Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I don't get it. And I never will.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:20 PM
Original message
I don't get it. And I never will.
So now the spouses of soldiers are going to weigh in on DADT.

http://crooksandliars.com/jason-sigger/dadt-survey-spou...

The absurdity of this has gone beyond anything I could have ever imagined.

For those who believe that gays just need to "be patient" or that gays aren't "getting their pony" I would like to know what it is that makes you think that you, or Obama or Bush or Democrats or Republicans, or some church, has the right to tell a gay person who they can marry, whether or not they can serve in the military, or whether or not they should be afforded the same protections that all other Americans get. What is it that allows you to think that a persons basic human rights are something to be decided by a political party, or a religious organization?

Apparently when the letters went out to all the churches, to all the Democrats and Republicans, when Bush and Obama received their letters stating that their moral superiority has given them the opportunity to decide exactly what rights the GLBT community deserves, I didn't get mine. I didn't get my letter. Did you? Why was I not consulted on this issue?

What is it that allows for a level of hubris that would make a person think that they are so morally superior to another that it is their "right" to determine what the "rights" of another human being are?

I don't get it. And I never will.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Interesting
"What is it that allows for a level of hubris that would make a person think that they are so morally superior to another that it is their "right" to determine what the "rights" of another human being are?"

Do you apply that same logic to things like social security, health care etc...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. No, those aren't rights. They are needs.
I'm talking about the most basic human rights. The right to be treated as equals. The right not to be denied something because some jackass thinks you are less of a person because of your sexual orientation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. In order to pay for those "needs"
government must take from others. Do you support treating everybody as equals when it comes to their individual rights? And isn't it one persons belief in their own 'moral superiority' that says its ok to force others to pay for anothers health care, social security etc...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
33. WHAT??? Why are you talking about health care and SS?
In spite of your attempts the question still stands as it was first posed. What gives someone the hubris to assume they are so morally superior to others that they should be allowed to decide if gays should have the same rights as anyone else.

Again I am not talking about government services, health care, SS whatever, they are totally different issues. I am talking about equality at the most base level. You want to bring things into the discussion that cannot be solved or decided until the most basic rights are settled.

When you are building a house do you start on the roof? Or do you build the foundation first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #33
51. I can see why you don't get it now
They are not totally different issues because they are all based on the premise that one's morals are superior to others. Some believe it is morally wrong to let others go without health care, so they use govt to force others into doing what they believe is the moral thing. Some believe it is morally wrong for the same sex to marry, so they use govt to keep them from marrying. In BOTH cases, individual rights "at the most base level," must be infringed upon in order to support the morals of somebody else.

When pouring you're foundation, do you cure the whole thing or just the parts of the house you care about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
44. No, that's the Constitution. Ever hear the phrase "general welfare"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #44
52. Of course I have
But who gets to define "general welfare" and if it is to be associated with the country or the people? Social Security and universal health care are NOT in the Constitution. Why do you believe general welfare covers providing people with SS or UHC? What is so hard to understand that others believe denying gays the right to marry would also be promoting the general welfare of the country?

Funny how so many believe its ok to include their own moral pet issue under that umbrella but have a fit when others wish to do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
29. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #29
45. You know...
If I weren't married.... :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
53. Do "human rights"
as viewed by other nations trump the individual rights granted by the US Constitution?

What are these "human rights" based on? Possibly the morals of others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #53
67. The United States government signed off on them
and they became the law of the land. Surely you are not against upholding the law, are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. In the US
the "law of the land" is the US Constitution, and my question was if UN charters or pledges trump the individual rights given to US citizens by our Constitution? The answer is no, which is why such documents are usually so general and vague.

Funny you bring it up though, seeing how this OP is about gay-marriage and that UN pledge doesn't offer any support at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Let me ask you
If a gay couple with children moves into military housing, is it the military's responsibility to protect that family?

Do you think it would be helpful to know whether the majority in military housing are going to be accepting or hostile?

If a child is killed because of hostility, is there a multi-million dollar lawsuit involved if the military didn't take necessary precautions to protect that child?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. What does that have to do with a persons basic human rights?
You make up the most far fetched unrealistic scenario to defend an indefensible position. It looks like in your case you believe gays should not be allowed all the same rights as everyone else, because it might upset someone. Pathetic. Next time try not answering a question with a question. What gives you the right to decide what basic rights gays have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The survey is not about your rights
It's about problems that the military needs to identify in order to protect you and your children when DADT is repealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. LMAO.. so you think this post was about the survey?
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 01:09 PM by walldude
Wow... that explains much... thanks for playing. And you still never answered the question. What makes you so morally superior that you should be allowed to decide what rights other people have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Well you linked to a post about a survey
Gosh, excuse me for thinking that was the source of your angst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. Yes as yet another example of the attitude that you hold so dear
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 01:49 PM by walldude
that others should be allowed to decide what rights gays should have, apparently because they see themselves as morally superior.

Obviously you will never answer the question posed. So why don't you give it a rest. You want to talk gays in the military go make a thread of your own. You want to talk about basic human equal rights I am right here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. You find one post where I said that
I have never said anybody should be allowed to vote on gay rights. EVER.

I'm sorry you can't understand legal liability. But that's what is behind these surveys.

Surveys, by the way, that I also already said were horrendous in their questions.

Although I do understand the need for the military to ask *some* questions to develop diversity training. Just not *these* questions at this point in time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. Yes it's me that "doesn't understand".
I did say that I don't get it. And I never will. I will never understand a person who would put "legal liability" above a persons basic human rights.

You took the only part of the post where you saw a opening to rail against me, and ignored the entire basis for the thread and concentrated on the only place you knew you could make an argument against without sounding like a complete homophobe. . Impressive... really. :rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. It is not "above" human rights
It is to implement your human rights SAFELY.

How do you think effective diversity programs are created?

Do you think there aren't survey companies out there that ask these EXACT questions so that corporations can implement policies that work?

I am not railing against you.

I am asking you to look at the true purpose of the survey.

DADT is going to be repealed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Ok whatever... you don't want to talk about what the thread is about, fine.
go make your own thread.

For the final time. THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SURVEY. That was an example. This thread has everything to do with people thinking they are morally superior and should be allowed to decide what rights gays should and should not be allowed.

The fact that you seem to think that there is a SAFETY issue relating to gay rights tells much.

At least let me thank you for at least keeping it civil and keeping the thread kicked. Next time try debating the issue at hand. I'm done responding to DADT arguments. This is not about DADT. It's about equal rights for the GLBT community. DADT is only a small part of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kctim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #48
70. Hard to debate the issue at hand
when people believe its ok to force their morals onto others but have a shitfit when others try to do the same to them. They refuse to answer questions and always end up having to narrow the subject down until it supports only their point of view.
Fear? Pride? Only they know. But it is why they don't get it, and why they probably never will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libmom74 Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #36
71. were legal liabilty
questions asked when the first schools were integrated in the south? if decisions about civil rights had been handled the way that decisions about gay rights and DADT are being handled now we would still have Jim Crow laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. No, because once LGBT members are allowed to serve openly, it's a done deal.
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 12:44 PM by Gormy Cuss
If dependent families can't tolerate gay families living next door they can look for other housing. The best thing about the military is everyone knows it's put up or shut up.

The military effected integration at a much faster pace than society at large. I trust they can handle integrating open LGBT participation too.



eta: there is a usefulness to the survey in that it informs the military on the level of education needed to smooth the transition. It should not however hold any sway when it comes to the timing of revoking DADT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Tell that to the wives killed by troops with PTSD
The military has a responsibility to keep people safe. It's not as simple as put up or shut up. And it's easy to say other families should just move. But they won't and what do you do when some 16 year old ass decides to be cute and tell his crazy dad that the guy next door hit on him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morning Dew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
17.  maybe the teen just needed a chiffarobe chopped up.
You know what that leads to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Yeah, false accusations and death
Is the military responsible to know whether those attitudes are lurking and to DO something to prevent them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morning Dew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I see what you're saying and the intention is good
but the military can't even prevent its own female soldiers from being raped by other soldiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. And we all pitch a fit about it too
Just as we will all pitch a fit after DADT is repealed and gays are assaulted, or their children are assaulted in military housing. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foxfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. And the military doesn't already know that those attitudes are lurking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Who? Where? Why?
Can they identify some trends. Is one religion more prone than another? City people? Rural people? Young? Old?

How do they pull all this data together and great a diversity program that will work?

How do they get neighbors to report on neighbors if they sense a problem?

That's what they're responsible to have in place BEFORE the repeal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foxfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #25
37. Unfortunately, their methodology makes accurate data unlikely.
The return rate on the survey sent to soldiers was abysmal and people rather notoriously fail to tell the truth, or the whole truth, on surveys of this nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. Is The Military Responsible For Safety?
It's a really simple question. Regardless of whether you think they're approaching it correctly or not - are they responsible to implement policies that will keep gays and their families SAFE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foxfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. Of course the military is responsible for safety, but absurdity enters the picture
when concerns about safety become an excuse for foot-dragging and delaying the full inclusion of a specific segment of the citizenry.

AFAIK, there was no equivalent process when the military admitted the Nisei soldiers during WWII, nor for African Americans, nor Muslims. Obviously Obama can't order anybody to like inclusion of LGBT personnel, but, as CIC, he can order the military to suck it up and accept them. The Uniform Code of Military Justice covers acts of violence against fellow soldiers and, unless there are plans to adopt hate crimes as a part of the UCMJ, the rationale for the survey becomes ever-weaker to the point of meaninglessness.

You may have the last word. Have a good day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. As far as you know
And of course, do you know how many times the military was sued by African Americans because the military didn't implement integration fairly or safely?

There ya go. Let's get this as right as possible to alleviate as much suffering as possible when DADT is repealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #40
62. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
50. That's really a stretch. n/y
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
56. Like there wasn't the Boogeyman of the Oversexed Black Man?
Wanting to rape that white wife of a fellow servicemember?

If personnel cannot control themselves, then they shouldn't be in the military.

And, wtf do soldiers bing killed in combat have to do with Gay rights. Your :wtf:ness is especially strong on this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. So, by that logic, the military should never have been integrated, either....
How would the military be able to protect all those black families and their children?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Who said not to integrate?
I asked whether it was useful information to identify whether there would be animosity in family housing and whether it might be so bad that people would be hurt?

Is that helpful information, or not?

Do you think some black kids might have had less grief if they had done more in family housing during the integration of the military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. The military, unanimously. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
35. Sounds "reasonable" except there is no practical application
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillStein Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. that is patently ridiculous
the sad part is, I'm sure you know that. Strawmen are easy to find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. Well you know, we're not INTEGRATING PEDOPHILES
Jesus fucking christ what a stupid-ass comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
34. Seriously, that's a nutty argument.
Did they do surveys on every possible thing that could go wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. One thing that will move DADT faster is a positive decision
in the Prop 8 case by the Ca. SC. I believe one of the atty's said he expected them to hear arguments within the next few months. A positive ruling by them I think will motivate the congress toward repealing DADT as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. H I P O C R I S Y
I doubt I'm alone, but nearly all the RW Xtians I know (personally and viscerally) are serial adulterers - "Do as I say, not as I do." They generally have difficulty with three of the other Commandments as well, not to mention the commie, pinko teachings of that Jesus fellow.

I can't begin to comprehend their thought processes without feeling as though I'm having an aneurysm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
12. But the last word will come from a survey that has yet to be conducted:
What do the legally wedded spouses of our Fallen Heroestm think of Army chaplains conducting gay marriage ceremonies in drag?

We won't know anything definite about this issue until the polling results come back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Depends how you see it.
Edited on Tue Aug-24-10 01:10 PM by RandomThoughts
might it be a comment on gender soldier/servant, and not about drag?

Triangle - V, Mars - Venus, Money - Love, etc... And again M is really just an inclusive love, about empathy circles is how I think on that |v| So have nothing against M, accept maybe the walls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
22. Nor do I. Nor do I get the defense of it, when we all know if this were the Bush admin. doing this,
Everyone defending it now would be ripping Bush into shreds.

The blatant hypocrisy of defending the indefensible when it's YOUR guy that does it is visible from outer space.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. See, the Bush Admin Wouldn't.Be.Doing.This.
They would be doing NOTHING. There would be NO PROGESS.

And I am just sad for the people who just cannot get that through their thick skulls.

DADT will be repealed before 2012. Bank It.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. And I'm sad for you having to find creative ways to defend the indefensible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #32
42. Article about running gays out of neighborhoods in LGBT
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The surveys, as pathetic as they are, were conceived to avoid these kinds of situations. The military has more responsibility to troops and families than cities have to citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #42
59. You have apparently never known anyone who has lived on a military base
I have. My sister and her family for almost 15 years, for one. Even on huge bases like Bragg, they don't allow disturbances. At all. My God, they investigated my SISTER when my BIL was TDY in Kuwait for having an affair. My BIL's brother was staying for a week to help her with something with my niece and nephew. The MPs noticed a strange car parked there and knocked on the door, and asked her flat out why she had a strange man living there and who was it. This was at Bragg, which is huge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #26
57. I don't necessarily agree with that
I think DADT very well may have been repealed it in 2010-2011.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #22
66. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NAO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
27. How would you feel about your spouse serving with a Jew?
How would you feel about your spouse serving with a "colored person"? That would be a career ending move for anybody in the military who publicly asked this question. Period. And in reality, this should be viewed the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
natrlron Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
31. There's nothing to get
There's nothing to get. At least since the Victorian era, the US and much of the world has been homophobic. In recent years, that has changed even in the US, with the latest polls showing that a majority or almost a majority favor gay marriage, and a majority support ending DADT. But there are still people out there who are caught in these old attitudes, and it's very much in their gut. It's time for the government and the courts to lead on this issue. The diehards will remain diehards, just as the core racists will always be racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. Welcome to DU....
While I don't disagree, as you can even see a bit of the old homophobia even here on DU where we are supposed to be pretty liberal. But the government and the courts are not leading on the issue. They are at best waffling and at worst patronizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
41. You don't get it because it is bullshit.
This is the letter I rely on.

Amendment XIV

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(2-4 are directives concerning issues left over from the Civil War.)

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
54. Moral Superiority Comes to Mind
"You just calm the fuck down... your rights are being decided upon, you should be happy!"

Major WTF!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-24-10 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
55. I wouldn't mind churches making their own decision
about whether to marry same-sex couples IF they were truly private entities and didn't receive public aide in the form of no taxation. Until then it should be treated as any other civil union (which I believe should be between 2 consenting adults - whether gay or straight). These civil unions, as sanctioned by the state, should be treated exactly the same in every legal respect. I don't see why this isn't federal law and why so many are threatened by people simply seeking equality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. OMFG -- churches do NOT marry ANYONE
Clergy, acting as a representative of the STATE sign a STATE-ISSUED license. The STATE. That IS the law. A ceremony means, legally, nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
58. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
61. there is some serious homophobia going on in this thread. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. It should be. But then if Reagan had merely put a (D) behind his name and done
everything exactly the same way nearly half the people here would have backed him 100%. Positions on the issues matter not at all anymore. The party has become little more than a sports team to the true fanatics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #63
69. What you are seeing is actually pretty typical,
and given how there has been no reaction from the administration of the site, it seems to be sanctioned by them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pecwae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
64. This seems to be an attempt
to cause some sort of upheaval. Underhanded bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC