Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Inching towards equality

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
September 20, 2011 6:03:59 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14981082

A policy banning open homosexuality in the US military has been repealed after nearly two decades.

The dropping of "don't ask, don't tell" means service members can now reveal they are gay without fear of investigation or discharge.

The armed forces have been accepting applications from openly gay recruits for a number of weeks and will begin processing them now that the new law has taken effect.

The military has also published a revised set of regulations, without references to any ban against homosexual service members.

Pending investigations, discharges and other administrative proceedings have now been dropped under the new law.

Those who have been discharged under the don't ask, don't tell rule are entitled to re-enlist.


Today the "Land of the free" lived up to its name and officially and completely repealed this piece of institutionalized discrimination based on nothing more than religious bigotry.

The United States now finally joins Denmark, Estonia, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Peru, Russia, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Sweden, Canada, Croatia, Taiwan, Greece, Switzerland, Malta, Japan, the UK, Uruguay and probably a few others.

More about : inching equality

September 20, 2011 6:55:44 PM

Thank you Gulli I was hoping someone would post on this.

I love how much noise politicians did (And are) making about all of this and the military's official stance is "Business as usual"
September 20, 2011 7:04:12 PM

Once the military leaders concurred this direction, this is simply business as usual for them
September 20, 2011 7:29:28 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Once the military leaders concurred this direction, this is simply business as usual for them


Right, that's why some of them vigorously opposed the repeal. Then again, it's always been that way hasn't it? Every time some minority wins equal rights after a long struggle, suddenly no one can remember ever being opposed to it. It just gets swept under the carpet and people move on to some other minority.

Mark my words: 50 years from now religious figures and movements will downplay their historic involvement in the suppression of gays just like they have done with women and slaves.
September 20, 2011 7:37:45 PM

Gulli said:
Today the "Land of the free" lived up to its name and officially and completely repealed this piece of institutionalized discrimination based on nothing more than religious bigotry.
Do you even understand why DADT was implemented to begin with?

If anything, DADT was implemented to mitigate discrimination in the military.

If anything, implementing DADT and it's subsequent repeal furthered the acceptance of LGBT's in the military.

Religious bigotry...HAHAHAHAHA...DADT as institutionalized discrimination...HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!1!!!1111

September 20, 2011 7:43:26 PM

The only branch that was vigorously opposed as you say, was the Marine Corps, and for some good reasons.

Unit cohesion is paramount in the Marine Corps, moreso even than in the other branches. It's what makes them such a lethal fighting force. Allowing openly gay marines in a forward combat unit could seriously disrupt that cohesion and cost lives.

That is the argument anyway.
September 20, 2011 8:10:08 PM

chunkymonster said:
Do you even understand why DADT was implemented to begin with?

If anything, DADT was implemented to mitigate discrimination in the military.

If anything, implementing DADT and it's subsequent repeal furthered the acceptance of LGBT's in the military.

Religious bigotry...HAHAHAHAHA...DADT as institutionalized discrimination...HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!1!!!1111


I do understand: it was the gay equivalent of the 3/5 compromise. Both were institutionalized discrimination. There is no such thing as mitigated discrimination: you either discriminate or you don't: you can't be half pregnant.

Clinton has said he wanted DADT repealed and that he never intended for it to mean that people could be fired if someone else found out about their sexuality.

There is no rational reason to restrict the rights of gay people: all opposition comes from irrational arguments, mostly religion.
September 21, 2011 12:45:37 AM

chunkymonster said:
Do you even understand why DADT was implemented to begin with?

If anything, DADT was implemented to mitigate discrimination in the military.

If anything, implementing DADT and it's subsequent repeal furthered the acceptance of LGBT's in the military.

Religious bigotry...HAHAHAHAHA...DADT as institutionalized discrimination...HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!1!!!1111



Don't ask don't tell was a step to start going in the right right direction but it did not fix all the problems and even created new ones.
It within itself had a legality that would be extremely questionable because it was indeed still a form of discrimination just to a lesser
extent than what existed previously before. I can see both sides points in those who saw it as a positive step and those who saw it as unacceptable
to not dive in fully. It was far from perfect and deserves fair criticism.

I suppose it can be compared to African Americans. When the slaves were freed it wasn't like life was good for them and there was still massive discrimination
against them (as well as violence and other terrible acts) they have been "free" but they were not equal and for most life was quite hell even afterwards.
While I am sure everyone here can agree that slavery ending was a good thing, that is simply was not enough alone. Because of the unwillingness to do the right thing fully from the start they endured and suffered for much longer.


Oldmangamer_73 said:
The only branch that was vigorously opposed as you say, was the Marine Corps, and for some good reasons.

Unit cohesion is paramount in the Marine Corps, moreso even than in the other branches. It's what makes them such a lethal fighting force. Allowing openly gay marines in a forward combat unit could seriously disrupt that cohesion and cost lives.

That is the argument anyway.



I would say it is 100% right, but the solution to the problem is not banning homosexuals from serving. Let's replace homosexual with just any thing else. Catholic, Hindu, Atheist, Asian, Irish, African American, Jewish. You see the problem? Every single one of those groups of people whether race or religion but certainly not limited to those things have people who actively hate them. If Private Johnson just really doesn't like blacks should we ban African Americans from military service?
Is the problem the blacks that he hates? The answer is simple, the problem is Private Johnson. He has the problem working with and others not the other way around.

We do have the "luxury" of our ancestors when it comes to their military force where all the people have all the large aspects of them would be the same. Race , religion, culture, and backgrounds. Having a military like that today at-least in America would be impossible. Certainly such a military structure is desirable as it does have advantages. However we can achieve the same effects by actually doing the reverse, today we need people who can ignore the differences between them-self and the man next to him and weed out the ones that simply cannot co-exist. Value and respect the man next to you because he is different and you and him together fight for the very right to be different.
September 21, 2011 12:58:27 AM

I disagree, simply because, until some asian who hates whites or blacks is pulled from a firefight by a white or black, then he cant go home and tell his family or like minded friends about such an act, and how these things transcend such minor things as bigotry and hate
September 21, 2011 4:16:12 AM

well just think about it...
an openly gay man in a Muslim country.
last time i checked Islam was not too fond of homosexuals.
if there is one excuse why the US did not do this sooner it would be to save a few lives.

September 21, 2011 11:29:37 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I disagree, simply because, until some asian who hates whites or blacks is pulled from a firefight by a white or black, then he cant go home and tell his family or like minded friends about such an act, and how these things transcend such minor things as bigotry and hate


It should never reach that point however. I find that most hateful people have a extremely hard time containing it to hide it for long. I remember before basic even started for me while we were still in processing pretty much every homophobic revealed themselves already. Racism even popped up in a short time, I remember a fist fight starting it was so random too, one Caucasian kid walked up to a group of three African Americans and told them what he thought of their kind, called them the N word, two of them maintained their composure and remained silent, the other once just went in swinging. The Caucasian kid who is now knowingly one to instigate racial tension and even violence was not discharged. He was a problem and a potential future problem it does not make sense to me to keep him.

mjmjpfaff said:
well just think about it...
an openly gay man in a Muslim country.
last time i checked Islam was not too fond of homosexuals.
if there is one excuse why the US did not do this sooner it would be to save a few lives.


This is perhaps one of the worst arguments I have ever heard. As if the terrorists have psychic powers and can tell your sexuality just by capturing you?
I also cannot help but think of the hilarity of your logic (or lack of) if applied to other situations if by some odd twist of fate a terrorist organization
consisted of only homosexuals would we only send in our homosexual troops? You know what, racism exists even in those Arab nations, maybe we should only send our Arab
troops?

Face-palms.
September 21, 2011 12:41:36 PM

They should be farily easy to spot. Just look for the boa and the finely manicured finger nails.

^^joke.

I think if you ask the actual people serving, the majority will not have a problem with it at all as long as behaviour stays professional.
September 21, 2011 1:43:43 PM

Gay people can shoot, jump, stab, crawl, observe, report, and push buttons just like the rest of us.

They will probably look better doing it though ... Isn't that what we are afraid of ??



:) 
September 21, 2011 1:55:31 PM

Reynod said:
Gay people can shoot, jump, stab, crawl, observe, report, and push buttons just like the rest of us.

They will probably look better doing it though ... Isn't that what we are afraid of ??



:) 



You bet. In America on average, gay people are more educated and are mostly fine contributing members of society.

It's just dumb to deny our military access to this talent pool.
September 21, 2011 2:18:00 PM

Reynod said:
Gay people can shoot, jump, stab, crawl, observe, report, and push buttons just like the rest of us.

They will probably look better doing it though ... Isn't that what we are afraid of ??



:) 

and that is why i supported the descision to end dont ask dont tell
September 21, 2011 2:57:36 PM

Gulli said:
There is no rational reason to restrict the rights of gay people: all opposition comes from irrational arguments, mostly religion.


[tangent]

You say that like an irrational argument, one based on moral principles, is wrong. And yet many decisions/arguments/etc. that are based on some set of moral principles don't make rational sense to people who don't share the same principles.

What I worry about is that people's freedom to practice religion, one of the central tenants of the founders of this country, is increasingly being stepped on in the name of extending rights to other groups.

[/tangent]
September 21, 2011 3:11:19 PM

And as the thread has moved from rights for gay people to work freely in the military to religion so ends this thread.

!