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

[walldude]

So now the spouses of soldiers are going to weigh in on DADT.

http://crooksandliars.com/jason-sigger/dadt-survey-spouses-really

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.

[kctim]

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...?

[walldude]

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.

[kctim]

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...?

[walldude]

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?

[kctim]

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?

[Scuba]

44. No, that's the Constitution. Ever hear the phrase "general welfare"?

[kctim]

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.

[EFerrari]

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/

[walldude]

45. You know...

If I weren't married.... :hug:

[kctim]

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?

[EFerrari]

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?

[kctim]

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.

[sandnsea]

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?

[walldude]

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?

[sandnsea]

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.

[walldude]

11. LMAO.. so you think this post was about the survey?

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?

[sandnsea]

18. Well you linked to a post about a survey

Gosh, excuse me for thinking that was the source of your angst.

[walldude]

30. Yes as yet another example of the attitude that you hold so dear

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.

[sandnsea]

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.

[walldude]

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:

[sandnsea]

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.

[walldude]

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.

[kctim]

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.

[libmom74]

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.

[Gormy Cuss]

7. No, because once LGBT members are allowed to serve openly, it's a done deal.

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.

[sandnsea]

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?

[Morning Dew]

17. maybe the teen just needed a chiffarobe chopped up.

You know what that leads to.

[sandnsea]

19. Yeah, false accusations and death

Is the military responsible to know whether those attitudes are lurking and to DO something to prevent them?

[Morning Dew]

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.

[sandnsea]

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?

[foxfeet]

23. And the military doesn't already know that those attitudes are lurking?

[sandnsea]

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.

[foxfeet]

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.

[sandnsea]

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?

[foxfeet]

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.

[sandnsea]

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.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gormy Cuss]

50. That's really a stretch. n/y

[LostinVA]

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.

[BrklynLiberal]

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?

[sandnsea]

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?

[Greyhound]

20. The military, unanimously. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

35. Sounds "reasonable" except there is no practical application

[BillStein]

14. that is patently ridiculous

the sad part is, I'm sure you know that. Strawmen are easy to find.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

39. Well you know, we're not INTEGRATING PEDOPHILES

Jesus fucking christ what a stupid-ass comment.

[asdjrocky]

34. Seriously, that's a nutty argument.

Did they do surveys on every possible thing that could go wrong?

[napi21]

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.

[DCKit]

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.

[kenny blankenship]

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 Heroes^tm 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.

[RandomThoughts]

15. Depends how you see it.

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.

[katandmoon]

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.

[sandnsea]

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.

[katandmoon]

32. And I'm sad for you having to find creative ways to defend the indefensible.

[sandnsea]

42. Article about running gays out of neighborhoods in LGBT

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x164377

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.

[LostinVA]

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.

[LostinVA]

57. I don't necessarily agree with that

I think DADT very well may have been repealed it in 2010-2011.

[Lorien]

66. +1 nt

[NAO]

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.

[natrlron]

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.

[walldude]

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.

[Deep13]

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.

[fascisthunter]

54. Moral Superiority Comes to Mind

"You just calm the fuck down... your rights are being decided upon, you should be happy!"

Major WTF!?

[TBF]

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.

[LostinVA]

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.

[myrna minx]

58. K&R n/t

[xchrom]

61. there is some serious homophobia going on in this thread. nt

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

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.

[QC]

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.

[pecwae]

64. This seems to be an attempt

to cause some sort of upheaval. Underhanded bullshit!