The special rights crowd files a law suit
Yeah, they just wanted to overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell so they could serve, because service was the most importnt thing to them (Stars & Stripes link);
A group of eight gay servicemembers sued the federal government Thursday for military and veterans benefits for their same-sex spouses, arguing that ignoring their marriages amounts to discrimination.
The move comes a little more than a month after the end of the military’s controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, which for 18 years prohibited gay troops from publicly acknowledging their sexual orientation.
I guess there no potential for abuse of the system if they get their way, right?
“This case is about one thing … justice for gay and lesbian servicemembers and their families,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense
Oh, so it’s not about service…it’s about justice now, huh? And by justice they mean fairness. Or ramming a deviant lifestyle down the collective throat of the military.
Category: Military issues
#249 All that drivel can be summed up in one word: DERP.
Redacted, the fact that you can’t grasp the simple concept that what might be a big deal to you and those you know, may in fact be a huge deal to someone who’s directly affected by the change shows just how idiotic you are.
DocB, it was a joke. And yeah, threatening violence over the internet pretty much just sounds like this:
http://pigroll.com/182_say-that-to-my-face-fucker.html
I’ll say it again,, you’re arguing seperate but equal, Doc. Unless you can tell me what the difference is between your argument and Plessy?:
This end can neither be accomplished nor promoted by laws that conflict with the general sentiment of the community upon whom they are designed to operate. When the government, therefore, has secured to each of its citizens equal rights before the law and equal opportunities for improvement and progress, it has accomplished the end for which it was organized and performed all of the functions respecting social advantages with which it is endowed. Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (U.S. 1896)
King, care to tell that to 6,300 other Marines and Sailors? They didnt seem to care either. Nothing has changed and it’s been business as usual. Jeez man you’re such a fuckin whiner!
Good old King–I can see him on the other boards now:
You know, there’s like a boat-load of gangs at TAH. This one gang kept wanting me to join because I’m pretty good with a bow staff.
There is always this *erroneous* belief that rights come from the top down. That laws will make reality. But it never works like that. Respect is not, and CAN NOT be given. It is earned. who would you respect more a Black soldier, or a Soldier that happens to be black. The differences can be subtle but very distinct.
While i do agree rights don’t come from the top down, i’ll also state that LAWS don’t come from the top down either. The 1967 Civil Rights act ended segregated lunch counters, but that came as a result of THOUSANDS of people protesting and marching and going to jail and giving speeches and petitioning their government. Conservatives like to act as if laws and government is some kind of entity outside of we, the people, but that’s NOT the case. So you’re right, Rights don’t come from the top down, they come from laws that are manifestations of the people. The hard work of the people of the 40s and 50s and 60s led to the civil rights act. But make no mistake, the civil rights act was an important and necessary part of the goal. It was codifying Mlk’S dream to an extent. At least as far as the law. Hearts and minds we’re still working on.
Stay a jarhead as long as you possibly can redacted, morons like you are exactly what the corps wants.
Thats it? That’s your response? Are you fucking kidding me? You still havent grasped the concept that NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY. NOTHING. Gay people didnt jump on stage or pop out of the closet and say SURPRISE!! Like so much of the main stream media was expecting. That day in September came and went just like any other. We still get up, PT, go to work, go to chow, go home, train, get ready for deployment. There arent gay pride parades all over the place and no one is showing up in the opposite gender’s uniform, you fucking retard. The standard of conduct still exists. Like I said before, I could care less about who or what you stick your wang in when you get home as long as you can do your job. I’m not the only one that feels this way. Thank god you’re not serving anymore, people are no doubt alive because of it. Combat’s a thinking man’s game son, and you obviously couldn’t handle it.
Continue to prove my point that you are an idiot, I love it. Please explain to me where I said any of that shit would happen. All I said, as I keep fucking telling your stupid motherfucking jarhead ass is that while this doesn’t change anything for the vast majority of the military, it’s a very big deal for gay troops who no longer have to fear losing their jobs because of what they do off-duty. I’m guessing that bag of hammers thing is something you heard a lot from your old man growing up, huh?
you mad bro?
How many troops got sent home in flag draped caskets because of your inept ass?
Zero. Try again. What’s your MOS toughie?
Insepid, this might seem like splitting hairs but I can make a law that the sky is purple. It is technically constitutional to declare the sky purple. but all the legislative action in the world won’t make it so. Like wise with all laws, in the end they are only worth the paper they are printed on. We have seen in recent years laws passed or landmark legislation which totally shred the constitution and everything it stands for.
In the end the society must agree that those laws are indeed correct or just. Thus, RIGHTS are not granted by law, but by divine intervention and your fellow man.
Never said I was a toughie, but I do what I can. It’s unfortunate that you feel you’re in some position where you feel you can demand something from me, probably a result of an over inflated ego and/or overestimation of self worth, so, put succinctly once again, I don’t owe you shit. Now to the powers that be (Jonn, TSO, COB6, Zero,) If I have said anything in here that would lead you to question my authenticity, please let me know and I’ll forward you whatever information I can. See King, I respect these guys, they can get to know me. You, on the other hand, you’re just a PUNK, an internet bully that probably goes through a keyboard a week cause that’s the only thing you’re tough on. You’re a fucking punk. Nothing more.
king seriously stop playing the MOS game We all have Shipmates, Battle buddies, or what have you, that have fallen or done their duty. I can think of 99 near the Azores that seem to get forgotten quite often.
Hey Doc, wasn’t trying to play that game this time. Redacted was talking tough about combat, I just wanted to get a sense of his combat experience. The fact that he won’t tell me speaks volumes. Here’s some of mine redacted. Anbar 06-07 1-6 INF, 1st AD. Maybe we worked together?
Let’s just say you walked in my footsteps then, junior. And all I said about combat is it’s a thinking man’s game. Calling that “talking tough” leads me to believe you’re a bit of a drama queen.
On top of all the other useless bullshit you spewed in here, that is.
You would know a lot about useless then. It took us and the 101st to clean up the mess you retards had made of Anbar since ’04.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HAH!!!! Here we go. Ok, i’ll play for a bit. I guess you werent with those fucking Army retards that lit up a HMMWV with a 240 becuase the IR strobe on the RF antenna looked like a muzzle flash huh? I mean, how fucking stupid can you be? Or the ones that called an artillery strike so close to MSR mobile that they almost blew up tower 47 near Fallujah? That sounds like your speed, not knowing identifying marks or adjacent units, and fucking up a fire mission. If it wasnt for you ingrates we wouldnt have had to go back to Iraq to bail your asses out. I’ve worked with Army before, and I had a blast working with them, there’s some outstanding people over there. You definetly don’t fit that mold. You’re a poor example, if you will. So if you want to play the “you fucked this or that up and we had to fix it game”, find someone else because frankly, it’s boring, every branch fucked something up at one point, and you’re incompetent.
Are you a mud puppy?
nope good guess though
>When interracial couples fought for the right to marry each other, were they asking for equal rights or special rights? They wanted the same rights as other couples, but conservatives insisted they really wanted special rights. After all, no one was allowed to marry members of another race, so all were treated equally. Right?
Ins– You are wrong again.. During Loving v. Virginia white people were specifically excluded. All other races were free to interracially marry. There was a specific exclusion. In some states in the country hispanics and whites had alway been able to marry excluding blacks.
Oh I forgot….
Your Mama’s So stupid, when your dad said it was chilly outside, she ran outside with a spoon
Ugh wish there was an edit.. THe last two posts were mine.
LOL– That didn’t help either 🙂
@226: Where did I gay bash? I never said I hated gays. All I pointed out was actual fact. I did not insert commentary about hating them. It isn’t bashing just because you don’t agree with the truth. Just as insipid thinks I’m a bigot because I don’t agree with him on this subject. By that definition; insipid is also a bigot. I never said it was or wasn’t acceptable. I did say that I don’t give a rats ass who you go to bed with, though. So I guess that defines bashing in your world?
I have a few close friends that are gay and I have a relative that is gay; so what? The thing is, they don’t wave it in everyone’s face and demand that we accept their lifestyle and if we don’t we are bigots and haters. I don’t have to accept shit. The only things I have to do is die and pay taxes. When my best friend’s eldest sister came out, she was very nervous about going to a birthday party for her nephew, which I was invited to as well. She didn’t know how her family would take it. When she got there, I was the first to approach her and give her a hug. Her and her girlfriend hung out with me and my wife most of the night. When I got home, she called and thanked us for making her and her girlfriend feel welcome. Because of that night, the rest of the family came around and now it’s not a tense situation at all when everyone gets together. A friend of mine and my wife’s sang at our wedding (yeah, I’m such a gay basher).
@196: You’re full of shit. You are going to tell me that in the time you were outside the wire you never had air support? I guess all those Apache’s and Super Cobras were just tied down and used for show?
Keep dreaming shit ball.
Hey Dino. How’s Fred and Barney? Where did you get that more of a man stuff? I don’t like men who stick their puds in another man’s butt. I don’t like men who molest women. I don’t like rapists, thieves, or drug addicts. I don’t like brussel sprouts or bowling. Disliking any one of them isn’t aimed at making myself feel better. I just don’t like them. Other point: Legalizing the union of two sodomites is destructive of the moral fiber of a decent society.
@279 – “Legalizing the union of two sodomites is destructive of the moral fiber of a decent society.”
What is the definition of a decent society? And how exactly and tangibly does a persons sexuality impact said decent society?
A decent society is one which, in part, explicitly supports moral behavior and does so through its laws and social mores. A person’s sexuality impacts a decent society negatively, if the sexuality is homosexual, and positively, if the person’s sexuality is heterosexual. The latter’s impact is through procreation, impossible among the former, and the passing on from the parents to the children of wholesome values and practices that perpetuate the decent society. These would not include promuscuity or bath house sex.
Now, before we go off on this, how’s ’bout we acknowledge that the exchange that may be forthcoming will, in the end, alter neither your view nor mine.
@281 – A thoughtful response, but you must admit that it is still very subjective and difficult to codify while still being true to concepts of individual liberty. If one uses the power of the state to restrain an individuals freedom of biological attraction, it hardly embodies the sovereignty of the citizen over the state.
Do childless straight couples, single-for-life people and straights who engage in sodomy constitute a negative impact on society?
It may just be me, but a persons sexuality or consensual sexual practices don’t impact me or my marriage/family dynamics.
And yes we will still end up disagreeing….but I for one enjoy discovering motivations and values behind people’s positions. I don’t argue just to be oppositional, I learn from those I disagree with, even if it doesn’t change my mind.
Well, there are many practices that a society stifles in order to perpetuate itself. Governments enact laws to constrain all kinds of bad behaviors. Childless straights are an interesting consideration. They form a union but cannot procreate. This is the exception but itself is in keeping with the fundamental and tradional definition of a marriage as a sacred union or contract between a man and a woman. This is the common law definition incorporated into many state’s laws. As for straights who engage in sodomy, I have little to offer, I would say that if their conduct were appluaded, advertised, depicted on TV and overall given acceptance by the larger society, it, too, would sound a death knell for a decent society. Lastly, on a micro –or personal– level, what a couple does privately has no impact of any of us individually. It’s the larger picture–the societal survival one–that matters.
I really need to be more careful in typing. I’d have to give myself a C- for that mess.
@283 – Fair enough and a cogent assessment of that point of view.
I should have added “couples who choose not to procreate” as well.
Hmm, 285 already, I’m going to go with 350 posts on this thread, maybe 400.
I thought that this point was so obvious that i didn’t even need to say it, but since people are persisting in calling me a bigot I’ll say the super fucking obvious outright. Sorry for the shout:
HATING BIGOTS IS NOT BIGOTRY!!!!
Bigotry is not a skin color, bigotry is not a sexual orientation, bigotry is a learned and ignorant behavior. I’m allowed to hate Klansmen and Nazis and hell black panthers if i find them bigoted and there’s nothing bigoted about it. Simply hating does not make you a bigot it’s what you hate and why. Ben wants to use pretense to quash the rights of gay people. That’s bigoted. I don’t want to quash anyone’s rights (including bigots). Get the picture?
@287: Yet you call me a bigot?
@288 Because you’re a bigot
You know, it really just pisses me off when someone tries to say I am anti-gay, or anti anything when I post on here. The reference to no one put a gun to your head to join the military, just as know one put a gun to your head to start sucking d@#$ was to make a point. I already stated I don’t care what people do in their bedroom. I get pissed off when people try to cram their views down my throat, and scream and yell that I must be homo-phobic, or an Islama-phobe, or whatever the hell it is they espouse. I don’t go around telling people they should be a certain way, or believe a certain way, or behave a certain way. If someone asks me what my beliefs are, I tell them. I don’t get up in their face and start calling them bigoted, or prejudiced. I really don’t care what you want to do in your bedroom, Insipid, but I also don’t think you should be given special treatment. My wife and I are unable to have children, but I don’t bitch and complain about.
>Ben wants to use pretense to quash the rights of gay people. That’s bigoted.
I don’t want a lot of things sanctioned by the state- that does not make me a bigot. Some people don’t want ANY religion sanctioned by the state. I don’t think they are bigoted- maybe misguided, but not bigoted. They have bought into the hard line separation of church and state- so there must be no religious expression even individual.
Even so, they have their logical reasoning as to why they feel this way. I could care less if you have a slave/master relationship behind closed doors(to each his own), but I don’t want that sanctioned by the state. I don’t want adult babies sanctioned by the state.
Homophobia, hatred, racism, bigot- these are all loaded words and are used to shut the conversation down not elevate it.
@289: Coming from you, bobogirl; that means what? Is that what they taught you to say to people that don’t agree with you in your graduate level women’s studies classes? Am I suppose to suddenly see the err of my ways, because someone getting their masters degree in basket weaving tells me I’m a bigot without any quantitative evidence to back it up, according to the definition put out by insipid? Oh the humanity!!! How can I go on for the rest of the day knowing that an expert in women’s studies says I’m a bigot?!? How can the world turn, the sun rise, the universe exist with such poignant commentary from the one, the only; bobogirl?
I am neither a bigot, nor a homophobe. I have nothing buy sympathy for those individuals that get their wires crossed and want to be other than they are. I don’t deal with what should be, only what is. What I know is that even Greeks and Romans, who were known for their orgies, and sexual appetites got tired of all this. In fact the emperor Nero turned one of his slaves (that looked kinda like his pregnant wife that he kicked to death) into a woman and “married” him/her. Romans found this act repugnant. So if there is an attempt to find historical president for gay marriage, there is none, or at least none you’d want to follow.
In the end Mariage is about creating family which, until recently, you could only do between a man and a woman (and technically thats still the only way to do it). you can argue all you want, but every marriage going back as far as we started recording history was all about creating family, and raising children in a socially acceptable environment. That has not changed in over 5000 years. It would really surprise me if it does change anytime soon.
I’m done with having the few blow smoke up my ass and I’m done with reading this shit.
@NHSSparky, if you met me in person you wouldn’t be talking to me in that lispy voice.