100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A U.S. District Judge said | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I know two people who were turned down because of simple things. One is slightly hard of hearing...rejected. The other has carpotunnel in his wrists...rejected. It would be helpful if you could make a logical connection between your argument and the ideas which argue that DADT is unconstitutional. But some buttslammers and pole smokers are allowed to join and stay!!
LOL. I guess the PC'ness is just too much for the liberals to let go of. They'd rather trust our security to those who only have gay sex on their minds instead of defending our country at all costs. Your personal conclusions are worthless dribble without empirical facts on which substantiate them. When people lack facts, they generally get frustrated and take a fall back position which relies on stereotyping, and the unsubstantiated biased opinions of others. Unfortunately, people who spout such opinions feel the need to act in accordance with what they have committed to 'belief'. This promotes the continuence of prejudice and discrimination and on an individual level, such belief becomes an obsticle which hinders or makes impossible the acceptance of new knowledge and further development of emotional intellect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contrast tommorows military, being full of gays and pole smokers, with yesterdays heros from the WWII era. No comparison. What facts have you used to come to these conclusions? How many gays served in other wars? What was the opinion gay soldiers of GIs who served with them? What does "being full of gays" mean? How many does that amount to in contrast to non-gays who would also serve? And what the heck is a pole smoker, if it's worthy of mention it's worthy of being presented in non-dehumanizing language tainted with bigotry. Otherwise it is simply name-calling which could indicate the person doing the name-calling has intellectually developed beyond the pre-teen level. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they want to end discrimination in the military they have to end it all and open it up to everyone.Because every person who was rejected for(insert reason here)can say they were discrimanted against by the military. The case is much more greater for people who are hard of hearing,poor eyesite,etc or some other problem because they may have been born that way and can not change it. Let the judges have their way.We can have crossdressing drill sargents and blind people loading bombs onto aircraft.As long as everything is equal,fair,and no discrimation we can have our military running like a one big cluster**ck with no standards,no morals,no qualfications,and no discrimination because everyone has a RIGHT to have a job in the military. It's very sad when adults cannot distinguish between discriminatory acts based on prejudice and discerning acts that are beneficial to meeting certain goals. But that is an overwhelming problem we face because our schools fail to teach the difference when they do not include intellectual development in the curriculum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will the Navy make everyone wear pink, hip-hugger bellbottems?
That could be a recruitment tool. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 09/11/10 07:28 AM
|
|
great, perhaps they will have coed bunking and get rid of aknowledging pesky gender differences too,,, more 'findings' http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I think there's a misunderstanding of what 'rights' are being affected. First, the DADT policy does not include language that PREVENTS homosexuals volunteerily or through a draft, from military service. The policy itself what is being considered an infringement of 'human rights' as described in the constitution. Human rights are not a privilege, not even prisoners can be denied the protection of human rights according to the Constitution. The DADT policy does not prohibit homosexuals from military service, it only 'requires' that they give up basic human rights to do so. Now it could be argued that EVERYONE who joins the military understands that, in combat conditions, some basic human rights are not always met. The problem with that argument is that only homosexuals are required to give up human rights that are not conditional to combat. For example, as the Judge said: On the other side, she said, the military was hurt by discharging servicemembers who had performed well in combat and other situations, and it had forced gays in the ranks to hide their true identities, denied their ability to have personal relationships and kept them from expressing themselves even in private communications. To discriminate, is to set apart. The DADT policy, disicriminates by 'setting apart' homosexuals from the basic human rights that every other military personnel is NEVER forced to give up, not even in combat. The Judge also addressed some of the points included in the URL that was provided in the post quoted above. In the OP article the Judge made a somewhat blanket statement which probably greatly expanded on in the written document of her findings. However, in the article it is clear that the Judge considered at least some of the points of TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Prev | Next § 654. "In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion," Phillips wrote. "Defendants failed to meet that burden." Everywhere in the USA, and in many other countries, people are making a great effort to support the virtues and values that are evedent in accepting diversity. It has been understood, for quite some time, that accepting diversity is beneficial in the workplace, to communities, to whole socieities, and to individuals. Accepting diversity requires individual emotional growth.Individuals who grow emotionally are more able to set aside prejudice and bias, are more willing and capable of working together toward common goals. Sometimes emotional growth is dependent on facing the challenges of a diverse environment. Just as employers, employees, government leaders and communities must face these challenges, so must the military. Nowhere is emotional growth more needed than in our military - for the very reason that "cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members." Ignoring diversity or setting diversity apart (or aside) would not result in any emotional growth, would not make a more cohesive military unit, and would not in any way be beneficial in creating the bond of trust that is required for a military unit to function as a cohesive unit. We did not learn to accept people of color by keeping them segregated, and homosexual have learned that staying in the closet was a self-imposed segregation. By stepping out of that oppressive role we are challenging others and until those challenges are faced, emotional growth and full acceptance of diversity will not occur. Instead, individual and cultural bias, prejudice, and discrimination will continue to flourish. The DADT policy is an attempt to disguise institutionalized prejudice and discrimination. If it had been anymore blatent it simply would come right out and said, homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and such people and their life styles are not acceptable behavior in the United States. While there are some here who can see no flaw in that kind of law, there are many who can understand that we would not be the U.S. and that the Constitution would not be worth a plug nickel to anyone should a law of that kind ever be allowed to be passed. The DADT policy is unconstitutional. I disagree that it has anything to do with the constitution. It is , in effect, not a RIGHT to be in the military, it is an employment contract. THere are things I am not permitted to discuss in my place of employment which I sign a contract in agreement to. Freedom of speech only goes so far. Also, the text of the first amendment actually states this 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech' DADT is not a law set by congress for civilians, it is a mandate set by the military , as an employer, just as my employers have always had mandates. For instance, I have signed a no compete contract in the past stating I will not accept employment from other businesses in the same field. Whereas it would not be constitutional for CONGRESS to pass a law against me working for whomever I wish. My employer is not the congress, the legal grounds of repurcussion for violating my employment contract are civil, not criminal and not federal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I second dadt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 09/11/10 07:29 AM
|
|
Contrast tommorows military, being full of gays and pole smokers, with yesterdays heros from the WWII era. No comparison. this will sound harsh, but its not serving that is an issue. Its disclosing information which will set one apart from others in a way which affects morale and cohesion. they say pedophilia is hard wired and people are born that way,,,if that is true, I can hardly oppose a pedophile working with my children if I dont know they are a pedophile. the same is true with military living, Im sure most females dont want to shower with men and bunk with men in that situation, not because those men are GOING to be eyeing them inappropriately, but because of the high POTENTIAL that they might be,especially in such isolated conditions. The same is true with a same sex shower partner. Sorry, but its true. My concern is that it puts too much stress on other soldiers who will be now worrying about whether their bunkmate/showermate is making inappropriate advances or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
great, perhaps they will have coed bunking and get rid of aknowledging pesky gender differences too,,, more 'findings' http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I think there's a misunderstanding of what 'rights' are being affected. First, the DADT policy does not include language that PREVENTS homosexuals volunteerily or through a draft, from military service. The policy itself what is being considered an infringement of 'human rights' as described in the constitution. Human rights are not a privilege, not even prisoners can be denied the protection of human rights according to the Constitution. The DADT policy does not prohibit homosexuals from military service, it only 'requires' that they give up basic human rights to do so. Now it could be argued that EVERYONE who joins the military understands that, in combat conditions, some basic human rights are not always met. The problem with that argument is that only homosexuals are required to give up human rights that are not conditional to combat. For example, as the Judge said: On the other side, she said, the military was hurt by discharging servicemembers who had performed well in combat and other situations, and it had forced gays in the ranks to hide their true identities, denied their ability to have personal relationships and kept them from expressing themselves even in private communications. To discriminate, is to set apart. The DADT policy, disicriminates by 'setting apart' homosexuals from the basic human rights that every other military personnel is NEVER forced to give up, not even in combat. The Judge also addressed some of the points included in the URL that was provided in the post quoted above. In the OP article the Judge made a somewhat blanket statement which probably greatly expanded on in the written document of her findings. However, in the article it is clear that the Judge considered at least some of the points of TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Prev | Next § 654. "In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion," Phillips wrote. "Defendants failed to meet that burden." Everywhere in the USA, and in many other countries, people are making a great effort to support the virtues and values that are evedent in accepting diversity. It has been understood, for quite some time, that accepting diversity is beneficial in the workplace, to communities, to whole socieities, and to individuals. Accepting diversity requires individual emotional growth.Individuals who grow emotionally are more able to set aside prejudice and bias, are more willing and capable of working together toward common goals. Sometimes emotional growth is dependent on facing the challenges of a diverse environment. Just as employers, employees, government leaders and communities must face these challenges, so must the military. Nowhere is emotional growth more needed than in our military - for the very reason that "cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members." Ignoring diversity or setting diversity apart (or aside) would not result in any emotional growth, would not make a more cohesive military unit, and would not in any way be beneficial in creating the bond of trust that is required for a military unit to function as a cohesive unit. We did not learn to accept people of color by keeping them segregated, and homosexual have learned that staying in the closet was a self-imposed segregation. By stepping out of that oppressive role we are challenging others and until those challenges are faced, emotional growth and full acceptance of diversity will not occur. Instead, individual and cultural bias, prejudice, and discrimination will continue to flourish. The DADT policy is an attempt to disguise institutionalized prejudice and discrimination. If it had been anymore blatent it simply would come right out and said, homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and such people and their life styles are not acceptable behavior in the United States. While there are some here who can see no flaw in that kind of law, there are many who can understand that we would not be the U.S. and that the Constitution would not be worth a plug nickel to anyone should a law of that kind ever be allowed to be passed. The DADT policy is unconstitutional. I disagree that it has anything to do with the constitution. It is , in effect, not a RIGHT to be in the military, it is an employment contract. THere are things I am not permitted to discuss in my place of employment which I sign a contract in agreement to. Freedom of speech only goes so far. Also, the text of the first amendment actually states this 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech' DADT is not a law set by congress for civilians, it is a mandate set by the military , as an employer, just as my employers have always had mandates. For instance, I have signed a no compete contract in the past stating I will not accept employment from other businesses in the same field. Whereas it would not be constitutional for CONGRESS to pass a law against me working for whomever I wish. My employer is not the congress, the legal grounds of repurcussion for violating my employment contract are civil, not criminal and not federal. It is actually a law. Title 10 Section 654 Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces. (a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings: (1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. (2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces. (3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I'm not posting the whole thing, but check the link if you want to read further.. Here is the link to a copy of the DOD directive issued by Bill Clinton that changed the policy from total ban to DADT. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf/d130426wch1_122193/d130426p.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 09/11/10 08:21 AM
|
|
great, perhaps they will have coed bunking and get rid of aknowledging pesky gender differences too,,, more 'findings' http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I think there's a misunderstanding of what 'rights' are being affected. First, the DADT policy does not include language that PREVENTS homosexuals volunteerily or through a draft, from military service. The policy itself what is being considered an infringement of 'human rights' as described in the constitution. Human rights are not a privilege, not even prisoners can be denied the protection of human rights according to the Constitution. The DADT policy does not prohibit homosexuals from military service, it only 'requires' that they give up basic human rights to do so. Now it could be argued that EVERYONE who joins the military understands that, in combat conditions, some basic human rights are not always met. The problem with that argument is that only homosexuals are required to give up human rights that are not conditional to combat. For example, as the Judge said: On the other side, she said, the military was hurt by discharging servicemembers who had performed well in combat and other situations, and it had forced gays in the ranks to hide their true identities, denied their ability to have personal relationships and kept them from expressing themselves even in private communications. To discriminate, is to set apart. The DADT policy, disicriminates by 'setting apart' homosexuals from the basic human rights that every other military personnel is NEVER forced to give up, not even in combat. The Judge also addressed some of the points included in the URL that was provided in the post quoted above. In the OP article the Judge made a somewhat blanket statement which probably greatly expanded on in the written document of her findings. However, in the article it is clear that the Judge considered at least some of the points of TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Prev | Next § 654. "In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion," Phillips wrote. "Defendants failed to meet that burden." Everywhere in the USA, and in many other countries, people are making a great effort to support the virtues and values that are evedent in accepting diversity. It has been understood, for quite some time, that accepting diversity is beneficial in the workplace, to communities, to whole socieities, and to individuals. Accepting diversity requires individual emotional growth.Individuals who grow emotionally are more able to set aside prejudice and bias, are more willing and capable of working together toward common goals. Sometimes emotional growth is dependent on facing the challenges of a diverse environment. Just as employers, employees, government leaders and communities must face these challenges, so must the military. Nowhere is emotional growth more needed than in our military - for the very reason that "cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members." Ignoring diversity or setting diversity apart (or aside) would not result in any emotional growth, would not make a more cohesive military unit, and would not in any way be beneficial in creating the bond of trust that is required for a military unit to function as a cohesive unit. We did not learn to accept people of color by keeping them segregated, and homosexual have learned that staying in the closet was a self-imposed segregation. By stepping out of that oppressive role we are challenging others and until those challenges are faced, emotional growth and full acceptance of diversity will not occur. Instead, individual and cultural bias, prejudice, and discrimination will continue to flourish. The DADT policy is an attempt to disguise institutionalized prejudice and discrimination. If it had been anymore blatent it simply would come right out and said, homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and such people and their life styles are not acceptable behavior in the United States. While there are some here who can see no flaw in that kind of law, there are many who can understand that we would not be the U.S. and that the Constitution would not be worth a plug nickel to anyone should a law of that kind ever be allowed to be passed. The DADT policy is unconstitutional. I disagree that it has anything to do with the constitution. It is , in effect, not a RIGHT to be in the military, it is an employment contract. THere are things I am not permitted to discuss in my place of employment which I sign a contract in agreement to. Freedom of speech only goes so far. Also, the text of the first amendment actually states this 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech' DADT is not a law set by congress for civilians, it is a mandate set by the military , as an employer, just as my employers have always had mandates. For instance, I have signed a no compete contract in the past stating I will not accept employment from other businesses in the same field. Whereas it would not be constitutional for CONGRESS to pass a law against me working for whomever I wish. My employer is not the congress, the legal grounds of repurcussion for violating my employment contract are civil, not criminal and not federal. It is actually a law. Title 10 Section 654 Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces. (a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings: (1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. (2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces. (3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I'm not posting the whole thing, but check the link if you want to read further.. Here is the link to a copy of the DOD directive issued by Bill Clinton that changed the policy from total ban to DADT. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf/d130426wch1_122193/d130426p.pdf yes, I corrected that. It is not a law applying to civilians, it applies to military employment...which is the exception to which restrictions are permitted which might otherwise be 'unconstitutional laws' (like discharging the unfit or the nearly blind,,etc,,,,) I think its obvious that its not discriminating against homosexuals, as it doesnt PROHIBIT them from joining, it only sets guidelines on behavior after one has joined, my last employer, did not permit smokers at all,,,and he was legally justified reason being, that it affected his group insurance rates to insure smokers..Im not sure if the military could use the same basis (insuring the health of its employees) to screen as well. such a basis would be grounds to also screen out tobacco users, drinkers, and the promiscuous though (imagine the navy without promiscuous drinkers,,lol) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
great, perhaps they will have coed bunking and get rid of aknowledging pesky gender differences too,,, more 'findings' http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I think there's a misunderstanding of what 'rights' are being affected. First, the DADT policy does not include language that PREVENTS homosexuals volunteerily or through a draft, from military service. The policy itself what is being considered an infringement of 'human rights' as described in the constitution. Human rights are not a privilege, not even prisoners can be denied the protection of human rights according to the Constitution. The DADT policy does not prohibit homosexuals from military service, it only 'requires' that they give up basic human rights to do so. Now it could be argued that EVERYONE who joins the military understands that, in combat conditions, some basic human rights are not always met. The problem with that argument is that only homosexuals are required to give up human rights that are not conditional to combat. For example, as the Judge said: On the other side, she said, the military was hurt by discharging servicemembers who had performed well in combat and other situations, and it had forced gays in the ranks to hide their true identities, denied their ability to have personal relationships and kept them from expressing themselves even in private communications. To discriminate, is to set apart. The DADT policy, disicriminates by 'setting apart' homosexuals from the basic human rights that every other military personnel is NEVER forced to give up, not even in combat. The Judge also addressed some of the points included in the URL that was provided in the post quoted above. In the OP article the Judge made a somewhat blanket statement which probably greatly expanded on in the written document of her findings. However, in the article it is clear that the Judge considered at least some of the points of TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654 Prev | Next § 654. "In order to justify the encroachment on these rights, defendants faced the burden at trial of showing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act was necessary to significantly further the government's important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion," Phillips wrote. "Defendants failed to meet that burden." Everywhere in the USA, and in many other countries, people are making a great effort to support the virtues and values that are evedent in accepting diversity. It has been understood, for quite some time, that accepting diversity is beneficial in the workplace, to communities, to whole socieities, and to individuals. Accepting diversity requires individual emotional growth.Individuals who grow emotionally are more able to set aside prejudice and bias, are more willing and capable of working together toward common goals. Sometimes emotional growth is dependent on facing the challenges of a diverse environment. Just as employers, employees, government leaders and communities must face these challenges, so must the military. Nowhere is emotional growth more needed than in our military - for the very reason that "cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members." Ignoring diversity or setting diversity apart (or aside) would not result in any emotional growth, would not make a more cohesive military unit, and would not in any way be beneficial in creating the bond of trust that is required for a military unit to function as a cohesive unit. We did not learn to accept people of color by keeping them segregated, and homosexual have learned that staying in the closet was a self-imposed segregation. By stepping out of that oppressive role we are challenging others and until those challenges are faced, emotional growth and full acceptance of diversity will not occur. Instead, individual and cultural bias, prejudice, and discrimination will continue to flourish. The DADT policy is an attempt to disguise institutionalized prejudice and discrimination. If it had been anymore blatent it simply would come right out and said, homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and such people and their life styles are not acceptable behavior in the United States. While there are some here who can see no flaw in that kind of law, there are many who can understand that we would not be the U.S. and that the Constitution would not be worth a plug nickel to anyone should a law of that kind ever be allowed to be passed. The DADT policy is unconstitutional. I disagree that it has anything to do with the constitution. It is , in effect, not a RIGHT to be in the military, it is an employment contract. THere are things I am not permitted to discuss in my place of employment which I sign a contract in agreement to. Freedom of speech only goes so far. Also, the text of the first amendment actually states this 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech' DADT is not a law set by congress for civilians, it is a mandate set by the military , as an employer, just as my employers have always had mandates. For instance, I have signed a no compete contract in the past stating I will not accept employment from other businesses in the same field. Whereas it would not be constitutional for CONGRESS to pass a law against me working for whomever I wish. My employer is not the congress, the legal grounds of repurcussion for violating my employment contract are civil, not criminal and not federal. It is actually a law. Title 10 Section 654 Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces. (a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings: (1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. (2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces. (3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html I'm not posting the whole thing, but check the link if you want to read further.. Here is the link to a copy of the DOD directive issued by Bill Clinton that changed the policy from total ban to DADT. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf/d130426wch1_122193/d130426p.pdf yes, I corrected that. It is not a law applying to civilians, it applies to military employment...which is the exception to which restrictions are permitted which might otherwise be 'unconstitutional laws' (like discharging the unfit or the nearly blind,,etc,,,,) I think its obvious that its not discriminating against homosexuals, as it doesnt PROHIBIT them from joining, it only sets guidelines on behavior after one has joined, You are correct. All military members are subject to rules and regulations that don't always apply to civilians. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 09/11/10 06:31 PM
|
|
The DADT policy is unconstitutional. I disagree that it has anything to do with the constitution. It is , in effect, not a RIGHT to be in the military, it is an employment contract. THere are things I am not permitted to discuss in my place of employment which I sign a contract in agreement to. Freedom of speech only goes so far. Also, the text of the first amendment actually states this 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech' DADT is not a law set by congress for civilians, it is a mandate set by the military , as an employer, just as my employers have always had mandates. For instance, I have signed a no compete contract in the past stating I will not accept employment from other businesses in the same field. Whereas it would not be constitutional for CONGRESS to pass a law against me working for whomever I wish. My employer is not the congress, the legal grounds of repurcussion for violating my employment contract are civil, not criminal and not federal. I have never said serving in the military is a RIGHT. Serving one's country, in any capacity, has always been considered a duty and a responsibility. DADT is not a law set by congress for civilians, it is a mandate set by the military, as an employer,
The military is not part of the private sector, it IS an extension of the Federal government. In either case, private sector or Federal Administration, it is unconstitutional for any human in the USA or under the protection of the USA to be denied certain fundamental/basic human rights. It is considered a basic human right to be express one's self through their true identity, to freely be able to seek and establish personal relationships, and to express themselves in private communications. Those are just a few basic human rights the Constitution grants. The DADT policy however, would deny homosexuals these basic human rights. To allow the DADT policy to continue would mean that the government would be supporting an unconstitutional discriminatory policy - we call that institutionalized discrimination. When discrimination becomes institutionalized within, or affected by any part of the Federal Administration, the Constitution itself is undermined and the protections prescribed under its code of ethics and law can no longer exist for anyone. Even IF, the military were to attempt to correct the discrimination by making DADT a blanket policy it would have to be something like this: NO military personnel would be allowed to admit to any particular sexual orientation, and NO military personnel would be allowed to express themselves in private communication (such as letters professing love or longing for a partner, spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend) or to have any personal property that would suggest to others what an individual's sexual orientation might be (like pictures in their wallet or in their cell phone or in their personal locker). And even if ALL military personnel were prohibited from forming monogamous relationships with other military personnel under penalty of facing discharge without otherwise receiving veteran or other benefits - that policy would still be unconstitutional - because it is an infringement of 'basic human rights' as outlined in the Constitution. just as my employers have always had mandates. For instance, I have signed a no compete contract in the past stating I will not accept employment from other businesses in the same field.
How does this relate to your basic human rights - does the contract infringe on those rights? If you can prove that your basic human rights would be denied then the contract would not stand. No compete clauses are usually valid and temporary and have a lot of other stipulations regarding restrictions, geographic location, and duration, etc - few of which have been shown to deny basic human rights. Whereas it would not be constitutional for CONGRESS to pass a law against me working for whomever I wish.
Neither can they prohibit you from entering into legal contractual agreements of your choosing, but even if you choose to enter into such an agreement and that contract is later proven to infringe on your basic human rights, in ways you could not have foreseen, the contract will not stand - it will be invalidated. There are legal restrictions and limitations to what any employer in the USA can mandate, - but no employer can make mandates that infringe on basic human rights. No employer can order an employee to do something against their religious beliefs - "why is that?" Because, according to the constitution, religious choice is a basic human right. The only time an employer can require/order an individual into a harmful situation is with full understanding and consent of that individual, such as in some civil service workers, and private sector security organizations and of course the military. However, even when individuals with full understanding, willingly consent to face the danger - human rights are still protected under the Constitution. My employer is not the congress, the legal grounds of repurcussion for violating my employment contract are civil, not criminal and not federal.
In regards to military's DADT policy itself (as opposed to individual cases under the policy) it is not affecting the 'civil rights' of homosexuals, it (the existence of the policy itself) is infringing on 'human rights' which are a matter of Federal Law (Constitution). Since the military is an extension of the government only the Federal Supreme Court can have the last say on the constitutionality of the DADT policy itself. The military is not a private sector employer, it is part of the Federal Administration, as such their policies should employ the strictest standards of human ethics reflected in the Constitution. The DADT policy does not reflect the values of our Constitution. If DADT is allowed to stand it will be consistant with institutionalized discrimination and no one would be assured protection of rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this will sound harsh, but its not serving that is an issue. Its disclosing information which will set one apart from others in a way which affects morale and cohesion.
they say pedophilia is hard wired and people are born that way,,,if that is true, I can hardly oppose a pedophile working with my children if I dont know they are a pedophile. So would you be happy if all homosexuals were mandated to display a special symbol on every piece clothing so that discrimination would be an easier prospect? Or perhaps you would rather that homosexuals were tracked nationally, along with rapists and pedophiles, on state, city, and township websites – perhaps they would be distinguished with a rainbow star neighborhood maps? the same is true with military living, Im sure most females dont want to shower with men and bunk with men in that situation, not because those men are GOING to be eyeing them inappropriately, but because of the high POTENTIAL that they might be,especially in such isolated conditions. The same is true with a same sex shower partner. Sorry, but its true.
When enlistees join the military they certainly have some idea of the living arrangements. If a man or a woman has such a severe lack of emotional maturity that one of their greatest concerns is about how another person LOOKS at them, they would not get along well in the military, no matter what. My concern is that it puts too much stress on other soldiers who will be now worrying about whether their bunkmate/showermate is making inappropriate advances or not. A look is not an inappropriate advance. These men and women are being trained to survive in combat conditions. The concern about an inappropriate advance by a member of the same sex seems a little naïve. Furthermore, if the concern is so great – it would make sense to do a lot of research to discover is the concern is a valid one. But I realize it’s difficult to do that kind of research because most of the information that exists will not support the ‘concern’ rather, the vast amount of information indicates that homosexuals in the military have served and continue to serve side-by-side with heterosexual counterparts, not only without incident, but with respect and trust and creating friendships along the way that last a lifetime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they want to end discrimination in the military they have to end it all and open it up to everyone.Because every person who was rejected for(insert reason here)can say they were discrimanted against by the military. The case is much more greater for people who are hard of hearing,poor eyesite,etc or some other problem because they may have been born that way and can not change it. Let the judges have their way.We can have crossdressing drill sargents and blind people loading bombs onto aircraft.As long as everything is equal,fair,and no discrimation we can have our military running like a one big cluster**ck with no standards,no morals,no qualfications,and no discrimination because everyone has a RIGHT to have a job in the military. It's very sad when adults cannot distinguish between discriminatory acts based on prejudice and discerning acts that are beneficial to meeting certain goals. But that is an overwhelming problem we face because our schools fail to teach the difference when they do not include intellectual development in the curriculum. how to be gay 101? get real... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, I corrected that. It is not a law applying to civilians, it applies to military employment...which is the exception to which restrictions are permitted which might otherwise be 'unconstitutional laws' (like discharging the unfit or the nearly blind,,etc,,,,)
What disability do all homosexuals suffer from that should exclude them serving in the military? Are you suggesting that homosexuals as a group cannot be able bodied individuals? I think its obvious that its not discriminating against homosexuals, as it doesnt PROHIBIT them from joining, it only sets guidelines on behavior after one has joined,
So then you would be ok with DATD becoming a ‘blanket’ policy described as: NO military personnel will be allowed to admit to any particular sexual orientation. NO military personnel will be allowed to express themselves in private communication (such as letters professing love or longing for a partner, spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend). NO military personnel will be allowed to have personal property that would suggest to others what an individual's sexual orientation might be (like pictures in their wallet or in their cell phone or in their personal locker). ALL military personnel are prohibited from forming monogamous relationships, or having sexual encounters with other military personnel under penalty of facing discharge without otherwise receiving veteran or other benefits. All military personnel can be ‘outed’ for such infractions by third party observations however, individuals ‘outed’ cannot be discharged until a thorough investigation by high ranking military officials has determined if the observations prove to be valid. And how do you think high ranking military officials would go about conducting the search for ‘evidence’? (hint - look at legal cases against the military for unwarrented discharge under DADT) Do you suppose that personal bias or prejudice of any particular officer would not play a role in any particular case? (check out current statistics of who has been discharged under DADT) my last employer, did not permit smokers at all,,,and he was legally justified reason being, that it affected his group insurance rates to insure smokers..Im not sure if the military could use the same basis (insuring the health of its employees) to screen as well. So because a private employer will not allow smoking on their private grounds, it’s ok for the military to deny basic human rights to a specifically designated group of people? Do you think the military should create special units so those who have prejudice against blacks do not have to serve with them? Do think the military should make special provisions to keep the ranks of non-citizens separate from already naturalized citizens? Do you think it would create ‘less stress’ if those who serve are segregated in secular religious units? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i guess no matter what, gays THINK they are being discriminated against... maybe they are, maybe not... but i do know i do not like having it shoved in my face everywhere i look or go. none of these issues will effect me in slightest way, shape or form, so i listen to all this crap about how the cupcakes are so discriminated against, when they have more rights and privileges than i do. but it is never enough, they always want more. the ONLY good thing i have heard from the twinks is when they wanted to put a gay bar next to the GZ mosque, that made my day...and i hope they do, too. but they crying and whining really needs to stop, they just lose what little respect they have left by all this unnecessary b!tchin and moanin...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are correct. All military members are subject to rules and regulations that don't always apply to civilians.
The word - discrmination - is not of itself a bad word. To be discriminate or discerning can be beneficial in meeting certain goals. For example, some people have a propensity for learning languages, while others have superior leadership qualities, or technilogical aptitude, and so on. The military employs many types of assesments to discern the qualities of service members to discriminately determine educational/training placement. That type of discrimination is hugely beneficial and it does not infringe on basic human rights. Assessing physical ability of an individual to comply with the tasks NECESSARY for completing a job or a mission does not infringe on basic human rights. ASKING militery personel to commit (contractually)to enter into a combat situation in which their basic human rights cannot be totally protected, is not equivalent to FORCING only certain individuals to 'give up' basic human rights while thier equals in every other way, are not so enforced. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Sat 09/11/10 07:40 PM
|
|
So because a private employer will not allow smoking on their private grounds, it’s ok for the military to deny basic human rights to a specifically designated group of people? yes, it's the military, and they have a very big and hard job to do... PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY...they should be very strict in who they choose... not only that, some of the best (non - homo) people might not join because of this too... Do you think the military should create special units so those who have prejudice against blacks do not have to serve with them? Why? blacks ain't lookin for some kind of weird, unnatural sex with men...the blacks have to cover their azzes too... Do think the military should make special provisions to keep the ranks of non-citizens separate from already naturalized citizens? are the non-citizens looking at the troops with lust in their eyes? Do you think it would create ‘less stress’ if those who serve are segregated in secular religious units? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The DADT policy is unconstitutional. I disagree that it has anything to do with the constitution. It is , in effect, not a RIGHT to be in the military, it is an employment contract. THere are things I am not permitted to discuss in my place of employment which I sign a contract in agreement to. Freedom of speech only goes so far. Also, the text of the first amendment actually states this 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech' DADT is not a law set by congress for civilians, it is a mandate set by the military , as an employer, just as my employers have always had mandates. For instance, I have signed a no compete contract in the past stating I will not accept employment from other businesses in the same field. Whereas it would not be constitutional for CONGRESS to pass a law against me working for whomever I wish. My employer is not the congress, the legal grounds of repurcussion for violating my employment contract are civil, not criminal and not federal. I have never said serving in the military is a RIGHT. Serving one's country, in any capacity, has always been considered a duty and a responsibility. DADT is not a law set by congress for civilians, it is a mandate set by the military, as an employer,
The military is not part of the private sector, it IS an extension of the Federal government. In either case, private sector or Federal Administration, it is unconstitutional for any human in the USA or under the protection of the USA to be denied certain fundamental/basic human rights. It is considered a basic human right to be express one's self through their true identity, to freely be able to seek and establish personal relationships, and to express themselves in private communications. Those are just a few basic human rights the Constitution grants. The DADT policy however, would deny homosexuals these basic human rights. To allow the DADT policy to continue would mean that the government would be supporting an unconstitutional discriminatory policy - we call that institutionalized discrimination. When discrimination becomes institutionalized within, or affected by any part of the Federal Administration, the Constitution itself is undermined and the protections prescribed under its code of ethics and law can no longer exist for anyone. Even IF, the military were to attempt to correct the discrimination by making DADT a blanket policy it would have to be something like this: NO military personnel would be allowed to admit to any particular sexual orientation, and NO military personnel would be allowed to express themselves in private communication (such as letters professing love or longing for a partner, spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend) or to have any personal property that would suggest to others what an individual's sexual orientation might be (like pictures in their wallet or in their cell phone or in their personal locker). And even if ALL military personnel were prohibited from forming monogamous relationships with other military personnel under penalty of facing discharge without otherwise receiving veteran or other benefits - that policy would still be unconstitutional - because it is an infringement of 'basic human rights' as outlined in the Constitution. just as my employers have always had mandates. For instance, I have signed a no compete contract in the past stating I will not accept employment from other businesses in the same field.
How does this relate to your basic human rights - does the contract infringe on those rights? If you can prove that your basic human rights would be denied then the contract would not stand. No compete clauses are usually valid and temporary and have a lot of other stipulations regarding restrictions, geographic location, and duration, etc - few of which have been shown to deny basic human rights. Whereas it would not be constitutional for CONGRESS to pass a law against me working for whomever I wish.
Neither can they prohibit you from entering into legal contractual agreements of your choosing, but even if you choose to enter into such an agreement and that contract is later proven to infringe on your basic human rights, in ways you could not have foreseen, the contract will not stand - it will be invalidated. There are legal restrictions and limitations to what any employer in the USA can mandate, - but no employer can make mandates that infringe on basic human rights. No employer can order an employee to do something against their religious beliefs - "why is that?" Because, according to the constitution, religious choice is a basic human right. The only time an employer can require/order an individual into a harmful situation is with full understanding and consent of that individual, such as in some civil service workers, and private sector security organizations and of course the military. However, even when individuals with full understanding, willingly consent to face the danger - human rights are still protected under the Constitution. My employer is not the congress, the legal grounds of repurcussion for violating my employment contract are civil, not criminal and not federal.
In regards to military's DADT policy itself (as opposed to individual cases under the policy) it is not affecting the 'civil rights' of homosexuals, it (the existence of the policy itself) is infringing on 'human rights' which are a matter of Federal Law (Constitution). Since the military is an extension of the government only the Federal Supreme Court can have the last say on the constitutionality of the DADT policy itself. The military is not a private sector employer, it is part of the Federal Administration, as such their policies should employ the strictest standards of human ethics reflected in the Constitution. The DADT policy does not reflect the values of our Constitution. If DADT is allowed to stand it will be consistant with institutionalized discrimination and no one would be assured protection of rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect. how can one not FORESEE dadt policy before joining the service? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 09/11/10 10:28 PM
|
|
You are correct. All military members are subject to rules and regulations that don't always apply to civilians.
The word - discrmination - is not of itself a bad word. To be discriminate or discerning can be beneficial in meeting certain goals. For example, some people have a propensity for learning languages, while others have superior leadership qualities, or technilogical aptitude, and so on. The military employs many types of assesments to discern the qualities of service members to discriminately determine educational/training placement. That type of discrimination is hugely beneficial and it does not infringe on basic human rights. Assessing physical ability of an individual to comply with the tasks NECESSARY for completing a job or a mission does not infringe on basic human rights. ASKING militery personel to commit (contractually)to enter into a combat situation in which their basic human rights cannot be totally protected, is not equivalent to FORCING only certain individuals to 'give up' basic human rights while thier equals in every other way, are not so enforced. there is a slight difference between openly expressing heterosexual interests and expressing homosexual interests when people are living and showering in close corners with the SAME sex under such high stress and demanding situations, and when we all come from heterosexual unions that are understood to be a necessity for us to EXIST,,, I think its a poor idea,, If Im a woman training, I dont want to be bunking and showering with straight men OR homosexual women,,especially given all the other 'conveniences' of life I would be being asked to give up, at least being comfortable during my most private times should be a privilege left untainted, and I doubt Im alone,,, but lets leave it to the military to tell how they FEEL because its their lives on the line,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 09/11/10 10:43 PM
|
|
So because a private employer will not allow smoking on their private grounds, it’s ok for the military to deny basic human rights to a specifically designated group of people? yes, it's the military, and they have a very big and hard job to do... PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY...they should be very strict in who they choose... not only that, some of the best (non - homo) people might not join because of this too... Do you think the military should create special units so those who have prejudice against blacks do not have to serve with them? Why? blacks ain't lookin for some kind of weird, unnatural sex with men...the blacks have to cover their azzes too... Do think the military should make special provisions to keep the ranks of non-citizens separate from already naturalized citizens? are the non-citizens looking at the troops with lust in their eyes? Do you think it would create ‘less stress’ if those who serve are segregated in secular religious units? Legitimate questions for you. Do you think every other poster in this thread, except for me and Dragoness, are in complete agreement with your opinions exactly as quoted above? Can see any differnce in your opinions, as quoted above, and those of any other poster here, besides me and Dragoness? If you can see differences between your views and others, can you put them in writing? |
|
|
|
|
