TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:

cling wrote:If the facts posted on Maj. Witt's case are correct, it's like someone getting a speeding ticket when they weren't speeding, so the judge may rule speed limits unconstitutional.

With respect, I would suggest that it is more like a judge ruling that it is not contstitutional to punish someone for speeding when they weren't speeding.

Elmo

If the judge restricts the ruling to Maj. Witt then I agree. However, if the judge rules on DADT (when Witt allegedly didn't tell) that's like a judge ruling on the constitutionality of speed limits when the driver wasn't exceeding the limit.

All this attaching riders and amendments is political nonsense.

I wish they had a rule which said:
1) One bill must cover only one topic as defined as blah blah blah with some narrow legal terms.
2) Amendments and riders must be incorporated into a bill.
3) If you have a new topic that doesn't meet the narrow criteria, you need a new bill.

Does the military spending budget need to get passed? Then pass it. Does Don't, Ask Don't Tell need to be repealed? Then repeal it. Stop playing around with people on both sides by not giving them the time, attention, or respect their issues deserve. Instead, they turn it into self-serving politics for the sake of mid-term votes. This is all such a farce orchestrated for soundbytes and campaign speeches. Look at me--we're voting for this. Look at us--we're not. Look at them, they didn't give the military a raise. Look at them--they turned our military budget into a culture war. I don't think anyone should look at how this was handled and be proud of either party.

Hoi Polloi wrote:All this attaching riders and amendments is political nonsense.

I wish they had a rule which said:
1) One bill must cover only one topic as defined as blah blah blah with some narrow legal terms.
2) Amendments and riders must be incorporated into a bill.
3) If you have a new topic that doesn't meet the narrow criteria, you need a new bill.

Does the military spending budget need to get passed? Then pass it. Does Don't, Ask Don't Tell need to be repealed? Then repeal it. Stop playing around with people on both sides by not giving them the time, attention, or respect their issues deserve. Instead, they turn it into self-serving politics for the sake of mid-term votes. This is all such a farce orchestrated for soundbytes and campaign speeches. Look at me--we're voting for this. Look at us--we're not. Look at them, they didn't give the military a raise. Look at them--they turned our military budget into a culture war. I don't think anyone should look at how this was handled and be proud of either party.

I agree with you 100% the democrats started this game when they tried to set a timetable for troop withdrawal to military funding three years ago. I fear when the republicans catch on to this trick and try it themselves

The Annoyed Man wrote:

b322da wrote:Goodness, TAM. We should support our troops. This is obviously the combat uniform of the day for the well-dressed USMC sniper in Afghanistan.

Elmo

It's not the uniform so much as it is the Twyla Tharp choreography.

I'm so old I have never heard of Twyla Tharp. I suspect I will be able to live a little longer with my ignorance.

Best,

Elmo

b322da wrote:I'm so old I have never heard of Twyla Tharp. I suspect I will be able to live a little longer with my ignorance.

Best,

Elmo

That's pretty old. She's got to be pushing 70 by now.

juggernaut wrote:

bdickens wrote:One can not choose to be gay or not.

Maybe you can't choose your sexual preferences, but you can control your behavior. In that sense, it's no different than ephebophilia, voyeurism, zoophilia, necrophilia, transvestism, dendrophilia, etc.

No. Homosexuality entirely different than the stuff you mentioned.

What there is is a straight-up double standard. If you are gay, you have to be a monk and pray no one finds out. And if you are straight: well hey, the red-light district is that way. *Nudge, nudge. Wink wink.* Have a good time!

bdickens wrote:

juggernaut wrote:

bdickens wrote:One can not choose to be gay or not.

Maybe you can't choose your sexual preferences, but you can control your behavior. In that sense, it's no different than ephebophilia, voyeurism, zoophilia, necrophilia, transvestism, dendrophilia, etc.

No. Homosexuality entirely different than the stuff you mentioned.

What there is is a straight-up double standard. If you are gay, you have to be a monk and pray no one finds out. And if you are straight: well hey, the red-light district is that way. *Nudge, nudge. Wink wink.* Have a good time!

There is a line drawn in the sand when it comes to consent. Necrophilia and Zoophilia is not a form of sexuality expressed between 2 consenting adults However I don't see why bdickens would have a problem with transvestism.

TAM,

I do understand what you're saying; in fact we tend to agree on the matter. I'm personally NOT a fan of the out-there, flamboyant, in-your-face, look-at-me style of advocacy. I believe the Gay Rights movement gets better progress when someone who is opposed to homosexuality realizes that someone they care for and/or respect is gay. However, that is very much a "baby steps" movement, and is not always even effective. For some, that makes it a flawed system, and not one to attempt.

As for Pride events, I've been to one, and it was here in Texas. Now maybe there was a lot I didn't see, but I can tell you that I have seen more questionable behavior during the annual Greenville ave. St Paddy's parade...and most of that was from declared heterosexuals.

So...I vote with my wallet and do not support events where the IYF gay movement may hang out.

I am simply of the opinion that one's sexuality should be a non-issue, regardless of the chosen career path.

Lol...does that make sense?

bdickens wrote:One can not choose to be gay or not.

Regrettably, BD, notwithstanding the medical and psychological evidence to the contrary, some of our politicians, bless their souls, still deny this, and to make it even worse, the denial is often phrased in Biblical terms.

Example: I hope I will be forgiven for to some extent merging two active threads, and point out that Christine O'Donnell, when faced with the truth, has not as yet denied that she said in a 2006 interview: "People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... ays_s.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After the Senate's action, or inaction, today, it may be a long time before DADT goes up on the Hill again. As I have said before, if both the Administration and the Congress punts, we are only left with one branch of our government to act responsibly.

Elmo

bdickens wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:And no one is forcing them to volunteer, either.

Nor is anyone letting them.

Really? No one is letting them serve? There are many gays serving right now in the military. They just have to do it quietly.

b322da wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote: If you want to serve, great. Just follow the standards and do it quietly, if you are gay. If you want to be open about it don't serve as it is against the standards and no one is forcing you to do it.

With respect, just what "standards" are referred to here? The standards which are in force are the UCMJ and, as of now, DADT.

I am pretty sure you just answered your own question. The standard I was referring to is DADT.

As I have said before. DADT is a standard that the military has. It is there for a reason and a very good reason in my book and many others books. Everyone knows about DADT prior to VOLUNTEERING for their branch. To volunteer knowing that you cannot serve and be openly gay and then cry about it is complete crap. You CHOSE to join the military and had prior knowledge on their standards and you signed the "Terms of Agreement" saying that you were ok with them and accepted them. No one forced you to serve. No one said that you cannot serve.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:As I have said before. DADT is a standard that the military has. It is there for a reason and a very good reason in my book and many others books. Everyone knows about DADT prior to VOLUNTEERING for their branch. To volunteer knowing that you cannot serve and be openly gay and then cry about it is complete crap. You CHOSE to join the military and had prior knowledge on their standards and you signed the "Terms of Agreement" saying that you were ok with them and accepted them. No one forced you to serve. No one said that you cannot serve.

DADT is something that we don't need.
It is simply tacking a condition on that serves someones political purpose. It is exactly the same as attaching riders to important bills and than being able to say someone voted for or voted against that rider without taking into account the bigger picture.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:As I have said before. DADT is a standard that the military has. It is there for a reason and a very good reason in my book and many others books. Everyone knows about DADT prior to VOLUNTEERING for their branch. To volunteer knowing that you cannot serve and be openly gay and then cry about it is complete crap. You CHOSE to join the military and had prior knowledge on their standards and you signed the "Terms of Agreement" saying that you were ok with them and accepted them. No one forced you to serve. No one said that you cannot serve.

Would you please enlighten us uneducated rubes as to what that good reason is?

b322da wrote:

bdickens wrote:One can not choose to be gay or not.

Regrettably, BD, notwithstanding the medical and psychological evidence to the contrary, some of our politicians, bless their souls, still deny this, and to make it even worse, the denial is often phrased in Biblical terms.

Example: I hope I will be forgiven for to some extent merging two active threads, and point out that Christine O'Donnell, when faced with the truth, has not as yet denied that she said in a 2006 interview: "People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... ays_s.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After the Senate's action, or inaction, today, it may be a long time before DADT goes up on the Hill again. As I have said before, if both the Administration and the Congress punts, we are only left with one branch of our government to act responsibly.

Elmo

You have a lot of reading to do. People's sexual preferences are hardwired into the brain before birth.