Military ban on gay service declared unconstitutional

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

Your 'point' is opinion, and isn't based on fact - since the objections you're encountering have been coming from more liberal AND more conservative posters.

The point wasn't so much that the judiciary is always right - more that making judgements is their job, and that's what they are, thus, 'qualified' to do. That's not an ad hominem, unless telling the applicant at the ER that you won't let him do brain surgery since he's not a qualified surgeon is ALSO an ad hominem.

[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.

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."

Now that was awesome.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

Well, sure, if you're going to keep it secret, it's no wonder no one knows.

(Apparently).

[Liuzzo]

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

Thank you Sir. Can we get a ruling on ad homenim to quiet the crowd?

[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 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.

You can make the the argument that the FEDERAL government has no right to regulate marriages, but the states most definitely do have that right. If they want to define marriage as only between 1 man and exactly 3 donkeys, they have the right to do so.

[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?

I'd still like an answer to this.

[Xsyne]

You can make the the argument that the FEDERAL government has no right to regulate marriages, but the states most definitely do have that right. If they want to define marriage as only between 1 man and exactly 3 donkeys, they have the right to do so.

There's this thing called the fourteenth amendment. You might want to look at it sometime.

[Cobhanglica]

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

It's not the part that gets to control the military. Congress passes the laws to fund and create the armies and the President commands them. SCOTUS has no powers relating to the military.

[Jimanistan]

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.

Deciding whether or not things are Constitutional is one of the main purposes of the Judicial system.

[Seculartopia]

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.

The courts have too much authority?

The courts have the entire authority to review laws for their impracticality in the law. Perhaps theyve just woken up from their yawning state and realized the problems that are out there. Or perhaps these are being more prominent.

[Sith Korriban]

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?

I'd still like an answer to this.

It's because some people just long for the good old days of the ancient times. Pillage, plunder, and village women. A gay soldier just won't take part, which makes him a poopyhead who doesn't like the same bonding activities as the rest. *nods sagely*

[Cobhanglica]

You can make the the argument that the FEDERAL government has no right to regulate marriages, but the states most definitely do have that right. If they want to define marriage as only between 1 man and exactly 3 donkeys, they have the right to do so.

There's this thing called the fourteenth amendment. You might want to look at it sometime.

There's the thing that marriage is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but a privilege regulated under state governments. By your logic, we should abolish marriage licenses and all laws relating to marriage because they constitute an infringement of rights.

[SaintB]

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.

Your damn right I am a progressive and your damn right I have patriotic ideals. Liberty is the foremost American ideal and one I embrace wholeheartedly, I want to see everyone get equal treatment as is promised by the Constitution, I want to see the promise of our founders upheld that all citizens are equal and have equal rights and equal opportunities, I want to see our military strong, repealing DADT does BOTH.

[Underium]

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?

I'd still like an answer to this.

ok the theory is that soldiers will be distracted, which is ridiculous since i would get just as distracted by a girl! If not more distracted! but they are allowed to serve!!!!!!

[Grave_n_idle]

You can make the the argument that the FEDERAL government has no right to regulate marriages, but the states most definitely do have that right. If they want to define marriage as only between 1 man and exactly 3 donkeys, they have the right to do so.

There's this thing called the fourteenth amendment. You might want to look at it sometime.

There's the thing that marriage is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right...

What do you base that claim on? Why isn't it - for example - one of the 'rights' not-specifically-enumerated?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

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

Thank you Sir. Can we get a ruling on ad homenim to quiet the crowd?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2] The ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."

Saying, "The Federal Courts are an authority because it's their job to interpret constitutional law" is NOT an ad hominem fallacy. Saying, "The Federal Courts are an authority because they wear robes and people who wear robes know what they are talking about" IS an ad hominem fallacy.

Neither are against the rules of the forum however.

[Xsyne]

You can make the the argument that the FEDERAL government has no right to regulate marriages, but the states most definitely do have that right. If they want to define marriage as only between 1 man and exactly 3 donkeys, they have the right to do so.

There's this thing called the fourteenth amendment. You might want to look at it sometime.

There's the thing that marriage is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right, but a privilege regulated under state governments. By your logic, we should abolish marriage licenses and all laws relating to marriage because they constitute an infringement of rights.

Ever heard of Loving v. Virginia?

[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.

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.

Soldier B could have the ammo or medical supplies, but if the area is under fire, you don't go back immediately for it. Soldier A might immediately go back for him, instead of waiting for the firefight to subside. Emotion clouds judgement.

On a side note: Not a huge fan of Pirates. Seen the first one once and thats it.

[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 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.

You can make the the argument that the FEDERAL government has no right to regulate marriages, but the states most definitely do have that right. If they want to define marriage as only between 1 man and exactly 3 donkeys, they have the right to do so.

This is off topic and I'm not going too get into it any further than to point you to the supremacy clause. Otherwise under your argument Georgia could bring back slavery and the federal government could do nothing about it. Because the states have the right to make that decision. Ok folks, I need to get my "liberal" (HAHA) ass to bed to go to work tomorrow. Be well and may the Goddess of Nymn bless you with her minions. Yes, sarcasm is just my method of dealing with incredible thickness.

[Bydlostan (Ancient)]

equal rights and equal opportunities

Not in the military, you don't.

[Cobhanglica]

You can make the the argument that the FEDERAL government has no right to regulate marriages, but the states most definitely do have that right. If they want to define marriage as only between 1 man and exactly 3 donkeys, they have the right to do so.

There's this thing called the fourteenth amendment. You might want to look at it sometime.

There's the thing that marriage is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right...

What do you base that claim on? Why isn't it - for example - one of the 'rights' not-specifically-enumerated?

You have to limit the extent of the 14th Amendment somewhere; otherwise it can be used to protect any and all activities. I prefer to go no further than the text of the Constitution when it comes to looking at the 14th.

[Daistallia 2104]

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

Fun indeed!

[Gahaldu]

equal rights and equal opportunities

Not in the military, you don't.

But why should something as simple as one's sexual orientation affect things?

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

I'd still like an answer to this.

ok the theory is that soldiers will be distracted, which is ridiculous since i would get just as distracted by a girl! If not more distracted! but they are allowed to serve!!!!!!

It's ridiculous anyway. Do we assume military personnel operate in a vacuum?

Once soldiers enter the army, are they never going to see members of the opposite sex (or same sex, if such is your preference)?

Are we saying American soldiers are SO poorly trained, that they'll instantly lose control if, for example, a woman (or man, for some, but I'm trying to keep to one topic - trying and failing, I think) can be seen somewhere in the area?

I don't think the no-gay-military theory was really thought through all that well.

[Underium]

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.

Soldier B could have the ammo or medical supplies, but if the area is under fire, you don't go back immediately for it. Soldier A might immediately go back for him, instead of waiting for the firefight to subside. Emotion clouds judgement.

On a side note: Not a huge fan of Pirates. Seen the first one once and thats it.

same problem if you replaced soldier B with a girl soldier A was interested in!