Don't Ask; Don't Tell Repeal Blocked

[Nikose Tyris]

@POS: Everything is correct, with one addition: GLBT have no standing in the constitution against harrassment right now. The 14th Amendment fails to detail them as equal human beings. It could be implied from it, and the appeal process could hammer that home and set that precedent.

Realistically, no, we all know that's not going to happen. But that IS the heart of the matter and the outcome I want to SEE come of this.

DADT is bullshit. UCMJ needs an overhaul for rights. As does the Constitution. Win with the Constitution on a federal level, and you kick the boulder rolling for all gay rights, toppling Roe v. Wade while you're at it, just in a backhanded manner.


@Premmy: ...wouldn't that mean that only a gay soldier would be in that boat? or is this open to anyone that would be discriminated against because of sexuality? Because if so, hey, how ya doin'?

[McTahr]

Originally Posted by Premmy

Only some gays?

Ha, no. It's like saying "I'm all for some boss chili", but you already knew that I assume.

To be honest on your other point though, the only people who could reliably be offering any kind of prediction on the UCMJ situation are scientists in that field, not just generic straights or homosexuals. I mean, it's like saying that the layman has more insight into some arbitrary scientific errata just because of their orientation. The only people I'd be trusting to make an accurate prediction would be sociological/law-type scientists or whatever they call themselves.

Regardless of that, though, repealing DADT does force the issue of UCMJ, which speeds up the process of removing a hateful, bigoted practice that shouldn't exist in this modern era.

[Nique]

Also, "straightsplain"? I'm trying to figure out what that could mean, that isn't offensive.

Oh man. 'Gaysplaining' and 'Straightsplaining' are totally going on my list of incredible... I mean incredilicious, made up words.

[Loyal]

I think the ancient Greeks, or somesuch in that time period, were pretty big on gay soldiers.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Ryanderman

Also, "straightsplain"? I'm trying to figure out what that could mean, that isn't offensive.

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.

Originally Posted by Nikose Tyris

toppling Roe v. Wade while you're at it, just in a backhanded manner.

Wait, what?

[Nikose Tyris]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Wait, what?

Nevermind- I got that one SO TOTALLY WRONG it's not even funny. I completely mixed up court cases in my head. Forgive me, it's midterm week and I have to memorize like fuckin' 80 of these things. Right now I could fuck up Irwin Toy v. Quebec. >.<

[Fifthfiend]

I was like...

If you were seriously taking this thread and adding abortion to it, I was about ready to fly from rooftop to rooftop collecting torsos.

[Premmy]

wouldn't that mean that only a gay soldier would be in that boat? or is this open to anyone that would be discriminated against because of sexuality? Because if so, hey, how ya doin'?

Depends on whether you view it purely as a LGBT soldier issue or a general queer issue

To be honest on your other point though, the only people who could reliably be offering any kind of prediction on the UCMJ situation are scientists in that field, not just generic straights or homosexuals. I mean, it's like saying that the layman has more insight into some arbitrary scientific errata just because of their orientation. The only people I'd be trusting to make an accurate prediction would be sociological/law-type scientists or whatever they call themselves.

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

Regardless of that, though, repealing DADT does force the issue of UCMJ, which speeds up the process of removing a hateful, bigoted practice that shouldn't exist in this modern era.

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 an example of 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.

I call it "Spankmouth" because

Originally Posted by MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

"This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" and all that

[Fifthfiend]

I kind of feel like writing up a quick history of "mansplaining" and the evolution of its usage and then how this transitions into the use of its derived forms (whitesplaining, straightsplaining) and how all of this relates to issues of priviledge and ingrained societal biases and assumptions and how they are demonstrated here in this thread WHOA WAIT no okay the impulse passed, thank christ

[Nikose Tyris]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

I was like...

If you were seriously taking this thread and adding abortion to it, I was about ready to fly from rooftop to rooftop collecting torsos.

Also can we please exclude me from the "lol homophobe" comments now? And can I summarize my viewpoints since I never actually voiced them in the thread except to correct Blues idea of how the law worked?

"Awesome, DADT got repealed- wait, shit, are they going to change anything substantial or just the wet blanket overtop of it? CAN they change it?"

"Oh fuck, they might not be able to actually change it directly, unless it's a constitutional right. Do gays have constitutional rights?"

"The vast majority are saying No, they don't have direct anti-discrimination rights, but do have everything else."

"having talked to a law professional it looks like this could actually be awesome AND set the double precedent that gays ARE equal!"

"FUCK YOU APPEAL PROCESS."

"Fucking appeal. Best case scenario is that it sets the legal precedent that gays can't be discriminated against- which means all at once the USMJ must be addressed, Gay marriage gets a universal A-OK instead of being State Constitution based! Woo, the shit I've been fighting for since before Nonsy stepped out of the closet."

"That's obviously not going to happen. I'm just not going to participate in the thread and stick to Facebook for my thoughts on this as best I can."

"Oops, Blues posted some of my thoughts from facebook but didn't grasp all of them, I better jump in and correct them."

"Oh look I just got called a homophobe. Kinda dick."


Apparently my biggest flaw has been posting the words: "repealing DADT will do more harm then good", which I suppose is true if you don't read the rest of everything I said, which was "A full repeal, including removing the statute that homosexuality is illegal under military law needs to come first, or at the same time." Because removing something that does nothing at all (no seriously, they still ask even though they're not supposed to, they still prosecute and expel, it's fucking worthless, even for it's halfhearted hetero "I'm helping!" homophobic implimentation) isn't helping. That's why I was so excited at the fact the laws ARE being changed with this.

Turns out that's the entire basis for everyone telling me I'm a homophobe. Can people read the entire context of it and stop arguing with someone who AGREES with you?