| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
lol Amyral I dont know if you noticed but this is sounding alot like another thread me and you posted in lol.
Yeah as for the "sue them back to the stoneage remark" I actually thought a gay soldier or recruit had been thrown out of the military for being gay so thats my bad.
And the 65,000 number came from the link at the top post. Whether it is accurate or not I cant say but it would'nt surprise me if there was as many as double that estimate but it would'nt make much difference to my arguement just that even more people would be put out by this statement.
And the constitution thing. I was actually asking if there was a law saying that religion and state remain separate. I said "IS'NT IT A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION" not "IT IS A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION" I dont know much about American law. And I understand that most people are a little homophobic but I assume that when people say its "immoral" that they are saying it from a religous stand point.
Hope that gets rid of any confusion.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Urn
Azure Flames
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2590
Location: Mido Shallows
7756 Potch
0 Soldiers
970973 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But "Separation of Church and State" isn't directly stated in the constitution, is it? Supreme Court decisions have made it part of the practical doctrine, but Supreme Court decisions are definitely not set in stone.
|
Nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything expressly stating anything about Separation of Church and State, but within the Constitution the separation is implicitly implied. The Supreme Court basis its rulings on the Constitution in order to establish precedence or orate on the Constitutionality of a particular law. Therefore, the Supreme Court used the Constitution itself to imply that the Founders intended for Church and State to be separate. The Supreme Court does not create law, it simply makes decisions on the law already in place.
And yes, Supreme Court rulings are not set in stone based ont he fact that the Supreme Court is the only institution that can change them, but once a ruling goes down in the books the Supreme Court Justices are obligated by doctrine to follow the rulings previously made by the Court. Thus, yes, the decisions they make are practically set in stone.
As for this discussion, as the posters before me have stated, you can have a problem with his statements, but there is no grounds for a suit. I believe a soldier did try to bring suit against the army once for being unable to enlist. They deemed it unconstitutional and now you cannot be barred from the armed forces based on your sexual preference or gender. But, this does not inhibit a commander or general from expressing his disdain in regards to a particular sexual orientation.
And to clear it up, "Separation between Church and State" is implied but not expressly stated in the Constitution as far as I know.
When a person says something is immoral, that is from a personal standpoint founded in their individual beliefs. Religion is a huge part of this. I have yet to here an atheist call something immoral.
_________________
~ Humbly walk the path of death
KOOLUK SUPPORTS TINTO MINERS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rune hunter
Joined: 02 May 2006
Post Count: 461
Location: Tenzan Pass
236548 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I actually thought a gay soldier or recruit had been thrown out of the military for being gay so thats my bad.
|
Actual many gay/lesbians in the american army were being discharged simply becouse people found out they were gay. And the general was being ask why 10,000 troops and 50 arabic specialist were being discharged becouse of there policy, which he simply did not address.
My main thought on this is that people like him are being irrational. And the policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell" just border on insanity or irrationality. I remember one of the stories that was aired on CNN about how arabic interpreters were urgently needed in Iraq and how the military were turning down capable interpreters becouse they were gay. I just thought "That just shows how stupid some people can be". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well Rune Hunter if what you are saying is true then I re-instate my previous statement of "they should be sued back to the stoneage"
People are losing there jobs in a time when extra troops and interpreters are needed and Americans are still complaining about Iraq. Is it any surprise it went to hell with an attitude like that.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
And the constitution thing. I was actually asking if there was a law saying that religion and state remain separate. I said "IS'NT IT A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION" not "IT IS A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION" I dont know much about American law. And I understand that most people are a little homophobic but I assume that when people say its "immoral" that they are saying it from a religous stand point. |
Don't think it's any explicit law. As far as I'm aware, it's a supreme court interpretation. That's the hardest thing for Congress to get out of, but it's somethign that is possible to get around nonetheless.
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| Well Rune Hunter if what you are saying is true then I re-instate my previous statement of "they should be sued back to the stoneage" |
The thing is, you can't sue him or any individual member of the army unless they were the ones actually doing it. That's part of the law, they have to be able to be linked directly to it, and the burden of proof of that falls on the defendant (and it would be next to impossible for them to prove it). They can take a class-action suit against the US government, but then any monetary rewards would come out of the rank and file tax-payer's pockets. Either way, unless he is the one who gave the orders, he can't be held accountable, because all he did was state an opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well maybe not him directly but if 10,000 people are out of jobs on the basis that they are gay then you must agree that some sort of compensation must be paid to them.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camus the Noble
Les Renés
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Amyral wrote: |
| No, actually, I believe separation of church and State isn't part of the constitution, it is a Supreme Court ruling. What is said that the state cannot establish a state religion. |
I don't know what Sniper Zegai meant, but when I use the phrase "seperation of church and state" I basically mean "no institutionalized religion or partiality toward a specific religion." If there is no state religion, then the state and church are not fused together; hence, separation. The exact phrase in question does not appear in the Constitution, but I don't see how that matters. It means the same thing as what the First Amendment does say. The phrase came into popular use after Thomas Jefferson said that the purpose of the First Amendment was (as well as securing the other freedoms, of course) to build "a wall of separation between church and State."
I don't agree with the view, however, which Sniper implied, that if church and state are separate (perhaps this is because of what I mean by "separate"?), that no religiously based moral views are permitted to have any impact on legal decision-making. This asks for a total compartmentalization of morality and public policy on the part of religious believers, but if there's to be any real basis for policy the two can't help but be intertwined. Suppose your religious beliefs lead you to believe that abortion (for instance) is morally equivalent to murder. It's absurd for someone to tell you that, because of separation of church and state, you can't "legislate your morality" into abortion law; they'd be basically asking you to consent to the legalization of murder. All laws are based on some standard of what is good and what is bad. We consider murder and theft bad, so we outlaw them. If religious people believe that abortion is bad and should also be outlawed, they should be allowed to lobby for its criminalization. Of course, they should also be ready to defend their moral beliefs in a rational forum the same way they'd be expected to defend any other political position.
It's the same issue here. The argument here and in most other issues dealing with gays is that since homosexuality is wrong, then the government shouldn't condone it. I'm not quite sure why General Pace thinks that gays in the military are worse than gays anywhere else, though. Still, just because his belief is rooted in religion doesn't mean it should be ignored and written off as "irrelevant." Questions of morality are most definitely relevant to questions of law.
| Urn wrote: |
| When a person says something is immoral, that is from a personal standpoint founded in their individual beliefs. Religion is a huge part of this. I have yet to here an atheist call something immoral. |
I don't mean to sound snide, Urn, but have you met many atheists? Generally speaking atheists tend to hold moral views much like anyone else. I'm not religious at all and I certainly believe that some things are immoral (to bring back a couple examples, murder and theft). So if you hadn't hear an atheist call something immoral before, you have now. Now of course, many people argue that atheists have no justification for morality, but that's an issue distinct from whether atheists actually have moral beliefs.
| Sniper Zegai wrote: |
| Well Rune Hunter if what you are saying is true then I re-instate my previous statement of "they should be sued back to the stoneage" |
I'm not quite sure what grounds the plaintiff could argue on. It's the official policy of the government, to my understanding, that open gays are not allowed to serve in the military. Are there any legal grounds to argue against this policy? It's not as though those doing the discharging are going out of their way to persecute gays. They're just executing official policy.
I do believe that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. The current policy is discriminatory; there's no question about it. I have a gay friend who's considering joining the military, and I can't think of any reason why he shouldn't be allowed to if he wants to. I will say, though, that with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy I think that this is a pretty peripheral issue. I'd like to see that policy abandoned, but frankly I don't care about it very much. There are bigger problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fu Su Lu
Hungry Drunken TigerMen
Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Post Count: 4043
Location: Costa Esmiran
569802 Potch
3084 Soldiers
800 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hell, if army wants you to be able to accomplish some tasks, wheter it is shooting enemies in the front, being a comunication officer or watever... as long as you are able to do what it is requested to you, why should anyone care about your sexual orientation?
_________________
The drunkest cavalry unit in the world.
Who lights a candle casts a shadow.
Uncle Weirdo is on hoilidays... by now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Should", "should" be sued not can or will be sued. Its a question of whether the poeple who lost their jobs deserve it. Thats what Im saying.
And I agree Fu Su Lu. Its not like all the soldiers are wanting to wear pink uniforms or anything.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Urn
Azure Flames
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2590
Location: Mido Shallows
7756 Potch
0 Soldiers
970973 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't mean to sound snide, Urn, but have you met many atheists? Generally speaking atheists tend to hold moral views much like anyone else. I'm not religious at all and I certainly believe that some things are immoral (to bring back a couple examples, murder and theft). So if you hadn't hear an atheist call something immoral before, you have now. Now of course, many people argue that atheists have no justification for morality, but that's an issue distinct from whether atheists actually have moral beliefs.
|
I don't recall saying that atheist don't hold moral views. I simply stated that I have not, meaning personally have not, heard an atheist call something immoral based on the aspect of religious beliefs. You are confusing me for taking immoral to be a question of morality in general where I was using immorality in the basis of religion, which is why I mention religion before making that statement. I have no doubt that atheist, such as yourself, have ideas of what is moral or immoral.
As far as a class action suit against the Armed Forces goes, that is an uphill battle. And how would you measure the compensation for the party bringing suit? And as someone mentioned earlier, the defendant holds the burden to proof that they were discharged due to sexual orientation. Which will be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a difficult policy because I believe people should be proud of who they are. I do believe there are policies against discrimination that the Armed Forces must uphold, but you still cannot moderate a person's right freely express their views. I would like to see the policy changed, but even through strict enforcement making generals and other members of the armed forces comply, it still will not change their individual views and people, unfortunately, have a right to their views no matter who they harm in the process.
_________________
~ Humbly walk the path of death
KOOLUK SUPPORTS TINTO MINERS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camus the Noble
Les Renés
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Urn wrote: |
| I don't recall saying that atheist don't hold moral views. |
What you wrote was:
| Quote: |
| I have yet to here an atheist call something immoral. |
I took this to mean a categorical "I have never heard any atheist call anything immoral." I'm sure you can see how this would be an understandable reading of what you said, since you didn't qualify that specific statement with "immoral in the context of religion". The way you wrote it it seemed to be saying that moral views are based on religion, and that therefore atheists don't consider anything immoral (or conversely, moral).
| Urn wrote: |
| You are confusing me for taking immoral to be a question of morality in general where I was using immorality in the basis of religion, which is why I mention religion before making that statement. |
Well, I still think you're making an unnecessary distinction between religious morality and nonreligious morality, but I do see that you meant something different. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
| Quote: |
| And how would you measure the compensation for the party bringing suit? |
I don't see how this would necessarily be a bigger problem than in any other lawsuit. All amounts awarded in suits are more or less arbitrary. It's true that the amount increases with the intensity of the perceived wrong done to the party bringing the suit, but there's hardly a scientific conversion chart from "wrong done to plaintiff" to "monies owed by wrongdoer."
| Quote: |
| And as someone mentioned earlier, the defendant holds the burden to proof that they were discharged due to sexual orientation. Which will be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt. |
Well, seeing as it is the official policy of the military to discharge the openly gay, I would presume that that would be made clear as reason for the dismissal. So it doesn't seem to me that this would be an issue to deal with in court. Of course, the suit against the Armed Forces would still be an uphill battle.
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| "Should", "should" be sued not can or will be sued. Its a question of whether the poeple who lost their jobs deserve it. Thats what Im saying. |
Oh, I see. Well, that is something different. However, I'd argue that not only would a suit not be feasible, but it would be wrong. Certainly the military was wrong in its own turn to discharge any open homosexuals. But I don't think that forcing the military to cough up funds is going to solve the problem. As Amyral pointed out, anything won in court would be coming out of taxpayers' pockets. So no, I don't think that those who were discharged "deserve" to be compensated, since I don't see any good reason to punish the military (which is fighting a war, I might add) and the public. You could say this is a case of "Two wrongs don't make a right."
I think the question should be asked, is it more important to punish the military for its discriminatory policies or to change the policies? If you think that the first is a worthwhile goal, then go right ahead and sue. However, I personally believe that changing the policies is far more important. And this is a job for lawmakers. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy should be overturned, but there's no reason to go to court seeking restitution to do that. I generally believe that acts of Congress are preferable to court decisions anyway, since Congressmen are elected and therefore their decisions have more legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. (Anyone familiar with the phrase "activist judges"?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| Well maybe not him directly but if 10,000 people are out of jobs on the basis that they are gay then you must agree that some sort of compensation must be paid to them. |
Absolutely, I just think there isn't a great way to do it. Filing a class action suit makes everyone in the country pay what may amount to an incredible amount of money, which will in turn most likely be siphoned away from other areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would seem like the gays were simply taking from the tax payer rather than the military. Or at least thats what the spin doctors at HQ would say. The truth is there is not going to be a happy ending for this. And the general saying that gays are immoral when almost 10,000 of them lost there jobs is adding insult to injury.
I mean come on you could easily take Pannu Yakuat with 10,000 troops.......now where did I learn this from.....hmmmm?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phamex
Raccoon Dogs
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Post Count: 1620
Location: Morricone
135274 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tullaryx wrote: |
| It took the military from 1863 til 1948 to finally allow black officers but it happened. I see the same happening to the question of openly gay and lesbian troops in the military. I don't think it will take that long, but with the young officers of this upcoming generation much more open to progressive thinking to be leading the military hierarchy in 20-30 years I see the question going away and the military being fully integrated. |
I agree, and while I wish the changes could be immediate I realize the dangers, so I'll content myself with the knowledge that I'll probably see it while I'm still alive.
I don't like what the General had to say, but at least he made it clear that it was his opinion and not the official stance of the military. His comments though, and those similar to it, are what will demoralize troops, not the integration of gay and lesbian soldiers. It's depressing to know that so many people think being true to your feelings and your heart, is immoral. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess alot of people on this thread including myself have targeted him becuase its easier to blame someone for injustice when there is a face on the label and the face in this particular case is saying "I hate gays" (not a qoute btw).
Im not saying that he is in the wrong to dislike gays. But it seems like the military's policy on gays in being re-inforced by people like him.
I agree with Tullaryx for sure though. The complete intergration of gays into the military will (and should) happen withing a decade or so, but as you said Phamex they should'nt have to wait.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
