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

[azbadpuppy]

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?

If by 'just fine' you mean a sizeable percentage of the armed forces had to (and still does) do their jobs pretending to be someone they aren't, and are basically living a lie for fear of losing their career, then yes.

And the whole point of repealing DADT is so sexual identity will NOT be an issue- for anyone. BTW, it's not the gays that are making sexuality such a big deal. 

[guido911]

I don't recall that I said those who spoke out against the mosque were "intolerant, bigoted, or islamaphobic" - they are - but they have the same right to speak their minds as you, me, or Lady Gaga.  Mind you, I said the same right, not superior or inferior despite their apparent ignorance of American history.  

Pity?  I should feel pity for someone exercising their rights?  That's a new one.

"Pity" was perhaps not the best word when I meant "understanding" for the free speech rights of others. But it doesn't matter given that in the context of the mosque those wanting relocation were ipso facto bigots.

So if those folks wanting the mosque moved were intolerant, et. al., wouldn't Gaga be intolerant and bigoted as to the perhaps religious motives by those opposing gay rights?  And on the subject of intolerance and bigotry, funny that we don't hear Gaga, you, or any others demanding that women (as opposed to men) be required to register with the selective service (or risk loss of college assistance) or serve a more equal combat role. Now why is that? You must be anti-man.

[guido911]

If by 'just fine' you mean a sizeable percentage of the armed forces had to (and still does) do their jobs pretending to be someone they aren't, and are basically living a lie for fear of losing their career, then yes.

And the whole point of repealing DADT is so sexual identity will NOT be an issue- for anyone. BTW, it's not the gays that are making sexuality such a big deal. 

Is there a distinction between sexual "orientation" and sexual "identity". If so, how do transgenders fit into either of those definitions? Seriously curious, because those having had a "sex change" from female to male, just like women, do not have to register for the selective service. Are the DADT repealer crowd demanding that female to male transgendered be required by law and under penalty (such as the aforementioned loss of college benefits) to register? I don't know.

[azbadpuppy]

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.

There is a huge difference between being exempt from having to register for the draft, and being flat out denied from willfully serving your country based solely on your sexual preference. Last I checked, women (or at least the straight ones) were still allowed to serve.

[azbadpuppy]

Is there a distinction between sexual "orientation" and sexual "identity". If so, how do transgenders fit into either of those definitions? Seriously curious, because those having had a "sex change" from female to male, just like women, do not have to register for the selective service. Are the DADT repealer crowd demanding that female to male transgendered be required by law and under penalty (such as the aforementioned loss of college benefits) to register? I don't know.

There is definitely a difference between sexual preference, and gender identity, as the two are completely unrelated.  I personally believe that anyone who is physically and mentally willing and able to fight and die for our country should have the right to do so.

Edited to add that you bring up a good point in that the transgendered persons are even less understood by the so-called mainstream than the gays. Really though, they are just people who feel they were born the wrong sex and identify with either being a male or female, and could either be gay or straight, since gender identity isn't related to who you are attracted to sexually. So actually, you could have transgendered 'straight' people that could technically serve right now, and I think that anyone who identifies as being a male should be required to abide by the selective service laws, even though they would undoubtedly be denied for being 'homosexual' even though they may not be.

[guido911]

There is a huge difference between being exempt from having to register for the draft, and being flat out denied from willfully serving your country based solely on your sexual preference. Last I checked, women (or at least the straight ones) were still allowed to serve.

Oh come freakin on. If you are woman or a female to male transgendered you cannot be forced at the barrel of a gun to serve at a time of war in a combat role. There are even more examples of rampant "discriminatory" decisions the military makes every day, yet we do not hear you or others demanding equality shouting loudly.

For the record, I actually support repeal of DADT because I simply do not think mission effectiveness is compromised--although admittedly I am no expert. I am someone who has "been there/done that" in the Army and AF.

[azbadpuppy]

Oh come freakin on. If you are woman or a female to male transgendered you cannot be forced at the barrel of a gun to serve at a time of war in a combat role. There are even more examples of rampant "discriminatory" decisions the military makes every day, yet we do not hear you or others demanding equality shouting loudly.

For the record, I actually support repeal of DADT because I simply do not think mission effectiveness is compromised--although admittedly I am no expert. I am someone who has "been there/done that" in the Army and AF.

And for the record, I don't think gender should play a role whatsoever in the military, whether it be selective service or any other aspect. I understand where the outdated logic comes from, but I don't agree with it.

Not requiring women to register is still a very different issue than flat out denying people who want to serve based on a prejudice against their sexuality. Doesn't even compare. Women are still able to run out and sign up anytime they want. Gays are not.

[Townsend]

For the record, I actually support repeal of DADT because I simply do not think mission effectiveness is compromised--although admittedly I am no expert. I am someone who has "been there/done that" in the Army and AF.

Ha...wait, what?

[guido911]

Not drafting women during wartime is still a very different issue than flat out denying people who want to serve based on a prejudice against their sexuality. Doesn't even compare.

Tell that to the nearly 100,000 men who fled to Canada during the Vietnam war about how it compares. Or the thousands of draftees that died/grievously wounded during that war while women and any others that were not drafted were left unharmed.

[azbadpuppy]

Tell that to the nearly 100,000 men who fled to Canada during the Vietnam war about how it compares. Or the thousands of draftees that died/grievously wounded during that war while women and any others that were not drafted were left unharmed.

Hey, if women want to get together and protest to get the laws changed so they are included in the draft process, then more power to them!

I could be wrong, but I really don't think many women feel that their constitutional rights are being stomped on by not having to register for the draft. I'm pretty sure in this case most women feel damn lucky to have a uterus.

[guido911]

I could be wrong, but I really don't think many women feel that their constitutional rights are being stomped on by not having to register for the draft. I'm pretty sure in this case most women feel damn lucky to have a uterus.

Man you better duck and cover, and I mean in a real hurry.

[azbadpuppy]

Man you better duck and cover, and I mean in a real hurry.

If there actually are any women on this forum, I would love for them to chime in on this one.

[swake]

This sounds much like the admonition to the Dixie Chicks when they criticized Bush II - "Shut up and sing!"

Lady Gaga is merely exercising her constitutional right to criticize the government, something we all do here everyday.  She just has a bigger stage. 

You misunderstand. I am for the repeal of the law. I just can't stand her fake self aggrandizing persona.

[Ed W]

"Pity" was perhaps not the best word when I meant "understanding" for the free speech rights of others. But it doesn't matter given that in the context of the mosque those wanting relocation were ipso facto bigots.

So if those folks wanting the mosque moved were intolerant, et. al., wouldn't Gaga be intolerant and bigoted as to the perhaps religious motives by those opposing gay rights?  And on the subject of intolerance and bigotry, funny that we don't hear Gaga, you, or any others demanding that women (as opposed to men) be required to register with the selective service (or risk loss of college assistance) or serve a more equal combat role. Now why is that? You must be anti-man.

It's heartening that even you can recognize the inherent bigotry in the anti-Muslim, anti-mosque protesters.  But the sleight of hand won't work.  The topic was and remains on free speech.  You, me, and Lady Gaga all have the same right to speak our minds, just as those benighted anti-mosque protesters do or the kids who protest the G8 (or is it G9 talks?).  You can stand on any street corner and burn a Koran, a Bible, an old Sears catalog, or that photo of Sarah Palin you keep by the bedside.  (I'm guessing, of course.)  That is your right, just as it's equally mine.  But bigotry comes into the picture - as you know - when one person or group believes their ideas are the truth, and they believe it's necessary to suppress any other ideas that are contradictory.  So bigotry is rooted in intolerance.  So it's reasonable, then, to say that speaking out about gay rights, DADT, Muslims, or mosques isn't by itself an indication of bigotry unless that speech is meant to suppress or deprive others of their rights.