Military ban on gay service declared unconstitutional

[Holy Paradise]

They can't reasonably order you to change your own nature, and you obey orders from your officers because its your job, its got nothing to do with restricting the first amendment rights of soldiers WHO CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT ON THEIR OWN TIME

Don't Ask, Don't Tell doesn't do that. It orders them not the be flamboyantly extravagant about their own sexual orientation.

Don't Ask: The military won't ask about sexual orientation.

Don't tell: The soldier won't mention that he/she's homosexual.

The law doesn't (or should I say, didn't) say that it's okay they are open about it, provided they don't put on assless chaps, rainbow shirts, and start thrusting into guys' faces. It says they simply can't be open, at all.

[Potarius]

but if I were a women

Would that mean you'd have two or more vaginae?

And two heads to go with them.

I'd hit that. Damn.

Wait, would I have four breasts? Oh, I definitely hit myself.

Might need to invest in a sybian or something like one.

Two of them, actually.

One would be better.

You could do yourself with that, and have somebody do you at the same time. It's win-win.

[Greater Americania]

Explain how that empowers you to decide what the Constitution does and does not say.

Explain how you're not making an ad hominem argument by saying "the federal judiciary is always right".

[Geniasis]

No, it says if they kiss a man or even mention that they're gay, then they are to be thrown out.

How the hell am I supposed to focus on my target when they keep telling highly erotic and arousing tales of their homosexual exploits?

[Peddieville]

Not in terms of the judiciary branch it doesn't.

And any of yours does? I was unaware that I was debating so many federal judges.

I never claimed my opinion had any official legal weight. I'm simply trying to defend the judge's position. You're trying to change it.

[Geniasis]

Explain how you're not making an ad hominem argument by saying "the federal judiciary is always right".

...Because that's not what an ad hominem is?

[Imperial Domtopia]

Anybody stupid enough to want to be in the military should be allowed in.
-Bill Hicks

[Holy Paradise]

Explain how that empowers you to decide what the Constitution does and does not say.

Explain how you're not making an ad hominem argument by saying "the federal judiciary is always right".

That's not even the right fallacy: It's appeal to authority.

Except, in this case, the appeal to authority is justified and valid.

[Urcea]

I'm getting damn tired of these overactive courts using far more authority than they should have acquired. The very concept of judicial review should be reevaluated Constitutionally and edited so that Courts will not have the authority to make decisions like this. The Courts are becoming as though a legislature of their own. All they have to do is scream "unconstitutional" and they can enforce whatever they please.

I don't see what the problem is. This decision is both a victory of idealism and pragmatism.

It's not the decision. It's the principle.

[Liuzzo]

Neither were 'black rights' or 'female rights'.

I don't care. It doesn't matter. Just because you think a policy to be ideal, doesn't make it a Constitutional principle.

Right back at you. But if the courts say it....hmm

[Peddieville]

but if I were a women

Would that mean you'd have two or more vaginae?

And two heads to go with them.

I'd hit that. Damn.

Wait, would I have four breasts? Oh, I definitely hit myself.

Might need to invest in a sybian or something like one.

Two of them, actually.

One would be better.

You could do yourself with that, and have somebody do you at the same time. It's win-win.

Or I could just bud off a male me.

[Cannot think of a name]

Ok i am all for gay rights, but i do not see anything in the constitution saying that all emn have the freedom and the right to serve in the armed forces if so pelase tell me where! so unfortunately it is constituional even if it is unfair, also about getting distracted, that makes me laugh so much! if theres a women the likes you wont you be just as distracted or even more so?

The ninth and fourteenth amendments.

[Liuzzo]

"Black rights" was a laughable concept for quite a while, too.

Again, I don't care. That's entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Yeah because he said so!!!!!

[The Parkus Empire]

How the hell am I supposed to focus on my target when they keep telling highly erotic and arousing tales of their homosexual exploits?

You have to be a hard soldier.

It should be noted, as I previously mentioned, that heterosexual soldiers go on all day about their sexual exploits, even if it's just what they jerked-off to that morning.

[Liuzzo]

Wrong. The First Amendment does guarantee the right to freedom of speech. Although my opinion doesn't have as much legal weight as that of a federal judge, I can look at the Constitution and say what I think it says. And I think 'gay rights' was a laughable concept from the late 18th century all the way up into our present era of decadence, and thus was not Constitutionally protected.

Your opinion doesn't have any legal weight.

Not a God damn drop.

[Exilia and Colonies]

No, it says if they kiss a man or even mention that they're gay, then they are to be thrown out.

How the hell am I supposed to focus on my target when they keep telling highly erotic and arousing tales of their homosexual exploits?

DADT does not apply to the enemy. Nice try.

[Greater Americania]

Explain how you're not making an ad hominem argument by saying "the federal judiciary is always right".

...Because that's not what an ad hominem is?

"The federal judiciary says this is unconstitutional. The federal judiciary has the authority to legally interpret the Constitution, and therefore is right. You oppose the federal judiciary's ruling and therefore are wrong." Sounds like an ad hominem to me.

[New Wallonochia]

The law doesn't (or should I say, didn't) say that it's okay they are open about it, provided they don't put on assless chaps, rainbow shirts, and start thrusting into guys' faces. It says they simply can't be open, at all.

It's not like guys in combat arms units don't do all of that anyway.

[Potarius]

It should be noted, as I previously mentioned, that heterosexual soldiers go on all day about their sexual exploits, even if it's just what they jerked-off to that morning.

Classy.

[Geniasis]

DADT does not apply to the enemy. Nice try.

Of course not, but if the guy next to me is getting me aroused, how am I supposed to aim?

[Holy Paradise]

Explain how you're not making an ad hominem argument by saying "the federal judiciary is always right".

...Because that's not what an ad hominem is?

"The federal judiciary says this is unconstitutional. The federal judiciary has the authority to legally interpret the Constitution, and therefore is right. You oppose the federal judiciary's ruling and therefore are wrong." Sounds like an ad hominem to me.

No, an ad hominem is if we said, "You're wrong because you're an idiot."

Saying that something's right because an authority said so is an appeal to authority. However, in this case, it's justified.

[The Parkus Empire]

The law doesn't (or should I say, didn't) say that it's okay they are open about it, provided they don't put on assless chaps, rainbow shirts, and start thrusting into guys' faces. It says they simply can't be open, at all.

It's not like guys in combat arms units don't do all of that anyway.

[Grave_n_idle]

DADT does not apply to the enemy. Nice try.

Of course not, but if the guy next to me is getting me aroused, how am I supposed to aim?

That's the one that always bugged me, to be honest.

Someone who really loses sleep over which way you swing... probably shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

[Greater Americania]

You liberals usually don't resort to known logical fallacies to this extreme. It's getting really bad in this thread. We'll see what you're saying when you finally lose control of the Supreme Court overtime.

[Liuzzo]

Wrong. The First Amendment does guarantee the right to freedom of speech. Although my opinion doesn't have as much legal weight as that of a federal judge, I can look at the Constitution and say what I think it says. And I think 'gay rights' was a laughable concept from the late 18th century all the way up into our present era of decadence, and thus was not Constitutionally protected.

Your opinion doesn't have any legal weight.

I'm a registered voter. So yes, it does.

Holy shit my head just fucking exploded. Listen, you have no authority whatsoever to interpret law. Even if you vote for a moron who passes a law that does not comply the courts have every right to void it. That's how the government works. Do we need to go back to 5th grade and the 3 branches of government? Cry, whine, yell all you want you have no authority whatsoever.