[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Not trying to be naive here, but I'd honestly like to know what the reasoning is to repeal DADT?

I guess it depends on who you ask. If you're talking judicially then in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States it was ruled that the policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments. The Ninth Circuit has temporarily stayed the ruling. In terms of politics it seems that it's just something the American public has come to accept for various reasons. Even if DADT turns out to be constitutional after the appellate process plays out, it is likely to be done away with by the people. Eventually anyway.

Personally my only interest (in this instance anyway) is that the military does what the people want. The last thing it needs is a mind of its own.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Personally my only interest (in this instance anyway) is that the military does what the people want. The last thing it needs is a mind of its own.

That seems very over-extended to apply it to what one soldier can tell another.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

The problem with this is that in practice DADT says "we don't care what you are into so long as we don't find out about it."

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That seems very over-extended to apply it to what one soldier can tell another.

That's not the whole picture.

DADT isn't simply about serving openly in the military. You aren't allowed to be gay at all (engaging in homosexual activity). I can't have a boyfriend back home that I have sex with when on leave as long as I keep it private. Or I can't go find a guy to hook up with while on shore leave.

Now DADT means that nobody will ask if you are gay. It doesn't give you the liberty to be gay though.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That seems very over-extended to apply it to what one soldier can tell another.

It depends on what it is we're telling soldier not to say. If we go beyond the boundaries of the law then there are checks on that (the courts).

[Demon_Hunter]

Originally Posted by Bryan

That's not the whole picture.

DADT isn't simply about serving openly in the military. You aren't allowed to be gay at all (engaging in homosexual activity). I can't have a boyfriend back home that I have sex with when on leave as long as I keep it private. Or I can't go find a guy to hook up with while on shore leave.

Now DADT means that nobody will ask if you are gay. It doesn't give you the liberty to be gay though.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying that. Still, from my pov, I can't see a good reason for continuing DADT. It excludes a great many capable, competent applicants for military service, and removes many who are already in the service.

Besides that, for a secular organization, run by another secular organization that espouses equal rights for all, this just wreaks of bigotry and discrimination.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

It depends on what it is we're telling soldier not to say. If we go beyond the boundaries of the law then there are checks on that (the courts).

The courts don't have jurisdiction over they military to any real degree. You give up a large number of freedoms.

The UCMJ applies.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The courts don't have jurisdiction over they military to any real degree. You give up a large number of freedoms.

The UCMJ applies.

The UCMJ was established by congress. The judicial department is a check on congress. They've dealt with DADT a number of times already. It's been upheld by circuit courts four times.

Maybe we're talking past each other. What is your quibble with exactly?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

The UCMJ was established by congress. The judicial department is a check on congress. They've dealt with DADT a number of times already. It's been upheld by circuit courts four times.

Maybe we're talking past each other. What is your quibble with exactly?

That DADT wouldn't run afoul of the first amendment for the same reason that deployment doesn't violate the 5th amendment right to liberty.

Actually: the Judiciary has a history of being ineffective as a check on the Executive branch: from the trail of tears (where SCotUS ruled relocation of the Cherokee unconstitutional) to Gitmo and Warrantless wiretapping.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That DADT wouldn't run afoul of the first amendment for the same reason that deployment doesn't violate the 5th amendment right to liberty.

I don't know. I was just filling him in on the current situation. We'll have to wait and see. But it is the case that parts of the UCMJ have been found to violate the constitution in the past.

Actually: the Judiciary has a history of being ineffective as a check on the Executive branch: from the trail of tears (where SCotUS ruled relocation of the Cherokee unconstitutional) to Gitmo and Warrantless wiretapping.

That's like saying the social sciences aren't really science because they're not as successful as the natural sciences. It's a check even if it's not a great one. James Madison did say, "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I don't know. I was just filling him in on the current situation. We'll have to wait and see. But it is the case that parts of the UCMJ have been found to violate the constitution in the past.

The military always gets an inconsistent treatment.

That's like saying the social sciences aren't really science because they're not as successful as the natural sciences. It's a check even if it's not a great one. James Madison did say, "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

Social science isn't science because it fails to make models with falsifiable predictions.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Social science isn't science because it fails to make models with falsifiable predictions.

Says Karl Popper, et al. The idea that falsifiability is necessary for science has plenty of critics. But that's neither here nor there. You may not like the analogy but I think you understand what I was getting at?

[Kentl]

I’ll be the first to say I don’t understand this at all, then gain I don’t understand why any one fights over any of this, It never solves anything,
first off
this is a repeat of any discrimination in history, women, balcks, jews it gose on and on, it will end the same some time in the future they will be accepted.
2nd off if your talking form a Christin point of vein then we should not say slavery is wrong
3rd THERE IS NO PROBLEM HERE
every one is just making their own drama (and they say teens do this? we got nothing on adults)


first it is not a sin to be homosexual only to act upon it
this says don't do it where we can catch you (which will stop some but not all)

2nd of they are not lying about it
because they are not ASKED



there is no immoral thing here
its not saying lie
its saying we will respcet your privacy


some can say not telling is a lie
but thats a whole noter topic




as for it being unconstitutional, well i got not say in that you got no say
why argue about it?

//end rant

[Demon_Hunter]

Nothing you just said makes any rational sense.

I'm really tired, and have to wake up in 3 hours, so I won't bother explaining. In short, unbiblical, irrational, and to the last point, just plain wrong.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

Nothing you just said makes any rational sense.

I'm really tired, and have to wake up in 3 hours, so I won't bother explaining. In short, unbiblical, irrational, and to the last point, just plain wrong.

Actually, I am interested in seeing some of this play out. Kentl asked some valid questions, especially coming from a teenager. Our youth sometimes have a unique perspective. We should honor that. Not everyone in today's society understands DADT, or gay issues in general. I'm not sure that I do.

Originally Posted by Bryan

Now DADT means that nobody will ask if you are gay. It doesn't give you the liberty to be gay though.

This is what we are really talking about. In my earlier post, I asked what was wrong with DADT. Some have provided clarification on that question. But I'm still not sure. We are really talking about being openly gay. Of the handful of gay friends I have, none of them discuss their sexuality. In one case I know they are gay because they are in a lifelong partnership and there are small but obvious signs of homosexuality in their home. We never discuss sexuality. In another instance, a third party told me the person was gay (which was gossip).

I have never had the opportunity to know or even speak with someone who is openly gay to ask why they must be openly gay. As a rule, I don't ask peple what they do in the bedroom. I don't discuss what I do in the bedrom with anyone. I realize there are some rights or benefits that require coming out in order to achieve, such as healthcare, tax benefits, hospital visitation, etc. Am I just naive? I would be interested in some more thoughts others may have on this.

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter

Nothing you just said makes any rational sense.

I'm really tired, and have to wake up in 3 hours, so I won't bother explaining. In short, unbiblical, irrational, and to the last point, just plain wrong.

#1 not unbiblical (take it up with bill if you want he has said it many times him self)
#2 not irrational, I just know that this dose not say “hey its okay to lie!” it says as it stats
Don’t ask don’t tell
how is that not iratnoal?
its not saying
"if we ask lie"
so maybe your the one being irrational?
#3 I can understand if you are tired but if you really don’t say HOW any of these are wrong then .yeah im sorry but that’s just like me saying
“lol your still wrong”
so yeah... I'll wait for you to reply better tomorrow

it made sense
(I've got UC's saying it did, so maybe its just becuse your tired)

it may be that your tired but it made perfect sense
please repost when your not tired and then will talk
as for plan wrong
i know your tired
but last i checked the supreme court says what is and what is not unconstitutional
so im not sure what your trying to say, unles you got us both elected to the SC without telling me