National Guard: Gay Iraq veteran must leave service

[Enadail]

The decision doesn't impose a test on the military. It leaves the military to determine what disrupts cohesiveness.

Yah, but that still doesn't show that cohesiveness has been disrupted. A military leader can't impose policy just because they want to, there still has to be reasoning involved.

The Japanese were in separate Units in WWII?

I might be remembering my history wrong, but I do believe at least in the beginning they weren't allowed to fight, and were slowly allowed back into certain squads. I could be wrong though.

[The South Islands]

The decision doesn't impose a test on the military. It leaves the military to determine what disrupts cohesiveness.

Yah, but that still doesn't show that cohesiveness has been disrupted. A military leader can't impose policy just because they want to, there still has to be reasoning involved.

The Japanese were in separate Units in WWII?

I might be remembering my history wrong, but I do believe at least in the beginning they weren't allowed to fight, and were slowly allowed back into certain squads. I could be wrong though.

The military evidently believes that it is a legit argument. And there isn't any recourse. The military has the right to do this, which is what I'm trying to communicate.

And the claim that it "disrupts cohesion" is just made-up crap anyway. The argument is not valid. It won't ever become valid through repetition. Just a FYI, South Islands.

In your opinion.

Whatever your opinion may be, the military believes you to be wrong, and they have a legal policy not allowing gays to serve. Moral wrongness does not outweigh the Law.

[Phenia]

In your opinion.

Whatever your opinion may be, the military believes you to be wrong

Oh, I didn't realize I was arguing with "the military." My bad, I didn't see you were an opinionless faceless authority I am not allowed to disagree with and who holds no actual opinion! You fooled me by not wearing millions of uniforms.

, and they have a legal policy not allowing gays to serve. Moral wrongness does not outweigh the Law.

Oh it doesn't? So if the Law were to decide, hypothetically of course, that all Jews should go proceed to the nearest happy camps and that they are now stripped of all their rights - there's no recourse here, it's just my opinion and there is no argument that outweighs this?

Let's say the Law were to decide slavery was just dandy? I better not argue there. There's no recourse, the Law has that right!

What a bunch of weak-kneed garbage.

[Enadail]

The military evidently believes that it is a legit argument. And there isn't any recourse. The military has the right to do this, which is what I'm trying to communicate.

...

Whatever your opinion may be, the military believes you to be wrong, and they have a legal policy not allowing gays to serve. Moral wrongness does not outweigh the Law.

No ones arguing the military's right nor the weight of the law. What's being argued is the morality of the law and why its been tolerated so long.

And while the military has the right to do it, the military should not be doing it. And Obama should sign the executive order now. We're supposed to be the land of the free, among the most progressive nations in the world. Lets live up to our standards and stop discriminating.

And by the way, the cohesiveness stuff is crap. Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Romania, United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Uruguay are among the countries where gay/lesbian soldiers are not treated any differently, and none of these countries' armies have weakened because of it. In fact, Israel remains among the best in the world through it.

[The South Islands]

Oh, I didn't realize I was arguing with "the military." My bad, I didn't see you were an opinionless faceless authority I am not allowed to disagree with and who holds no actual opinion! You fooled me by not wearing millions of uniforms.

I'm not the military. I didn't put this policy in place. Evidently the military thinks (rightly or wrongly) that gays do indeed detract from the military. And, since I am not a part of the military, I lack the knowledge to determine if gays do really detract from morale etc. I would think not, but in the abscence of additional information, I cannot weigh my own opinion highly.

Oh it doesn't? So if the Law were to decide, hypothetically of course, that all Jews should go proceed to the nearest happy camps and that they are now stripped of all their rights - there's no recourse here, it's just my opinion and there is no argument that outweighs this?

Let's say the Law were to decide slavery was just dandy? I better not argue there. There's no recourse, the Law has that right!

What a bunch of weak-kneed garbage.

When you enlist in the US military, you agree to abide by the UCMJ. Blacks in the South and Jews in Germany didn't have the option of opting out of Slavery or the Holocaust.

[Antilon]

Shouldn't we be directing any fault at Congress for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," seeing how its a federal law? I mean, the military is simply carrying out the order, it exactly didn't make the law of its accord...

[Enadail]

Shouldn't we be directing any fault at Congress for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," seeing how its a federal law? I mean, the military is simply carrying out the order, it exactly didn't make the law of its accord...

Sir, I would like to buy your product.

[The South Islands]

[
No ones arguing the military's right nor the weight of the law. What's being argued is the morality of the law and why its been tolerated so long.

And while the military has the right to do it, the military should not be doing it. And Obama should sign the executive order now. We're supposed to be the land of the free, among the most progressive nations in the world. Lets live up to our standards and stop discriminating.

And by the way, the cohesiveness stuff is crap. Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Romania, United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Uruguay are among the countries where gay/lesbian soldiers are not treated any differently, and none of these countries' armies have weakened because of it. In fact, Israel remains among the best in the world through it.

Obama can't sign an Executive Order "delawing" DADT. DADT was put in place by congress, and can only be taken down by congress. However, if Obama did want to use some rather creative governing, he could keep those in the process of being discharged in the military.

As far as the cohesiveness argument goes, logic would state that there really isn't any reason for gays not to serve.

[Phenia]

I'm not the military. I didn't put this policy in place. Evidently the military thinks (rightly or wrongly) that gays do indeed detract from the military. And, since I am not a part of the military, I lack the knowledge to determine if gays do really detract from morale etc. I would think not, but in the abscence of additional information, I cannot weigh my own opinion highly.

You're not the military. But you are defending this policy with half-assed rationalizations and it's a bit disingenuous of you to now claim not to have much opinion. I think you realized your opinion would get smashed so now you're trying to divorce yourself from the argument.

When you enlist in the US military, you agree to abide by the UCMJ. Blacks in the South and Jews in Germany didn't have the option of opting out of Slavery or the Holocaust.

Homosexuals in the military do not have the option of opting out of unjust, irrational and bigoted laws. Oh sure, they could just not be in the military, and Jews could have just not been in Germany...

[Enadail]

Obama can't sign an Executive Order "delawing" DADT. DADT was put in place by congress, and can only be taken down by congress. However, if Obama did want to use some rather creative governing, he could keep those in the process of being discharged in the military.

As far as the cohesiveness argument goes, logic would state that there really isn't any reason for gays not to serve.

Right... he could end the effect of DADT while he works with Congress to repeal it. Which is exactly what activists are calling for, since Obama said he would do exactly that.

[The South Islands]

I'm not the military. I didn't put this policy in place. Evidently the military thinks (rightly or wrongly) that gays do indeed detract from the military. And, since I am not a part of the military, I lack the knowledge to determine if gays do really detract from morale etc. I would think not, but in the abscence of additional information, I cannot weigh my own opinion highly.

You're not the military. But you are defending this policy with half-assed rationalizations and it's a bit disingenuous of you to now claim not to have much opinion. I think you realized your opinion would get smashed so now you're trying to divorce yourself from the argument.

And thats what the UCMJ is for, punishing servicemembers for acting in an unprofessional manner.

Being homosexual, in and of itself, is not unprofessional.

As stated here, I disagree with the DADT policy.

Homosexuals in the military do not have the option of opting out of unjust, irrational and bigoted laws. Oh sure, they could just not be in the military, and Jews could have just not been in Germany...

If they disagreed with the UCMJ, they certainly had the right not to enlist. In the US, military service is a privilege (for lack of a better term), not a right. However wrong DADT is, it is still law.

[The South Islands]

Obama can't sign an Executive Order "delawing" DADT. DADT was put in place by congress, and can only be taken down by congress. However, if Obama did want to use some rather creative governing, he could keep those in the process of being discharged in the military.

As far as the cohesiveness argument goes, logic would state that there really isn't any reason for gays not to serve.

Right... he could end the effect of DADT while he works with Congress to repeal it. Which is exactly what activists are calling for, since Obama said he would do exactly that.

It would require use of the rather smelly Stop-Loss provision in the enlistment contract. But certainly possible.

[Soheran]

Right... he could end the effect of DADT while he works with Congress to repeal it. Which is exactly what activists are calling for, since Obama said he would do exactly that.

Well, he said he would end it. He didn't say how.

The activists are calling for it because unlike a Congressional bill, it wouldn't require much time and energy--just, in Colbert's language, a stroke of the pen.

[Antilon]

Shouldn't we be directing any fault at Congress for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," seeing how its a federal law? I mean, the military is simply carrying out the order, it exactly didn't make the law of its accord...

Sir, I would like to buy your product.

???

[Enadail]

Shouldn't we be directing any fault at Congress for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," seeing how its a federal law? I mean, the military is simply carrying out the order, it exactly didn't make the law of its accord...

Sir, I would like to buy your product.

???

I forget where that's a meme from, but basically, +1, I support that statement.

[Blouman Empire]

Who gives a shit? If you(in general) can't deal with being near a gay man or woman then I suggest you retreat to a cave in the mountains, because gay people aren't going away and its wrong to expect them to hide their existence.

In regards to this policy should it not also be the case that a soldier gets kicked out if they admit to their hetrosexuality or bisexuality as well?

And it shouldn't be the law.

But it is the law and thus he should be kicked out. Is it right? No. Should this law be abolished? Yes.

[Capitalistliberals]

Moral wrongness does not outweigh the Law.

so i saw this while reading through this argument and i fell on the floor laughing for several minutes...
morality should always be greater than the law... for instance on your belief nazi germany was a completely just society or at the very least a legitimate one because hitler said killing jews is the law... think of the extremes of your argument bud... all tyrannical dictators are justified by your idea because they are the law.

now on to the actual debate. this is a dumb issue to be having since not a single person has been able to come up with a single good reason as to why gays hurt military effectiveness. we shouldn't exclude in so far as no one can come up for a legitimate reason as to why we should exclude gays. homophobia is not a answer if you have a problem with men and women being attracted to the same gender thats your problem not a reason to exclude military personnel. for instance our military is already stretched thin, are you seriously going to tell me your more afraid of two men kissing than the need for those two men on the battlefield to stop extremists from killing US citizens?

[The South Islands]

Moral wrongness does not outweigh the Law.

so i saw this while reading through this argument and i fell on the floor laughing for several minutes...
morality should always be greater than the law... for instance on your belief nazi germany was a completely just society or at the very least a legitimate one because hitler said killing jews is the law... think of the extremes of your argument bud... all tyrannical dictators are justified by your idea because they are the law.

So you called me a Nazi. Great way to start out a conversation. I love you too, hun.

One cannot simply disregard a law because one believes it is unjust. If that did happen, rule of law would be nigh worthless. Laws are written to be enforced uniformly, not on the whims of the enforcer.

So you are wrong. And a Godwinner. Congrads.

[Capitalistliberals]

you took my reply out of context. my argument isnt that you are a nazi but that your justifications legitimize hitler. furthermore uniformity of the law does not make a good society, i would say in so far as a law is immoral it can be attacked, just because a law comes into being doenst mean we should follow that law. resistance to state oppression begins with the rejection of unjust and immoral policies. furthermore i would take this one step further and say that all law should be constantly challenged as a way to maintain legitimacy, illegitimate laws create oppression and thus should be challenged.

[Capitalistliberals]

furthermore before this gets out of hand you misinterpreted my position. i do not advocate dis regarding the law i advocate challenging it.

[The South Islands]

you took my reply out of context. my argument isnt that you are a nazi but that your justifications legitimize hitler. furthermore uniformity of the law does not make a good society, i would say in so far as a law is immoral it can be attacked, just because a law comes into being doenst mean we should follow that law. resistance to state oppression begins with the rejection of unjust and immoral policies. furthermore i would take this one step further and say that all law should be constantly challenged as a way to maintain legitimacy, illegitimate laws create oppression and thus should be challenged.

Twice in one thread there has been a Godwin. Oh joy.

Uniformity of laws ensure justice. Without uniform application of the laws, we have no justice, only tyranny. If laws bring about unjustness, then they should be changed. Not unenforced on a whim by enforcers.

[Phenia]

If they disagreed with the UCMJ, they certainly had the right not to enlist.

One might as well say, 'If the Jews disagreed with the Nuremberg Laws, they certainly had the right to leave Germany.'

In the US, military service is a privilege (for lack of a better term), not a right. However wrong DADT is, it is still law.

As above, 'However wrong the Nuremberg Laws are, they are still Law.'

Notice how it doesn't sound like a good justification when I use it? Yeah it doesn't sound like a good justification when you do either.

[The South Islands]

If they disagreed with the UCMJ, they certainly had the right not to enlist.

One might as well say, 'If the Jews disagreed with the Nuremberg Laws, they certainly had the right to leave Germany.'

In the US, military service is a privilege (for lack of a better term), not a right. However wrong DADT is, it is still law.

As above, 'However wrong the Nuremberg Laws are, they are still Law.'

Notice how it doesn't sound like a good justification when I use it? Yeah it doesn't sound like a good justification when you do either.

*sigh*

Can you not understand the difference between applying for military service and being exterminated in gas chambers? They are two completely different situations in two completely different times.

[Antilon]

I forget where that's a meme from, but basically, +1, I support that statement.

Oh, well, that's good to know.

[The Del]

So basically what happened was that knowing what was going to happen this 1st Lt. decided to start all this havoc instead of waiting until his time was up and just rubbing it in everyone's faces that he was gay and did just as good of a job if not better than his straight counter parts? DADT is morally wrong and people should not be restricted to serving this nation based on which gender they get their jollys from. It is the law however, and the army had no choice in this matter other than carrying out the procedures in place for when this happens. Is it sad that it is occurring still in these "modern" times? Yes, but if you can't look to the military for an example of equal application of the law as it is written then to who are we to turn. Should this change? Yes, absolutely without a doubt but the fact remains that currently this is the military law as written and it should be followed as such. Yes, Obama had the chance to stop the discharge procedures on current military personnel while Congress reviews DADT, but he didn't. So should the Lt. be discharged? Morally and in all aspects of freedom here in this nation, no. In accordance with how the military laws are written and the fact that he knew what the consequences were when he decided to come out, then yes. The Lt. could have chosen a better course of action in my opinion, but I'm proud to know that he did what he thought was right. I just can't stress enough that the law is the law and regardless of how we feel it should be enforced until such a time it is seen fit to change said law. In this case, hopefully the change will come soon.