Military ban on gay service declared unconstitutional

[Satirius]

ofc if you aren't my kind of patriot you are a traitorous scumbag

also does anybody remember the tale of the Thebans?

[Greater Americania]

Oh, now you understand appeal-to-authority.

No. *sigh*. That's because what Congress decides is going to happen regardless. Admittedly, just because a judge deems a law unconstitutional doesn't mean that was a beneficial decision to society. But, in this case, the decision is beneficial! Why can't gays serve openly? Give some evidence that openly gay soldiers in the military hurt troop morale.

So now that I've shot down your "appeals to authority", you're running away from the whole "the federal judiciary is always right about the Constitution" thing? Exactly. You're just bolstering my point that this is nothing more than a left-wing aversion of the proper channels.

[Potarius]

I thought you guys knew better than to feed the trolls.

Seriously.

[Holy Paradise]

Oh, now you understand appeal-to-authority.

No. *sigh*. That's because what Congress decides is going to happen regardless. Admittedly, just because a judge deems a law unconstitutional doesn't mean that was a beneficial decision to society. But, in this case, the decision is beneficial! Why can't gays serve openly? Give some evidence that openly gay soldiers in the military hurt troop morale.

So now that I've shot down your "appeals to authority", you're running away from the whole "the federal judiciary is always right about the Constitution" thing? Exactly. You're just bolstering my point that this is nothing more than a left-wing aversion of the proper channels.

No, the judiciary isn't necessarily right, but I believe in this case it is.

Also, please provide evidence that gays should not serve in the military as it hurts troop morale and unit cohesion.

[Liuzzo]

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.

Og dear GOD!!!! Ok, here it goes. Saying, well this document/authority says this and that's why I think you are wrong is not ad hominem. It's not attacking your personally based not on your argument but on your personal characteristics. Now: WARNING THIS IS JUST FOR THE USE OF EXAMPLE OH MODLY ONES. Ignoring your argument and saying "Well, you're just a biggotted fuckwad" is ad homenim. Class dismissed.

[Cobhanglica]

Then we can just change the law to ban gays completely.

Nothing could possibly go wrong when this is legally challenged. It's not as if theres a precedent just been made against this sort of thing.

Oh wait...

Point to where in the Constitution that it says that gays are entitled to military service.

Point to where it says they should be banned. Nice game. That's why we have courts for in that pesky constitution. Shit!

It doesn't have to. The federal government (specifically Congress) has the authority to raise armies; therefore it has the right to decide who shall be taken into the armies that it raises.

[Underium]

Oh, now you understand appeal-to-authority.

No. *sigh*. That's because what Congress decides is going to happen regardless. Admittedly, just because a judge deems a law unconstitutional doesn't mean that was a beneficial decision to society. But, in this case, the decision is beneficial! Why can't gays serve openly? Give some evidence that openly gay soldiers in the military hurt troop morale.

So now that I've shot down your "appeals to authority", you're running away from the whole "the federal judiciary is always right about the Constitution" thing? Exactly. You're just bolstering my point that this is nothing more than a left-wing aversion of the proper channels.

ok the main point is that it distracts soldiers right? well a girl soldier would distract me to! they both distract! does that mean women should not be allowed to serve if they are openly women?

[Chateau Chevalier]

I think Mr. Cooper meant "archaic", not "arcane".

Then again, maybe the statute is fortified with magics both powerful and terrible?

All wizard's are gay : Dumbledore.

This was the first successful court challenge. There have been about a dozen challenges dating back to the '90s. The Pentagon is still not 'out' on whether they will maintain the policy. Even though Obama has stated he is against the "don't ask don't tell" policy, the Feds will appeal this decision.

[Liuzzo]

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.

No, you've made a terrible legal argument and then you tried to defend it by claiming you were being attacked personally. When it was shown you were not you resorted to this. Why don't you report it to a mod and see if you were attacked in the way you claim. I'd love to see your reaction when they tell you you're wrong too. Stop lumping everyone in as liberals just because they don't agree with you. I'm not a liberal. I'm a Marine who served his country proudly. I' a conservative learning libertarian who is still registered as a Republican. But you would rather just make assumptions instead of debating the issue. When defeated in debate you resorted to claiming to be attacked. By the way the current court is leaning on the conservative side. Maybe you should put a little more thought and reason into your arguments rather than claiming everyone is liberal and attacking you. That's just my opinion because I've a registered voter.

[Tmutarakhan]

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.

Do you have any concept what the words "ad hominem" mean?
Your sentence makes about as much sense as "Explain to me why it isn't a baseball game when I cut my peanut butter sandwich in half."

[Underium]

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.

Do you have any concept what the words "ad hominem" mean?
Your sentence makes about as much sense as "Explain to me why it isn't a baseball game when I cut my peanut butter sandwich in half."

ok first of a ad hominem last time i checked means a personal attack like this, "the dum judge ruled it was unconstitutional"

[The Parkus Empire]

What's the big deal, anyway? Are openly gay service members more likely to rape people or something? I don't get it. What's so bad about it?

[Gahaldu]

No its fucking not. Its totally relevant because its the same principle, respecting the rights of EVERYONE as outlined in the constitution. its only irrelevant because it proves jackasses like you wrong, and you can't accept that fact that you have no basis for your useless, counter intuitive, and totally unamerican claims.

lol The liberal just accused me of being un-American for not wanting gays to serve openly in the military? Wow...now they're trying to stake their claim on the patriotic ideal as well.

So, liberals are all unpatriotic and it is patriotic to want to prevent people to serve in the military based on their sexual orientation? I'm not seeing your argument.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Here's a fun fact: The Lawsuit was brought on by the Log Cabin Republicans; a Republican organization.

[Kwewu]

This is what i think will happen because of this. Soldier A develops feelings for Soldier B. Soldier B is wounded/killed while in combat as the rest of his squad is retreating. Soldier A goes back for Soldier B because of his feelings and gets killed as well. Soldier A could be carrying extra ammo, or the medical supplies. It's also another life lost. In my opinion, nothing good will come of this.

[Liuzzo]

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

I guess that makes the Iraq War justified then. After all, Congress has the authority to decide when we should go to war. They decided in favor and by your appeal-to-authority logic, that makes anyone who opposes the war wrong.

Horrible sidestep. When did congress declare war again? Please, point me to when congress voted to declare war. OFFICIALLY declare war.

[The Parkus Empire]

This is what i think will happen because of this. Soldier A develops feelings for Soldier B. Soldier B is wounded/killed while in combat as the rest of his squad is retreating. Soldier A goes back for Soldier B because of his feelings and gets killed as well. Soldier A could be carrying extra ammo, or the medical supplies. In my opinion, nothing good will come of this.

U.S. servicemen never leave behind fallen comrades. If such a thing were done, the Commander would be demoted at the very least.

[Gahaldu]

This is what i think will happen because of this. Soldier A develops feelings for Soldier B. Soldier B is wounded/killed while in combat as the rest of his squad is retreating. Soldier A goes back for Soldier B because of his feelings and gets killed as well. Soldier A could be carrying extra ammo, or the medical supplies. It's also another life lost. In my opinion, nothing good will come of this.

Couldn't the same apply to simple friends?

[Xsyne]

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?

I can't not link the Onion after that comment.

[Exilia and Colonies]

This is what i think will happen because of this. Soldier A develops feelings for Soldier B. Soldier B is wounded/killed while in combat as the rest of his squad is retreating. Soldier A goes back for Soldier B because of his feelings and gets killed as well. Soldier A could be carrying extra ammo, or the medical supplies. It's also another life lost. In my opinion, nothing good will come of this.

That already happens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... %281993%29

[Grave_n_idle]

This is what i think will happen because of this. Soldier A develops feelings for Soldier B. Soldier B is wounded/killed while in combat as the rest of his squad is retreating. Soldier A goes back for Soldier B because of his feelings and gets killed as well. Soldier A could be carrying extra ammo, or the medical supplies. It's also another life lost. In my opinion, nothing good will come of this.

Of course, in your little thought experiment, Soldier B could have been the one with the ammo or medical supplies, that would have got left behind if Soldier A hadn't gone back for him.

I think you've watched too much Pirates of the Caribbean if you immediately assume that anyone that falls behind, is left behind. Regardless of whether or not they are lovers.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

I never thought I'd see this happen within this decade. This is truly amazing and awesome. I remember just under a year ago talking with someone about the eventuality of gays being allowed to serve openly in the military, perhaps within the next 20 years, and they told me "don't hold your breath". Also some DADT proponents were saying "all you have to do is keep your sexual orientation to yourself, and you won't be discharged", but what about people who were openly gay before going to join? The policy was simply ridiculous. Screw the "gays are soft" stereotype. If they were "soft" or had any qualms about serving. they wouldn't apply. There is no reason a homosexual person wouldn't be able to perform the same duties as a straight service member. Your sexual orientation doesn't determine whether or not you can fight, it doesn't determine whether or not you can fire a rifle, secure a structure, break through a berm, lead warriors, or be a warrior. I also think soldiers of today are bright enough to know that homosexual soldiers are just like any other soldier, and there is no need to feel "uncomfortable" around them. This is not sleepaway camp or some other bullshit. These are profesional warriors, who act as professionals and have been doing so for many years. Letting homosexuals serve openly is not going to change that, just look at the British Armed Forces. I highly applaud this ruling.

[SaintB]

Then we can just change the law to ban gays completely.

Nothing could possibly go wrong when this is legally challenged. It's not as if theres a precedent just been made against this sort of thing.

Oh wait...

Point to where in the Constitution that it says that gays are entitled to military service.

Point to the part int he Constitution where you can chose your own spouse. Oh, wait, that isn't anywhere in the Constitution. Guess the government will be choosing spouses from now on.

Wrong. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to do that (I know this may be hard for a liberal to believe, but the federal government is not supposed to have unlimited powers) and no state government would be stupid enough to enact such a law.

That's the exact argument we are making for homosexual rights and you are calling it wrong; the government has no right to say homosexuals are any less a human than anyone else. Pot meet kettle.

[The Parkus Empire]

Of course, in your little thought experiment, Soldier B could have been the one with the ammo or medical supplies, that would have got left behind if Soldier A hadn't gone back for him.

I think you've watched too much Pirates of the Caribbean if you immediately assume that anyone that falls behind, is left behind. Regardless of whether or not they are lovers.

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

[Liuzzo]

Then we can just change the law to ban gays completely.

Nothing could possibly go wrong when this is legally challenged. It's not as if theres a precedent just been made against this sort of thing.

Oh wait...

Point to where in the Constitution that it says that gays are entitled to military service.

Point to where it says they should be banned. Nice game. That's why we have courts for in that pesky constitution. Shit!

It doesn't have to. The federal government (specifically Congress) has the authority to raise armies; therefore it has the right to decide who shall be taken into the armies that it raises.

The USSC is not part of the federal government? Thanks for the lesson.