|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:13 am Post subject: Republicans Trying to Stall on Ending DADT Discrimination |
 |
|
Article here.
| Quote: |
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) warned that now is the wrong time to consider repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy just days after President Obama signaled in his State of the Union address that his administration would push forward with changing it.
"At a time when Americans are asking 'where are the jobs,' why do we want to get in this debate?" Boehner told NBC's David Gregory on an appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
The Ohio Republican added: "In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?" |
Trying to justify the continuation of institutionalized discrimination because of high unemployment rates and military action is just perplexing. This is especially true given there's very little to actually debate. Mr. Boehner seems to be implying that there's some positive side to institutionalized discrimination that would make this into a serious discussion. Mr. Boehner seems to be implying that there's some positive side to a policy which has cost our military over 10,000 otherwise qualified individuals, making our army less effective no matter how you look at it.
| Quote: |
| Boehner predicted that any action on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lead to a "divisive debate" and "do nothing more than distract the real debate that should occur here about helping to get our economy going again and getting American people back to work." |
Here is how this should have read:
Boehner predicted that an open discussion on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lead to a "divisive debate" between politicians who support institutionalized discrimination and politicians who oppose it, and yet again highlight how much of the Republican platform is predicated upon opposition to minority enfranchisement.
I just don't understand how people can take a political stance in favor of systematic, legislated inequality without feeling like monsters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:15 am Post subject: Re: Republicans Trying to Stall on Ending DADT Discriminatio |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I just don't understand how people can take a political stance in favor of systematic, legislated inequality without feeling like monsters. |
And those exact people cannot believe how you can take a stance which they believe puts our children at risk.
It was at or near the beginning of the now three-decade-old child sex abuse witchhunt that Anita Bryant led an effort to overturn a Dade County, Florida ordinance entitling gays to equal rights on the grounds that gays would be out there recruiting our children into their "lifestyle."
This myth continues to resonate with many people. Hand in hand with that is another myth, namely that any sex below some magical age of 16 or 18, even when willingly engaged in, leaves one seriously scarred for life. This is just not something these people are willing to risk, a perfectly valid rationale in their minds.
DADT may be gotten rid of well before progress is made combating these myths. After all, it is the military we are talking about here. But only after both are countered will there be full acceptance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One report says discharges for violations of DADT were down 30% last year.
Anyway, the big announcement is scheduled for today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:14 am Post subject: Re: Republicans Trying to Stall on Ending DADT Discriminatio |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Here is how this should have read:
Boehner predicted that an open discussion on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lead to a "divisive debate" between politicians who support institutionalized discrimination and politicians who oppose it, and yet again highlight how much of the Republican platform is predicated upon opposition to minority enfranchisement.
I just don't understand how people can take a political stance in favor of systematic, legislated inequality without feeling like monsters. |
I wonder if he thinks they'd have time to tackle affirmative action and hate crime legislation while they're at it.
(Before you say it, off-topic, I know.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:04 pm Post subject: Re: Republicans Trying to Stall on Ending DADT Discriminatio |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Here is how this should have read:
Boehner predicted that an open discussion on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lead to a "divisive debate" between politicians who support institutionalized discrimination and politicians who oppose it, and yet again highlight how much of the Republican platform is predicated upon opposition to minority enfranchisement.
I just don't understand how people can take a political stance in favor of systematic, legislated inequality without feeling like monsters. |
I wonder if he thinks they'd have time to tackle affirmative action and hate crime legislation while they're at it.
(Before you say it, off-topic, I know.) |
I don't know what Boehner's opinion is on the matter, but personally I support affirmative action and hate crimes legislation also being abolished as forms of institutionalized discrimination. These policies are wrong, and they were always wrong.
Government needs to get out of the business of systematically discriminating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the flood gates are open with regards to totally insane rhetoric regarding ending DADT:
| Family Research Council President Tony Perkins wrote: |
| Let�s go back to the Military Times in 2008 had a poll of active duty military members. Fifty-eight percent said they were opposed to overturning this policy. And many have said that this will cause them to reconsider whether or not they will stay in the military. And it will have an impact upon recruiting. I mean this is an issue of retention and recruitment for the military and it ultimately could lead back to the imposition of a draft in order to fill the numbers and quotas in the military. |
That's right. If we don't end a policy that has forced us to throw 10,000 otherwise qualified people out of the military, we might need to activate the draft. The insanity of this position is just mind boggling. These soldiers know homosexuals are all ready serving among them; anyone so irrational, hateful, and ill educated that homosexuals who are all ready serving simply being allowed to admit to their homosexuality acts is sufficient to drive them from the military probably don't have too many alternative employment options anyway. This is a total non-issue.
But the Rabbinical Alliance of America takes it even further:
| Quote: |
When Americans are suffering economically and millions need jobs, it's shocking that the Administration is focused on its ultra-liberal militantly homosexualist agenda forcing the highlighting of homosexuals and homosexuality on an unwilling military. This is the equivalent of the spiritual rape of our military to satisfy the most extreme and selfish cadre of President Obama's kooky coalition.
...
We have seen the underground earthquake, tsunami, Katrina, and now Haiti. All this is in sync with a two thousand year old teaching in the Talmud that the practice of homosexuality is a spiritual cause of earthquakes. Once a disaster is unleashed, innocents are also victims just like in Chernobyl.
We plead with saner heads in Congress and the Pentagon to stop sodomization of our military and our society. Enough is enough.
|
That's right. Not only are people who simply want to end institutionalize discrimination 'selfish, extremist kooks', but homosexuality is also responsible for natural disasters. The fact that they end this insane rant with a plea directed at "the saner heads in Congress," is just ridiculous. As soon as you start claiming gays cause earthquakes simply by existing, I think you've lost any potential grounds for engaging in serious of discussion about what is or isn't sane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's hilarious. Who knew that Haiti was such a gay mecca. Why aren't there earthquakes in Mykonos? Why hasn't SF been levelled to the ground?
I feel kind of cynical about repealling the DADT policy. Now that they have such a problem with military recruitment people want to change the policy but before they didn't need gays. Still I think it would lead to more acceptance of gays in the long term so I would be in favor of changing the policy. I've just never had much interest in the military before so it doesn't mean much to me personally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
According to the KOS/Research 2000 Poll, here is what the GOP regulars think of gays in the military:
QUESTION: Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?
YES NO NOT SURE
26 55 19
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's pretty depressing, especially their other polls about gays being allowed to marry, be teachers, etc. Still it's just Republicans on the polls.
I know this isn't really relevant but kos means the C word in Farsi and Kurdish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I know this isn't really relevant but kos means the C word in Farsi and Kurdish. |
More relevant: What does it mean in Greek? (I think his name is Greek.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't know Greek but I know there's an island called Kos in the Aegean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, Republican hypocrisy is out in full force now. A number of Republicans in the past -- including Senator Graham, Senator McCain, Senator Sessions, Senator Coburn, and so forth -- used the opinion of military leaders to justify DADT. They said that we should not repeal it, because military leaders weren't calling for the repeal.
Well guess what? Now they are. Both current Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen and previous Joint Chiefs Chairman Collin Powell have come out opposing DADT (I believe Robert Gates has as well?). But rather than taking the advice of these men -- advice which Republicans once claimed was of primary importance -- Republicans have opposed it. McCain has gone on record saying he's disappointed with Admiral Mullen's testimony, and Congressman Hunter has gone as far as to say we can't accept this testimony at face value because these men -- who he dismisses as "political apointees" -- are biased in favor of the Administration.
Republicans don't care about the opinions of military leaders; they never did. All they care about here is oppressing homosexuals in order to pander to their base. And they will justify that pandering in any way possible. If military leaders agree, the opinions of military leaders are of importance. If military leaders disagree, then said opinions must be dismissed as unimportant or biased.
We see the same pattern with health care. We see the same pattern with financial reform. We see the same pattern with civil rights. Hell, we see the same pattern with a basic bill enforcing fiscal responsibility. The Republicans have lost it, and all it took is a Democrat being elected into office and making very slight alterations at best to the policies in place by George Bush to push them over the edge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now I remember what it was I didn't like about the Republican party. They were talking some sense for a while, but then this issue comes up and the puritanical streak of the party comes to the fore. Yes, the LGBT community should be allowed to serve, and they should be encouraged to do so if they so choose. Although, it is no longer about LGBTs in the military. The Socons have now sunk to the lowest common denominator. Some of them are out making the rounds on cable TV demanding that Lawrence v. Texas be overturned. That's right, they want to criminalize, not just sodomy, but "gay behavior" generally.
From Cato @ Liberty:
| Quote: |
In a conversation about �Don�t Ask, Don�t Tell,� Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council admitted that he wants to re-criminalize sodomy:
|
Hardball link here. Seriosly, these people should be kept as far away as possible from any lever of power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Analysis: Where gays do serve, openly, in the military?
| Quote: |
In many corners of the world, the policy on gays in the military could be labeled this way: �Don�t Ask, Don�t Care.�
In the military establishments of more than 30 countries, including U.S. allies such as Israel, Canada and the United Kingdom, gays and lesbians are allowed to openly serve in their country�s military. |
Interesting article, but this bit got me:
| Quote: |
In Israel, [Gen. Robert Magnus] pointed out, there is universal conscription for all healthy men and women. The Israeli military, which adopted its openly gay policy in the early 1990s, is a place where men and women often meet their future spouses and where dating is a common occurrence. It�s part of the military culture. So creating equality for gays could be seen as making sense in that culture, Magnus said.
In the U.S. military, there is no tolerance for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. There�s a policy against any sexual relations in the service. It�s not part of the culture, he said. |
Gen. Magnus apparently fails to be able to distinguish between a situation in which homosexuals can serve openly and have sexual relations and public relationships with fellow soldiers and a situation in which homosexuals can serve openly and not have sexual relations and public relationships with fellow soldiers.
| Fox wrote: |
| Mr. Boehner seems to be implying that there's some positive side to a policy which has cost our military over 10,000 otherwise qualified individuals, making our army less effective no matter how you look at it. |
Are you sure we wouldn't lose more potential recruits than we would gain under a policy change? This particular defense would make more sense if it could be shown that this would be the case and that we would need that lost recruitment potential immediately. I find that unlikely to be the case, though.
| Fox wrote: |
| We see the same pattern with civil rights. |
Are you just referring to homosexuals here? Because many Democrats are also giving a poor showing in this regard.[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NovaKart wrote: |
| That's hilarious. Who knew that Haiti was such a gay mecca. Why aren't there earthquakes in Mykonos? Why hasn't SF been levelled to the ground? |
It was (in 1906).  Maybe there is something to this after all. 
| Quote: |
| I feel kind of cynical about repealling the DADT policy. Now that they have such a problem with military recruitment people want to change the policy but before they didn't need gays. Still I think it would lead to more acceptance of gays in the long term so I would be in favor of changing the policy. |
As an antiwar supporter of equality for gays, I believe the policy should be changed to prohibit heterosexuals from serving in the military as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
