty personnel, although the irony is that they technically wouldn't be able to ask that they only interview heterosexuals. Damn.

People who think it mixed or don't care are not the same as people who are in favor. FYI