I Feel A WHOLE Lot Better...Lady Gaga Chimes In On Don't Ask Don't Tell

[Conan71]

Nice, glad to see the Lady has added her .02 worth.  Personally, I think it's shameful they attached it to the next defense appropriations bill.  I'm sick and tired of the bullshit tricks Repugs & Dims keep playing with legislation by attaching pretty much un-related issues to important bills so they can have a "gotcha" factor.  "Senator Blowhard voted against clean underwear for Sr. Citizens".  Nevermind that amendment was stuck in an appropriations bill for dog brothels.

"Pop star Lady Gaga led a political rally in favor of repeal in Maine on Monday. The state is home to the two Republican senators — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins — seen as most likely to side with Democrats on the issue. Lady Gaga said it was unjust to have goodhearted gay soldiers booted from military service while straight soldiers who harbor hatred toward gays are allowed to fight for their country.

She suggested a new policy should target straight soldiers who are "uncomfortable" with gay soldiers in their midst.

"Our new law is called 'If you don't like it, go home!'" she said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100921/ap_on_go_co/us_gays_military

"Send home the straight soldier who hates the gay soldier..."   

Didn't our military operate just fine prior to President Clinton weighing in with "Don't ask don't tell"?  Why should anyone in the military want their sexual identity to be an issue in the first place?

[swake]

Didn't our military operate just fine prior to President Clinton weighing in with "Don't ask don't tell"?  Why should anyone in the military want their sexual identity to be an issue in the first place?

Before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gays were specifically always banned from the military.  "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was intended as a way to allow gays to serve so long as they didn't tell anyone they were gay.

[Conan71]

Before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gays were specifically always banned from the military.  "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was intended as a way to allow gays to serve so long as they didn't tell anyone they were gay.

Are you seriously trying to imply gays didn't serve before that?

How many gays do you think were turned away before the legislation as opposed to after?  All DADT did was put into writing what had gone on for 200+ years in the American Armed Forces.

[we vs us]

Are you seriously trying to imply gays didn't serve before that?

How many gays do you think were turned away before the legislation as opposed to after?  All DADT did was put into writing what had gone on for 200+ years in the American Armed Forces.

Except that if someone found out you were gay, you could be discharged for that reason alone.

In other words, if someone saw you out at Chili's eating dinner with your partner and reported you, you could be tossed.  Which is, in essence, the equivalent of getting fired.  And which, when based on sexuality, is discriminatory.  

[guido911]

Except that if someone found out you were gay, you could be discharged for that reason alone.

In other words, if someone saw you out at Chili's eating dinner with your partner and reported you, you could be tossed.  Which is, in essence, the equivalent of getting fired.  And which, when based on sexuality, is discriminatory.  

There are so many things that are "discriminatory" in our military your point is silly. Let's start with who is exempt from registering with the Selective Service.

[we vs us]

There are so many things that are "discriminatory" in our military your point is silly. Let's start with who is exempt from registering with the Selective Service.

Who's exempt?  I honestly don't know. 

But I don't think it matters in the larger scheme of things.  DADT is still enshrining discrimination for no other reason than for sexuality. Not for physical or mental readiness, or ability.  These are people who serve perfectly well, except for the fact that they're gay. 

[Cats Cats Cats]

Who's exempt?  I honestly don't know. 

But I don't think it matters in the larger scheme of things.  DADT is still enshrining discrimination for no other reason than for sexuality. Not for physical or mental readiness, or ability.  These are people who serve perfectly well, except for the fact that they're gay. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html

[guido911]

Who's exempt?  I honestly don't know. 

But I don't think it matters in the larger scheme of things.  DADT is still enshrining discrimination for no other reason than for sexuality. Not for physical or mental readiness, or ability.  These are people who serve perfectly well, except for the fact that they're gay. 

As for who is eligible, google "Selective Service". Jeez

[we vs us]

As for who is eligible, google "Selective Service". Jeez

I'm not gonna google to support your argument.  Post it yourself or move on.

[Conan71]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html

The usual perp walk.

They violated military policy and spoke about their sexual orientation over a military instant chat system.

People need to quit thinking of the military as being some sort of "employer" which operates within the norms of society.  The armed forces necessarily operate under a different rules and decorum.

[guido911]

I'm not gonna google to support your argument.  Post it yourself or move on.

Hey bud, you started this "discriminatory" crap and I smacked it down. If you do not want to learn something about how the military conducts itself, and insist on burying your head in sand, so be it.

[Red Arrow]

I remember something from bootcamp about the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) replacing your Constitutional Rights.

[we vs us]

The usual perp walk.

They violated military policy and spoke about their sexual orientation over a military instant chat system.

People need to quit thinking of the military as being some sort of "employer" which operates within the norms of society.  The armed forces necessarily operate under a different rules and decorum.

But the military policy is discriminatory.  The military IS both an employer, and also the Federal Government, both of whom cannot (or should not discriminate).  

I agree that the military should be treated in some cases as a special entity, but not in all cases.  In cases where essential readiness is under threat, I'm much more open to fudging the rules.  But the fact that DADT exists is a de facto admission by the armed forces that accepting soldiers of all sexual orientations doesn't affect combat readiness.  

And it doesn't affect readiness.  cf. Iraq, Afghanistan, the GWOT.  We've been more militarized in the last decade than we have since Vietnam, and the functioning of the military, I think everyone would agree, has been excellent and not degraded by the secretly gay troops in our military.  

[we vs us]

Hey bud, you started this "discriminatory" crap and I smacked it down. If you do not want to learn something about how the military conducts itself, and insist on burying your head in sand, so be it.

You didn't smack anything down.  If you want to argue or discuss or debate, support your case.  If you can't be bothered to post your argument, then what are you doing here?

[guido911]

If you can't be bothered to post your argument, then what are you doing here?

Right now, I'm laughing at you.