U.S Senate votes to overlift ban on gays in the military

[IronEastBloc]

President Obama has hailed as "an historic step" a vote allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the US military.

Senators voted 65 to 31 to overturn the measure known as 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' (DADT), which was introduced as a compromise measure by President Bill Clinton in 1993.
It allowed gay men and lesbians to enlist, as long as they kept their sexuality a secret, but led to the discharge of almost 14,000 people over 17 years.
Moments after the vote, the President blogged: "It is time to close this chapter in our history.
"It is time to recognise that sacrifice, valour and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed."
"It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law," he wrote.Tod
That is expected to happen before Christmas, although it will be many months before the repeal is fully implemented: the Pentagon has said it wants the change to be introduced gradually to minimise disruption.

That's not enough for some opponents of repeal, including former Presidential hopeful Senator John McCain.

He called the vote a "sad day for America," and warned: "Don't think that it won't be at great cost...it will probably harm the battle effectiveness which is so vital to the survival of our young men and women in the military."
A week ago, the movement to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell had seemed dead in the water. It had been included in a much larger defence bill, which failed to pass.
But two Senators introduced the measure in a stand-alone bill in the dying embers of this 'lame-duck' congress and they managed to secure the votes of eight Republicans - a much larger number than expected.
Repeal had been supported by nearly every Democrat and a number of public figures, including Lady GaGa.
After the vote she tweeted: "Can't hold back the tears + pride. We did it! Our voice was heard + today the Senate REPEALED DADT. A triumph for equality after 17 YEARS."
The UK ended its ban on gays in the military in 2000 after a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, and Israel changed its law in 1993.
Turkey is now the only Nato ally to prevent homosexuals from serving openly in the military.
White House commentator Jon-Christopher Bua told Sky News Online: "By repealing the policy the US Congress and President Obama have moved America one step closer to guaranteeing civil rights for all of its citizens.
"For those who fought to block this historic legislation - denying freedom for individuals who put their lives on the line in service to their country - this bi-partisan vote proves they are out of step with the moral conscience of their fellow Americans.

I would've liked to see the DREAM act pass, but that somehow failed...Today, the senate, realizing they'd need more cannon fodder in the future, has decided to legalize homosexual Americans to die serving empire. good step to end discrimination, I just wish it could've been on something more practical.

[Obs]

good step to end discrimination,
Not really.

[RedSonRising]

While allowing alternative sexual orientations to serve in the military openly doesn't seem like a great thing in the context of a military engaged in two imperialist wars, the fact that the institutional ability for them to serve is no longer kept from them on discriminatory grounds is a positive thing for the LGBT community.

[ZeroNowhere]

Perhaps it would be best to extend DADT to all sexualities, as well as asexuality, and then ask everybody in the army what their sexuality is. People don't have a right to kill brown people for specious reasons.

[Rakhmetov]

<U.S Senate votes to over lift ban on gays in the military>


Great, now more people will join the U.S. military to kill more innocents abroad. Beautiful ... just beautiful!


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wumarkus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/6938465_detail550.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.wumarkus.com/2008/02/26/ty-ziegel/&h=366&w=550&sz=50&tbnid=H46uAYhUNw4P1M:&tbnh=89&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dty%2Bziegel&zoom=1&q=ty+ziegel&hl=en&usg=__kiX3i5b3rKrOa9oIb525CT5uNRA=&sa=X&ei=Jx4OTaeFMIP-8AbplqitDg&ved=0CCMQ9QEwAg

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=ty+zeagal&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=83f87efc6f926f13


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/11/content_7049239_1.htm

[Jalapeno Enema]

The U.S. military is an imperialistic killing machine intent on exerting political power across the globe by force with a runaway budget.

It is comprised primarily of individuals who are mind-raped into believing that it protects it's citizens, and those who have little prospect of thriving in society, so join out of desperation, seeking steady employment and VA benefits.

How I look at it, you don't blame the engine, the chassis, the brakes, or steering wheel when a car hits a pedestrian; you blame the driver.

Blame the politicians and the officers, those who steer the military machine. This doesn't exclude or excuse individuals within the military from personal blame for their personal actions ("just following orders" is a poor defense), but if they were not put into the situation in the first place, it would not be an issue.

Whether or not a certain demographic is excluded from the military, the machine will continue to find all the parts it needs.

I see DADT not as a military issue, but a civic rights issue. Joining the U.S. military is ethically wrong, but it is a right given to heterosexuals by the U.S. Allowing heterosexuals a right (even an unethical one) while denying (open) homosexuals the same is discrimination.

Repealing it would mean nothing more then homosexuals are alloted one more right that heterosexuals have. It's a small step, virtually insignificant, but it is progress. It is a sign that the LGBT community is seen just a little bit more human then they were before.

I'll be much happier, however, the day that homosexuals are given the same legal rights as far as marriage rights (inheritance, medical decisions, divorce etc.), that heterosexuals enjoy.

[Chairman Wow]

Repealing it would mean nothing more then homosexuals are alloted one more right that heterosexuals have. It's a small step, virtually insignificant, but it is progress. It is a sign that the LGBT community is seen just a little bit more human then they were before. I'll be much happier, however, the day that homosexuals are given the same legal rights as far as marriage rights (inheritance, medical decisions, divorce etc.), that heterosexuals enjoy. Seems more like a move to pacify the LGBT population to me. Allowing them a right they basically had anyway (you can still serve in the army, just now you can be open about your sexuality and not get discharged) to make the state appear that it cares about a minority group, yet other inequalities remain unchallenged. Homosexuals can now openly serve America's imperialist interests abroad, yet will still be second-class citizens back home. Will other equal rights follow? I doubt it, maybe it's just the pessimist in me.

[chegitz guevara]

In this last election, 30% of gays who voted, did so for the GOP. Many more stopped donating to the Dems, and lots stayed home on election day. Obama got the message and threw gay people a bone.

Labor did the same thing (except vote GOP), but the Dem's want to break labor.

[Aurorus Ruber]

The U.S. military is an imperialistic killing machine intent on exerting political power across the globe by force with a runaway budget.

It is comprised primarily of individuals who are mind-raped into believing that it protects it's citizens, and those who have little prospect of thriving in society, so join out of desperation, seeking steady employment and VA benefits.

Quite, and I am rather ambivalent on this subject. I must disapprove of the military as an institution and don't think it a great advance to allow more people to engage in its dirty work. But this does mean one less instance of discrimination on the part of the state. And hopefully the possibility of being openly gay in the military will give soldiers, generally considered a socially conservative demographic, more and more positive exposure to gay people.

[thesadmafioso]

Support for this act is based far too heavily upon preconceptions about the nature of the US military, and thus it is unfounded at best. Is the right to join the worlds largest military and proprietor of imperialistic based destruction really something which should be viewed as a right in any regard? The very use of terms such as right imply a necessary shift in the nature of the actual direction of discourse on the matter, as they clearly denote a massive misunderstanding of the subject. Right is too connotative of something good and desirable to be applied to this debate, and the legal definition of a right is something with no place in the discussion. When someone is thrown into jail for murder or any other generally undesirable crime, they are not seen as being deprived of their right to murder, but rather as corrupt individuals being punished for their misgivings. That example of course being one of how the general American populace views such, and one which is often times at fault, but it is still serves as a blunt yet adequate means of conveyance for the general base of logic applied by this populace. The value inherent within the term right makes it one unfit for use in this context, regardless of its technical correctness, as many are incapable of seeing the differentiation between the two.

[Jalapeno Enema]

Seems more like a move to pacify the LGBT population to me. Allowing them a right they basically had anyway (you can still serve in the army, just now you can be open about your sexuality and not get discharged) to make the state appear that it cares about a minority group, yet other inequalities remain unchallenged. Homosexuals can now openly serve America's imperialist interests abroad, yet will still be second-class citizens back home. Will other equal rights follow? I doubt it, maybe it's just the pessimist in me.Now the LGBT community in the military does not need to closet themselves. How is that not progress?

Is there equality? No. Did I claim there was? No.
But one more issue where homosexuals do not need to hide their sexuality? That is progress, slow but sure.

Or would it be better to teach the young people to hide who they are, if not out of shame, then out of fear of a career?


Support for this act is based far too heavily upon preconceptions about the nature of the US military, and thus it is unfounded at best. Is the right to join the worlds largest military and proprietor of imperialistic based destruction really something which should be viewed as a right in any regard? Non-closeted homosexuals not allowed, everybody else allowed. Discrimination.

Nobody here's supporting the military (I hope), but the fact is joining the military is a legal entitlement in the U.S. for heterosexuals meeting criteria. Legal entitlement = legal right.

All other factors equal, a candidate who is openly LGBT does not have that right under DADT.

[thesadmafioso]

Non-closeted homosexuals not allowed, everybody else allowed. Discrimination.

Nobody here's supporting the military (I hope), but the fact is joining the military is a legal entitlement in the U.S. for heterosexuals meeting criteria. Legal entitlement = legal right.

All other factors equal, a candidate who is openly LGBT does not have that right under DADT.

It would appear you missed the grander point and that you instead fell into the trap of the sort of generic thinking displayed by the general American populace. It should be noted that I did not contest the fact that joining the military is technically a legal right, and that my arguments were based rather around the connotative value of the term right. In the context of public discourse, it is of the most significance to take into account the actual direction of debate and the factors which influence such, regardless of any minor discrepancies which may arise if a restrictive and narrow interpretation of general logic is applied in a literal manner.

You are working within the constructs put forth by our adversaries and thus you are bound to reach faulty conclusions. Any answer which is provided under the terms of capitalist debate will invariably be wrong, and to reach a valid conclusion this realization must be reached.

[FreeFocus]

Gonna be honest, a pig in the military being gay doesn't make me give a shit about them or make them less imperialist. I would have never organized for or participated in any type of agitation for this bullshit, but whatever. It passed. This won't change the world in any real way so I'm not concerned about it.

[Amphictyonis]

No one should join the military.

[Jalapeno Enema]

It would appear you missed the grander point and that you instead fell into the trap of the sort of generic thinking displayed by the general American populace.What thinking would that be? Please don't Circulus in Probando, and tell us.


It should be noted that I did not contest the fact that joining the military is technically a legal right, and that my arguments were based rather around the connotative value of the term right.Alright, what exactly would a right be? A natural right? Sorry, but I don't go in for that sort of nonsense; there is no "good" or "bad" supernatural dogma that dictates what you are entitled to. A natural right is exactly what you can get away with. Therefore, the strongest would have the most natural rights.

Statutory rights, on the other hand, are those deemed as a right by society (these would include laws, but are by no means limited to). Society's norms and mores are what dictate what is just and unjust. Take the classic example of cannibalism; who is to say that when it harms nobody that it is "wrong"?

Just because a society implements a statutory right does not make it moral by any means. The parameters for whether statutory rights are ethical or unethical would be "as long as it does not interfere with others' rights". Perhaps someday, with some work, society can get over their obsession with nations and states, and we can simplify our statutory rights to that single basic right; to not be harmed or infringed upon.


In the context of public discourse, it is of the most significance to take into account the actual direction of debate and the factors which influence such, regardless of any minor discrepancies which may arise if a restrictive and narrow interpretation of general logic is applied in a literal manner.And I am. DADT is not an issue about the morality of a military. DADT is an issue of civil rights.


You are working within the constructs put forth by our adversaries and thus you are bound to reach faulty conclusions. Any answer which is provided under the terms of capitalist debate will invariably be wrong, and to reach a valid conclusion this realization must be reached.
I disagree; I am working within the constructs put forth by civil rights. To imply that I am arguing as a capitalist, or with a capitalist's logic would be avoiding the issue entirely, accusing me of "faulty logic" without addressing the arguments, and attempting a subtle undermining of my arguments, or "straw man" fallacy, or even an ad hominem.

[thesadmafioso]

What thinking would that be? Please don't Circulus in Probando, and tell us.

Alright, what exactly would a right be? A natural right? Sorry, but I don't go in for that sort of nonsense; there is no "good" or "bad" supernatural dogma that dictates what you are entitled to. A natural right is exactly what you can get away with. Therefore, the strongest would have the most natural rights.

Statutory rights, on the other hand, are those deemed as a right by society (these would include laws, but are by no means limited to). Society's norms and mores are what dictate what is just and unjust. Take the classic example of cannibalism; who is to say that when it harms nobody that it is "wrong"?

Just because a society implements a statutory right does not make it moral by any means. The parameters for whether statutory rights are ethical or unethical would be "as long as it does not interfere with others' rights". Perhaps someday, with some work, society can get over their obsession with nations and states, and we can simplify our statutory rights to that single basic right; to not be harmed or infringed upon.

And I am. DADT is not an issue about the morality of a military. DADT is an issue of civil rights.


I disagree; I am working within the constructs put forth by civil rights. To imply that I am arguing as a capitalist, or with a capitalist's logic would be avoiding the issue entirely, accusing me of "faulty logic" without addressing the arguments, and attempting a subtle undermining of my arguments, or "straw man" fallacy, or even an ad hominem.

Your arguments cannot be addressed as they are of a flawed premise, and thus to argue the actual content of such would be to be an act of sheer futility. I can only suggest you take another go at reading my previous comments, as they appear to of gone well over your head.

DADT may be in a limited sense a issue of civil rights, but in the public forum it is viewed in a distorted manner which is based far too heavily in positive assumptions of the military. By arguing in the confines of the media's frame of the issue in such a black and white manner is to damage the leftist cause, as the necessary questions are not being raised in regards to the issue. Ignoring the broader context of the issue will inevitably bring about a limited and flawed answer, and that is exactly what you are doing in this case.

And I don't know why you are rambling on about rights, I was just using the connotative value of the world which is held by the general American public, I never said anything to imply in the slightest that I actually agree with such thinking. If you would like to make a valid point, perhaps you would like to take a go at proving me wrong about the ignorance of the American people in regards to their understanding of rights. We can debate the semantics of what qualifies something as a right for as long as we like, but it would not change the irrelevance of such in the grander picture of actually swaying the direction of public discourse for the time being.

I am not putting up a straw man argument of any sort, you cannot accuse someone of doing such simply because they are viewing the context of the debate in a broader, more developed sense.

[chegitz guevara]

I guess we should go back to a segregated military.

[GPDP]

Interesting how the GOP is now ok enough with homosexuals serving openly to let this pass, but god forbid the progeny of brown people, who had absolutely no choice in the matter of coming here illegally, become legal residents of this country through the DREAM Act.

I guess it makes sense. There's really not all that much that can be gained from demonizing gay people other than saying "ew, icky" and a few votes from hardcore social conservatives, while xenophobia and racism remains an extremely powerful tool of class warfare, which can always be brought up to divide the American working class and get them to hate their compatriots.

And that's the last chance I'll get for at least another two years. Right on the morning of my college graduation, too.

Fuck this country.

[Jalapeno Enema]

Spoiler warning: long-ass post

Your arguments cannot be addressed as they are of a flawed premise, and thus to argue the actual content of such would be to be an act of sheer futility.

You criticize my arguments stating that they are fundamentally flawed, yet fail to offer an explanation as to how my arguments are flawed.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Rather then addressing the position I had taken, it has been disregarded under the premise that my arguments are invalid. Furthermore, you have failed to back up these superficial claims. Even if some fundamental err in my logic were found, argument from fallacy dictates that you cannot use the flawed argument to prove the result is false; you must prove how it is false.


I can only suggest you take another go at reading my previous comments, as they appear to of gone well over your head.

Complacent superiority, the assumption that those who disagree with one's opinions must be wrong, does not make an authority, or an argument valid.

I have read your arguments, and can assure you that they have not gone over my head.


DADT may be in a limited sense a issue of civil rights, but in the public forum it is viewed in a distorted manner which is based far too heavily in positive assumptions of the military.

The assumed positive aspects of the military as shared by many citizens is irrelevant to DATA; that is a completely different debate. DADT does not address the moral or ethical values of the military, whether or not the military is justified or not, etc.

The only purpose of DADT was to keep open homosexuals out of the military. That is the only issue DADT addresses.


By arguing in the confines of the media's frame of the issue in such a black and white manner is to damage the leftist cause, as the necessary questions are not being raised in regards to the issue.

Do we all agree (I hope) that homosexual discrimination is "bad"? Where is the grey area? Homosexuals deserve all of the same rights as heterosexuals.

Just because a homosexual has the option to join the military does not mean is an ethical choice. All it means is that they have the same option that a heterosexual has.


Ignoring the broader context of the issue will inevitably bring about a limited and flawed answer, and that is exactly what you are doing in this case.

No, I am addressing the issue at hand. The issue at hand is DADT, then ban on open homosexuals serving in the military.

It is not about whether or not homosexuals, heterosexuals, or anybody else is justified joining the military. That is a different debate, and I am sure there are plenty of threads about the ethics of military.

The Broader issues are not DADT issues, but rather moral and ethical questions about the military.


And I don't know why you are rambling on about rights, I was just using the connotative value of the world which is held by the general American public, I never said anything to imply in the slightest that I actually agree with such thinking.

you asked:

"Is the right to join the worlds largest military and proprietor of imperialistic based destruction really something which should be viewed as a right in any regard?"

I answered.


If you would like to make a valid point,

. . .seriously, hands and feet inside the argument, please.


perhaps you would like to take a go at proving me wrong about the ignorance of the American people in regards to their understanding of rights.

No, I'm good. This topic has plenty of material without diverging off to topics that I don't agree with, never implied as such, and are irrelevant.


We can debate the semantics of what qualifies something as a right for as long as we like, but it would not change the irrelevance of such in the grander picture of actually swaying the direction of public discourse for the time being.

I agree arguing semantics is getting old, and should be dropped.

The relevance of "rights" is paramount, however, since this is a civil rights issue.


I am not putting up a straw man argument of any sort, you cannot accuse someone of doing such simply because they are viewing the context of the debate in a broader, more developed sense.
I have lost count of ad hominems aimed at myself, but if I may, I'll introduce a blatant one of my own here.

Your arguments are supported nearly entirely upon superficial attempts to discredit opposing arguments, or distractions from the topic at hand, on attacking myself, and on implying that you have a deeper, better understanding of the topic. You surround your arguments with pretty words, but under those words is no real substance, and a complete lack of support. I am certainly not infallible; I have conceded my stance on other threads when proven so. I am definitely not a philosopher, however it is not from lack of ability. I take offense to each case where rather then addressing the topic you have implied your superiority.

I am happy to discuss the topic at hand, but hearing how you're all high and mighty, and that I cannot possibly comprehend your higher level is already rather tiresome.

If you disagree that DATA has a positive impact on the LGBT community, come out and say so, and say why it is not. I believe it is positive; not definitive by any stretch, but a step to sexuality acceptance.


I guess we should go back to a segregated military.That is a good point that mirrors contemporary civic issues very well.

Many of the arguments against repealing DADT were used when racial integration was proposed.


Imagine this.

A brave soldier in Vietnam is talking with his buddy how gays would destroy the espree de corps, how it would degenerate the service morally.

SHHCUDD SHHHHUD (NAPALM DROPS ON A VILLAGE)

I dont want any gays around while Im killing kids.
Absolutely ridiculous, isn't it?

Some glorious day hopefully we can get rid of the military. It won't happen for quite some time, though (I'd be surprised if so in my lifetime). Until then, we can focus on what little we can do today.

[thesadmafioso]

Spoiler warning: long-ass post


You criticize my arguments stating that they are fundamentally flawed, yet fail to offer an explanation as to how my arguments are flawed.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Rather then addressing the position I had taken, it has been disregarded under the premise that my arguments are invalid. Furthermore, you have failed to back up these superficial claims. Even if some fundamental err in my logic were found, argument from fallacy dictates that you cannot use the flawed argument to prove the result is false; you must prove how it is false.



Complacent superiority, the assumption that those who disagree with one's opinions must be wrong, does not make an authority, or an argument valid.

I have read your arguments, and can assure you that they have not gone over my head.



The assumed positive aspects of the military as shared by many citizens is irrelevant to DATA; that is a completely different debate. DADT does not address the moral or ethical values of the military, whether or not the military is justified or not, etc.

The only purpose of DADT was to keep open homosexuals out of the military. That is the only issue DADT addresses.



Do we all agree (I hope) that homosexual discrimination is "bad"? Where is the grey area? Homosexuals deserve all of the same rights as heterosexuals.

Just because a homosexual has the option to join the military does not mean is an ethical choice. All it means is that they have the same option that a heterosexual has.



No, I am addressing the issue at hand. The issue at hand is DADT, then ban on open homosexuals serving in the military.

It is not about whether or not homosexuals, heterosexuals, or anybody else is justified joining the military. That is a different debate, and I am sure there are plenty of threads about the ethics of military.

The Broader issues are not DADT issues, but rather moral and ethical questions about the military.



you asked:

"Is the right to join the worlds largest military and proprietor of imperialistic based destruction really something which should be viewed as a right in any regard?"

I answered.



. . .seriously, hands and feet inside the argument, please.



No, I'm good. This topic has plenty of material without diverging off to topics that I don't agree with, never implied as such, and are irrelevant.



I agree arguing semantics is getting old, and should be dropped.

The relevance of "rights" is paramount, however, since this is a civil rights issue.


I have lost count of ad hominems aimed at myself, but if I may, I'll introduce a blatant one of my own here.

Your arguments are supported nearly entirely upon superficial attempts to discredit opposing arguments, or distractions from the topic at hand, on attacking myself, and on implying that you have a deeper, better understanding of the topic. You surround your arguments with pretty words, but under those words is no real substance, and a complete lack of support. I am certainly not infallible; I have conceded my stance on other threads when proven so. I am definitely not a philosopher, however it is not from lack of ability. I take offense to each case where rather then addressing the topic you have implied your superiority.

I am happy to discuss the topic at hand, but hearing how you're all high and mighty, and that I cannot possibly comprehend your higher level is already rather tiresome.

If you disagree that DATA has a positive impact on the LGBT community, come out and say so, and say why it is not. I believe it is positive; not definitive by any stretch, but a step to sexuality acceptance.

That is a good point that mirrors contemporary civic issues very well.

Many of the arguments against repealing DADT were used when racial integration was proposed.


Absolutely ridiculous, isn't it?

Some glorious day hopefully we can get rid of the military. It won't happen for quite some time, though (I'd be surprised if so in my lifetime). Until then, we can focus on what little we can do today.

My time could probably be spent in a more effectual manner elsewhere, but out of the kindness of my heart and out of a love for humanity I suppose that I could assist in your efforts of understanding the world as you seem to be in dire need of such assistance. You may very well choose to call these comments ad hominem, but that does not make them such. Your understanding of the topic clearly relates to this discussion, if you do not have a proper understanding of this subject matter your are quite obviously not fit to debate with others who have such knowledge. It matters not if you say that you understand my remarks, what matters is if your replies reflect that, and thus far that has not been the case. I don't care if you can assure me that you understood what I said, what I would much rather see are comments which show your comprehension in a tangible form. Until then, I would suggest you hold of on the insultingly false latin comparisons.

Dealing with the root of an argument is not equatable to creating a "straw man" argument, it is just a more broad and effective way of dealing with an argument. Surely you cannot reasonably deny the basic notion that a flawed premise of argumentation taints any argument which is built off of it? By taking something that is false and then making arguments which recognize such as true is to make a flawed argument. It follows quite easily that to deal with a issue at its root causation is to deal with it in the only manner which will provide a meaningful and actually relevant answer. Your own inability to understand the most fundamental underpinnings of logic and reason does not put my points of argument at fault, it just stems back to a failure of logic on your behalf. It is of no relevance to this topic of discussion, and I would appreciate it if you would move beyond this fictitious insults and spare me the annoyance of explaining these simplistic concepts.

A failure to make the necessary connections and correlations between the literal topic at hand in this discussion and the themes of which I have dealt with does not put you into a position where you can correctly throw about such terminology. Your false accusations are nothing but desperate measures of avoidance, and they do not exactly make you out to be fit to debate this subject.

But on to your actual remarks, which although dead wrong, at least give me something of substance to work with.

By saying that the issue of DADT deals exclusively with the rights of homosexuals, you are completely overlooking the larger context in which this debate is set, and you are encasing yourself into a constrictive mode of reasoning here. Yes, I do in fact recall your stating that you understood this point, but this comments implies the opposite, so review would appear to be in order. Only the most literal of fools would see this debate as something which advances the wellbeing of homosexuals, as being allowed to take on the role of a mindless drone of the military is not something which can be quantifiable as progress. It is discrimination, yes. But once more, the literal mindset and all of its negative connotations of discrimination must be cast aside for a moment to see the issue for what it truly is. It was a means by which homosexuals were protected from becoming caught up in a organization with the primary task of exporting destruction. I am not by any means denying that its intent was completely separate from that, but rather that the actual results were more positive than negative. You may blindly flail about and talk of how that is not relevant to this discussion, but it does not change the fact that such was the result of DADT. Call if frivolous and paint this as a straw man argument all you like, but the reality is that the hiring pool for the US military was just expanded a great deal, and it just became that much more of an appealing option for many individuals. It matters not what narrow view of this issue you expose on this site, but you cannot change the political reality which has now been created due to this legislation.

And in regards to the matter of the use of the term 'right' in the public arena, you need to learn the difference between its actual practical use in the context of American public opinion and the form which it should ideally take. My question had the intent of highlighting this difference, by examining the immorality of the terms modern usage, while my actual argument used the term in the practical sense. When dealing with matters such as shifting public opinion, you have to work around already existing social constructs such as connotations to a certain degree to achieve success, and that is exactly what I was doing. I never once spoke of natural rights, or anything even remotely translatable to such, bur rather of how the world 'right' is used in public forums and how it should be avoided in this context due to its strong connotative value. Though I never understated the significance of debating the semantics of rights, I merely stated that doing such holds little value in matters which deal with the general public, so I do not believe we are in agreement there. Comprehension of the opposition in argumentation is key if such is to net any actual results, it would be far more productive if you would pay more attention to its value. While on the subject of misinterpretation, you also seem to have distorted my views on the importance of rights when you kindly reminded me with pleasant bold lettering that this discussion is in fact on of civil rights. It should be noted that I never underwrote the value of such, and I merely noted that certain aspects of the term are hardly relevant in the context of this discussion and attempted to clarify the difference between the terms morally justifiable version and its popular interpretation, something which I have briefly touched on already. If anything it would appear that you are underwriting the value of a proper and well examined use of the term rights by refraining to disprove my point of american ignorance towards the term, which if I may note is something which demands the highest premium be attached to its understanding in a debate of this nature.

I disagree that this legislation will have any meaningful impact on the LGBT, though perhaps some will view it as such due to a misinterpretation of it in the media. Joining the military is not a legal right which any morally sane human being should desire, and if a group has such an insatiable lust for such a morally deprived right, grander issues are at play here. And these grander issues desperately need to be addressed, far more than any insignificant 'victory' for the LGBT community which wishes to see its brethren torn into mindless husks and implements of imperialistic conquest. Once more though, lets hear the accusations of this argument being a straw man, and lets have more physical proof of your cognitive inadequacies in regards to drawing readily apparent correlations.

[progressive_lefty]

Such a great day, hopefully the US can join the global community on other issues as well. Obama has achieved a lot in getting this through.

[Lucretia]

And I am. DADT is not an issue about the morality of a military. DADT is an issue of civil rights.

This is just you making a dogmatic declaration. This is not an argument. Of course allowing equal access to the military IS about the military. Don't be foolish.

To use the metaphor I developed in a different context: it's like giving women an equal right with men to own slaves. Sure, it's equality, but what kind of equality? I guess you would be on this forum arguing it's not about slavery. :blushing:

[Lucretia]

I guess we should go back to a segregated military.

No, but I would be more than happy if the military "discriminated" by banning black people. There goes a majority of its manpower. :)