In the United States Military, you can be relieved of your position (read: FIRED) because of your sexuality. There's actually a regulation in that makes sure that this happens. As a result of this, one of the few members of the Army National Guard that is fluent in Arabic is being fired. Source Thoughts?
In a lot of places you can get fired for things that your employers shouldn't be able to fire you for. It's stupid. Specifically on the subject of gay people, a lot of people still seem to subscribe to this line of thinking http://www.propeller.com/story/2009...ld-never-let-quotqueersquot-near-my-children/ I mean, he's essentially saying that being gay = being a sex offender. You're probably at least as likely to be raped by a Catholic priest as you are to be raped by the average gay person.
That's what really gets to me, is the people who think that being gay means you're diseased or some kind of sex offender. It's not like there's anything different other than their preferences. I'm sure there are some gay people who are indeed bad people, but you can't take those people and use them as a yardstick to judge everyone. It just doesn't work, and apparently, a lot of people don't get that.
Sometimes I feel as though it's a wonder that the Flat Earth Society isn't around anymore... oh wait.
Why are they blaming Obama? I can't see their point? Surely this law was around when Bush was president? And probably well before that through other presidents terms. Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the law is right, I'm just saying it's stupid to blame Obama for it.
They're blaming him, because he could do away with the law. I know it's not his fault, and it was around well before he, Bush, or even Clinton was in office, but he could honestly get rid of it, because it's really an unfair law. It would set a really good example for the rest of the country, in my opinion. However, flip of the coin, I see how Obama's got more important things to worry about at the moment, what with two wars to manage, an economy that's steadily declining, and bailouts being requested left and right.
The article doesn't really blame Obama for anything; it just points out that his hands aren't completely tied and he could do something about the issue if he wanted to -- at least that's how I interpreted it.
Obama can't just get rid of the law. A repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell would have to to through the house and the senate first. He did say he would get rid if DADT but it will take awhile.
At least he's taking initiative to get rid of it. DADT is like the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. It's like getting fired for being Muslim. Which, from what I understand, has happened before, and pisses me off just as much as this does.
They could have, but the thing is, they didn't. In eight years in office, for both of them. And look, before Obama's first year is up, he's already talking about ending it. Another reason why I was so excited about him becoming president.
Clinton signed DADT into law as a "compromise" to allow gays to serve in the military as long as they don't tell anyone they're gay, as opposed to previous laws which banned gays completely. And Bush? You really expect a right wing nutjob like him to repeal it?
Dont repeal the DADT Law. If you openly admitted to it, you openly submit yourself to the law that's down. If you never admitted anything, There's nothing against you. And plus, who's to say that anyone MUST know what sexuality or religion you are? That's not at any purpose or relation to actual job. So I don't agree that being fired for being Gay, but It isn't something to be admitting to public if you know what the consequences were.
Some people feel like they're lying to themselves and everyone else when they don't let other people know that they're gay, and it bothers them. That's why they would say that, despite the consequences. Besides, the DADT law was in order to combat something that was a dumbass idea to begin with. Restrictions based on sexuality? Sounds like something Hitler would've done, not the United States, a country that prides itself on equality. Not so equal, once you think about it.
So basically, they're giving someone shit about not removing a law because no one else has removed it? Anyway, I don't see what the issue is... If there was a law that helped prevent me from being in the army, I'd be supporting it Spoiler I'm extremely unsure of how the above comment will go down.
I don't even get why DADT needed to be implemented anyway. You'd think that it wouldn't be a big deal who is in the military, as long as they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. The whole thing just makes me sick.
Aside the hazards of service, there are lots of after-service benefits, such as Free college, a reasonable amount of pay, free job/skill training. If your pretty much out of any sort of housing, they'll house, feed and train you Rigorously. And you get paid to do that. Yeah, There shouldn't be. But it's how Law works, The majority gets a law passed but also tries to satisfy the minority into a compromise. A DADT way would be a good compermise between the two, except you shouldn't be punished. @Iain: Same here, It just is what it is. Like I don't understand why you can't focus on the job and accept them.
What about the moral issues of joining the service? That's why I'm not joining, to be honest. I'd love to stick my neck out for my country, but only for the right reasons. I personally think that there shouldn't have been a reason for DADT to be implemented to begin with, like I already said. Since when is it equal and fair to deny a gay man or woman the opportunity to serve his or her country? It's not. End of story.