I demand a 50 page thread!Follow

Right. And it doesn't matter what they were allowed to do prior. The current law which bans openly gay service is the DADT law which I quoted above. DADT is currently the law on the books which bans openly gay service -- exactly as advertised in the article.

It kinda does.



The current law did not remove the existing ban. You're playing an incredibly thin semantic game at this point. DADT did not ban gays from serving in the military. It retained the existing ban and updated the law to remove the requirement that all service members be asked if they are gay. IMO, if we're going to judge a law, we should look at what it changed.

No, it doesn't. The article said that DADT bans openly gay service. It does exactly that. It is the basis by which an openly gay person would be removed from service today. The statement in the article was 100% accurate. You just want to whine and ***** about the media or some boring shit like that.

Holy hell, you're pathetic.

Are you saying that most people reading the description: "the 1993 law that bans openly gay service", would not assume that it was the law responsible for banning openly gay service?


Really? I suppose there's one born every minute, I just didn't think you were such a sucker.

It would also be 100% correct to say that DADT is the law which lifted the requirement that gays must either admit to being gay and be discharged, or lie about it on official documents and risk prison time.

Now, find me an article about DADT that presents it this way.


Are you seriously unable to see that this is about presenting the law in the most negative light possible? DADT didn't ban gays from serving openly in the military. Describing the law in that manner (and only that manner) is incredibly misleading.e



You're kidding, right? It means everything in this case.



Of course it's relevant. The entire point of that sentence in that article is to make the reader dislike DADT because they'll assume that it's the reason gay people can't serve openly in the military. You're incredibly naive if you think otherwise.


Why not mention what DADT actually changed when it was passed instead of mentioning what it didn't change? It's clearly meant to highlight the negative.



Except those laws were passed after slavery was lifted and were separate to it. If the existing law at that time had stated that blacks and whites had to use separate drinking fountains and then when slavery was ended, the same law which ended slavery retained the segregation of drinking fountains, only the most semantically inclined moron would say something like "The 13th amendment segregates black and white drinking fountains", and then call for its repeal.


Even if technically correct that said law was what was currently enforcing that condition, it would be wrong to label it in a way that suggested that it was responsible for the condition existing in the first place. Most people would say that the 13th amendment ended slavery. Most honest people would then follow up with "but it should be changed or amended to end segregation as well".

Same deal with DADT. It should be honestly assessed as something that took a large step forward for gays, but that didn't go far enough. Instead of demonizing it, they should be talking about how to take that next step.

I just find it odd that it's become the focus of hatred.



Again, if the same laws existed before, but were merely incorporated into a later law, which on balance was a positive change, it's more than a little absurd to attack that law. Change it? Sure. Improve it Absolutely. But by mentioning the law, and even the date it was passed, the strong suggestion is put to the reader that this law, on that date, *created* the condition under which gays could not serve openly.

And that is just plain not true.

In before page 50.

The GOP opposes DADT's repeal therefore Gbaji opposes DADT's repeal therefore any article that isn't opposed to DADT's repeal is a conspiracy to brainwash everyone and only Gbaji is smart enough to realize it.

That short enough?

You're contradicting yourself.

To the extent that it didn't change the existing prohibitions, and perhaps consolidated the language a bit, sure. And the word you were looking for is "agree", not "argue". But that's because DADT simply incorporated and replaced existing legislation. Blaming DADT for the current state in which gay people can't serve openly in the military is like blaming the new health care bill for the fact that I can't purchase health insurance across state lines.

DADT, just like the health care bill, is a single piece of legislation which changes the existing legal code. In some cases, literally striking out some words or phrases and replacing them with others. DADT did not *add* the prohibition against homosexuals revealing their orientation, nor did it create the fact that such a revelation would result in their discharge from military service.

It's pure semantics. DADT is a buzzword that people recognize, whereas Title A, Subsection B, Paragraph C, of the military whatzit law isn't nearly as catchy. But it's that existing volume of legal code that is really at fault and is what needs to be changed. DADT simply amended that code to prohibit the military from requiring that one identify their sexual orientation as a condition of any status or position within the military.

Bills like that change the existing code. So it's absolutely silly to blame such a bill for parts of the code that it didn't change.



I think that most people don't understand (as you apparently don't) that DADT is simply a law passed to change the existing legal code and not some completely new area of law itself. There is no "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" portion of the US legal code. There is a piece of legislation commonly referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't tell" which modified that code.

Not "liking" DADT is moronic (unless you liked the way things were before it was passed I suppose). DADT is specifically the changes that it made, not the totality of the law itself.



Um... The historical context is relevant if for no other reason than to understand that the more correct term is "changed", not "repealed". If you actually "repealed" DADT, you'd simply be erasing the changes it made to existing law and restoring it to the way it was before the bill was passed into law. Which I'm quite sure is *not* what any gay people want.

Edited, Dec 1st 2010 6:14pm by gbaji

Your ignorance is as amusing as ever.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

DADT may have been a step forward at the time, going from outright banning gays in the military, to allowing gays to secretly serve in the military, but it was explicitly about banning OPENLY gay service.

Where do you get your ideas? I try never to rate down someone merely because I disagree with their opinion, or I think they are wrong, but god you make my finger itch sometimes.

I try to attack the argument, and not the man, since despite American debating theory, and world-wide political practise, Attacking The Man is an entirely illogical, debased and cretinous debating technique. However, this once you have me bursting at the seams.

IDIOT.

Welcome to the dark side.