Don't Ask; Don't Tell Repeal Blocked

[McTahr]

Originally Posted by Premmy

See, now, you're arguing the wrong thing, you seem to think I'm saying
"gay folks have special gay-psychic powers that predict the future as it pertains to gay stuff"
When I'm saying
"It's up to gay people to decide what will make things better or worse for them as a whole because it effects them, is about them, and really is none of your business unless you plan on doing things that THEY want you to do."
to wit this

might be more important to THEM than something else so the
"if we get rid of DADT it'll be WORSE for the gays"
argument is you, being a presumptuous ass and acting like you have special straight psychic powers that let you predict the needs and desires of gay people because you know so much.

They're uh, not exactly straight psychic powers.

What I'm saying is that as a bisexual person myself, (Hey! I'm like halfway in between both crowds anyway!) I still think it is ridiculous to place the task of prediction in the hands of any untrained individual.

Obviously, yes, the decision ultimately weighs heavier on them, but in the sciences, regardless of who the decision affects, the same scientific method should be used. It's definitely ridiculous for a straight layman to claim the right of speculation, but in terms of safety and qualitative predictions? A layman's a layman.

I mean, defaulting to a situation of absolutely no trained individuals or scientists, it's pretty much the concern of gays and gays alone, just like blah blah abortion and women. I'm not arguing that, obviously.

[Fifthfiend]

Now I'm getting the urge to start writing about intersectionality NO, FUCK YOU BRAIN, YOU ARE NOT GONNA GET ME STARTED ON THAT SHIT *beats with rubber hose* whew, put a stop to that.

[Premmy]

What I'm saying is that as a bisexual person myself, (Hey! I'm like halfway in between both crowds anyway!)

In the eyes of the rest of society, particularly the people in charge of all this, you're firmly in the gay boat cause you dick guy butts/ rub vaginas you want to etch out your own space? that's another, though very similar problem.

I still think it is ridiculous to place the task of prediction in the hands of any untrained individual.

Even a trained individual should at least consult people of the group the issue effects(professionals/experts or otherwise) to a signifigant degree. The idea of an all-straight gay rights movement makes me very itchy.

"We don't need these people to tell us what they want, we'll TELL em what they want"

[McTahr]

Originally Posted by Premmy

In the eyes of the rest of society, particularly the people in charge of all this, you're firmly in the gay boat cause you dick guy butts/ rub vaginas you want to etch out your own space? that's another, though very similar problem.

We live in a society where you can land in the gay boat because you dress nicely. We've got us some problems.

Originally Posted by Premmy

Even a trained individual should at least consult people of the group the issue effects(professionals/experts or otherwise) to a signifigant degree. The idea of an all-straight gay rights movement makes me very itchy.

"We don't need these people to tell us what they want, we'll TELL em what they want"

Oh, they should definitely consult the gay community in this. I mean come on, that's just an assumed part of gathering the data.

And what if the social scientist is gay? I'm just saying that from an ideal scientific perspective, it shouldn't necessarily matter. In real life it can and will matter, but ideally it shouldn't.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Yes, I too find it very offensive when people point out statements that are offensive. Using terminology which indicates the nature of the offense given, no less! What an offensive thing to do.

Oh yes, because expressing concern about the ramifications of repealing DADT without also dealing with the relevant portions of the UCMJ is such an offensive statement. It entirely deserved dismissal as "Your opinion and attempts to explain such are based solely on the fact that you believe you know better than me, because you are heterosexual, and not based on any legitimate source."

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by McTahr

Oh, they should definitely consult the gay community in this. I mean come on, that's just an assumed part of gathering the data.

You would THINK that, but it isn't the case often enough for a word to exist to describe it

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Oh yes, because expressing concern about the ramifications of repealing DADT without also dealing with the relevant portions of the UCMJ is such an offensive statement. It entirely deserved dismissal as "Your opinion and attempts to explain such are based solely on the fact that you believe you know better than me, because you are heterosexual, and not based on any legitimate source."

Thank you for dropping the "I am offended!" bit and just arguing with Nonsie's taking of offense as the latter is actually a lot more honest and less awful than the former.

And actually in that regard, yes, Bluesy's concern as he expressed it pretty much were and are baseless and indeed offensively so for reasons I already spent a whole lot of this thread explaining to him. There literally is no grounds to worry about "the relevant portions of the UCMJ", it is some shit that is completely made up out of nothing here in this thread, derived from nowhere, with no meaning whatsoever, it has repeatedly been responded to and it is unbelievable that you are still at this point bringing it up as it if isn't all of those things.

EDIT: Seriously if somebody has any resource, anywhere, that even sort-of shows that there is some hidden super-serket section of the UCMJ which bars gays from serving that somehow isn't overturned by the judge's ruling finding that it is unconstitutional for DADT - a term used in reference to those applicable parts of federal law which presently prevent gays from serving - to prevent gays from serving: Please share this resource, because the only evidence I've ever seen or heard of anywhere in the world that this is the case is people repeatedly claiming that it its the case here in this thread, based on no evidence that it is the case, in the face of all evidence that it is not the case, seriously this is the fucking stupidest shit I have ever seen.

EDIT: Like I would actually prefer it even if this is coming from like Free Republic or Newsmax or somewhere because that would at least mean that NPF hasn't graduated to spawning its own ridiculous fact-free right-wing memes.

[McTahr]

UCMJ Sec. 925, Art. 125. deals with Sodomy and it states, “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.”

Manual for Courts Martial The MCM gives the following explanation of Article 125:

c. Explanation. It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

MCM section 925 Article 125 regarding Sodomy explicitly defines anything but penis vagina sex as an offense worthy of a court martial. This does not explicitly apply to gays. Even oral sex with yer god fearin' wifey is enough for a court martial.

Link (Page 378 or search "unnatural carnal copulation" because that's how I start all my searches!)

This says nothing about homosexuals specifically and as such doesn't necessarily demand any direct alterations given a DADT repeal.

Edit: It's my assumption that this is what people are talking about Re: UCMJ still being an issue. But to be completely honest here, it's pretty much a non-enforced, practically forgotten section of the code, because you don't really hear about people getting court martial'd because they had oral sex with their wife. Basically it's the same thing as say, trying to enforce the crazy Leviticus anti-gay portions, but not enforcing all the other crazy parts.

Edit edit: Of course, if you look at Lawrence v. Texas, which involved Texas' own sodomy law getting shot down, and where a constitutional protection of sexual privacy was given precedent, then really, the UCMJ MCM section 925 article 125 should, reasonably, be considered unconstitutional as well. But hey, "our soldiers have to be" blah blah excuses. Really the whole thing is ridiculous.

Link

[Nikose Tyris]

@Fifth:
Department of Defense Directive, explicitly stating that Homosexuals will not be asked if they are homosexual [AkA Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Enacted 1994] in E1.2.8.1.

However, below, a seperate entry in the Department of Defense Directive, in E1.2.8.2 states "Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry into the Armed Forces, except as otherwise provided in this section."
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd...3/d130426p.pdf

To summarize: DADT is section E1.2.8 of this document.

These acts in the UCMJ would come into effect:
"§ 925. Art. 125. Sodomy: (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...5----000-.html

Not directly related but tied to it, are false entry to the military, aka "§ 884. Art. 84. Unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation". "Any person subject to this chapter who effects an enlistment or appointment in or a separation from the armed forces of any person who is known to him to be ineligible for that enlistment, appointment, or separation because it is prohibited by law, regulation, or order shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...4----000-.html

These two are fairly big. If DADT is removed without direct alteration to these, then without cause everyone could be investigated. Anyone found violating 884 art. 84 gets court-martialed for 'lying regarding entrance' if they were asked at any point if they were gay and lied.

925 art. 125 only comes in if you want to have something other then missionary position sex with your hetero partner while enlisted.

This is two things that respond. It's not "you're gay? court-martial." It's "Oh, you had gay sex while in the military, court martial." I am only a first year law student- and for Canadian law at that- but I believe this counts Shore Leave as well.

There's more. I said I would be going to bed, but I stopped at NPF one more time and saw your post, Fifth- I thought I'd answer it earnestly. Did that answer your question? This should qualify as "This is DADT, and these are things that are not DADT that would still exist after the removal of DADT."

Summary:

DADT ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO GO. It should be gone RIGHT NOW. It should never have BEEN. It was not a solution; it was claimed as a solution BY Heterohomophobes who THOUGHT they were doing people a favor. There is nothing good about DADT.

THE UCMJ ALSO NEEDS TO BE FIXED. The articles I listed aren't the only ones that apply. Feel free to browse for more, that website is full of military laws and links, and you might find some interesting shit. It repeats a lot of the core laws of America with reference to more detailed punishments, or alternate process for punishment for soldiers.


Did that answer your question, fifth? Or, if I your question wrong and you were asking "Who says the Judge didn't have this power?" That would be the "due process of law for setting precident in the American Court system - which (arguably) does not have the power to affect Miltary law- it is written to affect only "The Common Law, Statute Law...by the... due course, and process of law.."". Whereas Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution says that all Military Law is in the hands of Congress, and not the standard Judicial system.

This can be bypassed by setting a precedent that would make the military law unconstitutional, since that cannot be bypassed.

So, if THAT was your question, did I answer that successfully?


...more tomorrow, I'm going to bed.

[Kim]

The problem that I keep explaining is that you have these people who claim to be gay allies, and they say that DADT is the only thing protecting us from the UCMJ and being treated like shit in the military. This is things I have seen people state in this thread, and it is dumb as fuck. I will now point out problems with that argument.

Problem - DADT doesn't actually do that. It just lets people who don't know any better pretend that they've done something, however small, to protect the gays.

Problem - The Don't Ask part of DADT is completely ignored when some jerkass wants to find out if one of the people is gay and they actively try and find that out.

Problem - DADT doesn't just keep gays from being open in the military. If someone outside the military who knows you're gay gets pissed off and tells someone in the military, you can still be discharged. That is a thing that has happened.

Problem - DADT being repealed doesn't send out a psychic wave that makes every gay in the military come out of the closet. If they still do not feel it's safe to come out, then they will not come out. Even if they ask "Are you gay?", you can lie. Any claims that they'll try and find out are pointless because they're trying to find out already.

Problem - So long as DADT is in place, it's going to be really hard to get rid of these other laws. Yes, it would be fine and dandy if we could magically get rid of them all at once, but that's not how it works. That's not how it's worked with any other civil rights movement ever, and that's not how it's going to work here. It's going to be a long painful fight, and one of the steps is getting rid of DADT.

These things have been pointed out, not just in this thread, but other DADT threads before it. You still get the same arguments from people like Blues and Nik who think DADT is in our best interest until those other laws are gone, but that's not how it works. Every time it's pointed out that that's not how it works, and explained the ways in which that is not how it works, there is never an actual response. They ignore it for a while, and then repeat the same arguments.

I am sick and tired of hearing straight people tell me what's best for gay people while ignoring the arguments coming from gay people, and yes it does matter that the gay people are the ones making these arguments because we're the ones being oppressed. As such, I am going to use phrases like straightsplaining and hetsplaining because that is an accurate description of what you people are doing and it's frustrating as hell.