House of Representatives debating repealing ban on gays in military


Icarus27k
#1
There debating right now. And a vote on repeal is expected later today. You can view the debate here, if you'd like.

C-SPAN Live Stream - C-SPAN
 
petros
#2
The master debaters?
 
Icarus27k
#3
Here we go. The House vote. So far, 94 yeas for repeal and 42 nays for repeal.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#4
The C-Span web site appears to be experiencing an error preventing new connections to the live feed at the moment. In any event, I don't think that the question is whether or not the House of Representatives is going to vote to repeal the policy; rather, the question is whether the Senate can be convinced to do the same, particularly before the end of the year.
 
Icarus27k
#5
The final vote in the House is 250 to 175. The repeal of the ban passes the House.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Icarus27k View Post

The final vote in the House is 250 to 175. The repeal of the ban passes the House.

Fantastic! The United States has taken another step, even if only symbolic without the Senate's concurrence, toward equality for the LGBT community of the United States.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
+1
#7
I don't understand why there was a ban on gays in the military in the first place. If a gay person wants to serve their country, let them serve. Right?
 
Icarus27k
#8
The Senate just passed a procedural motion to repeal the ban on gays in the military. The vote was 63-33.

That effectively means the ban has been repealed.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
+2
#9  Top Rated Post
From now on the fighting men will be more careful using the terms: "I am behind you!" or "I got your back!" or especially: "Cover me!".
 
The Old Medic
Conservative
#10
The vast majority of those posting have never served in any Armed Force, but they purport to know what is best for the Armed Services.

I HAVE served, in combat and outside of it. I knew of several homosexuals that served at the same time as I did. They did their jobs as well as anyone else, and often better than others. I had no problem with them, so long as they were not hitting on heterosexual men (and very few do).

Their blood is the same as anyone elses.

The same arguments were used against integration of Black's into the Armed Forces back in the 1940's. Truman put a stop to that by issuing an order that all black units were to be immediately integrated into the regular forces, and that blacks were to have access to all fields in the military. The military brass predicted that people would refuse to re-enlist, would refuse to serve with "niggers", and that mass chaos would be the result. That did not happen, except in a few isolated cases (and the people involved were disciplined severely).

The US Navy was the MOST reluctant to integrate, not fully accomplishing this until the Vietnam War. The Army got rid of its last all black unit in 1951 (the 24th Infantry Regiment).

Allowing gays to serve openly will have no significant effect at all. A very few will be blatantly "Gay", and they will be discharged for conduct reasons, just like overly aggressive hetereo's are now.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#11
One meat puppet or another, what does a bullet care.
 
Icarus27k
#12
Media coverage of the moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLEw6jYrEq8
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#13
The United States is, at last, a definitive step closer to ending this ridiculous policy.

Now that the Senate and the House of Representatives are clearly on board (though there remain to be some formal procedures to adopt the repeal in the Senate), all that is left is for His Excellency the Honorable Barack Obama , the President of the United States , to prove with his top officials that this repeal will not adversely affect the performance of the armed forces--and I have absolutely no doubt that this will be open-and-shut.
 
petros
#14
They thought the Japanese were too short and had no peripheral eyesight to make for good fighter and bomber pilots....then Pearl Harbour happened.
 
mentalfloss
#15
So McCain officially blew his gasket and the bitter tears taste pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wbTFDBgiwI

 
DaSleeper
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

They thought the Japanese were too short and had no peripheral eyesight to make for good fighter and bomber pilots....then Pearl Harbour happened.

Even people with no flying experience can fly planes into things as seen on 9/11......
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#17
Now, that DADT has been repealed, can the Armed Forces come to University campuses to recruit?

After all, if they could not, that would be denying gays and lesbians their rights.
 
mentalfloss
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Now, that DADT has been repealed, can the Armed Forces come to University campuses to recruit?

After all, if they could not, that would be denying gays and lesbians their rights.

What does this even mean?
 
coldstream
-1
#19
I considered this inevitable for some time. Mainly because Western culture has lost all sense of what a caustic and corrosive phenomenon homosexuality is.. for the individual and for society at large.

It essentially undermines the legitimacy of the military code of honour, that did not only outlaw homosexuality.. but adultery, promiscuity and other forms of immorality... as inconsistent with the miltary profession.

It won't show immediately.. but it will gradually unravel the cohesive bond of military life.. and will manifest itself when unit solidarity is most needed.. on the battlefield.. and in general loss of structure and discipline.
Last edited by coldstream; Dec 20th, 2010 at 02:45 PM..
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#20
If they're not queering you, what's your problem?
 
TenPenny
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

I considered this inevitable for some time. Mainly because Western culture has lost all sense of what a caustic and corrosive phenomenon homosexuality is.. for the individual and for society at large.
.

It appears to be so for you, but certainly not to a large portion of the population. Why it upsets you so much is something known only to you. But you might want to see a therapist before you blow a gasket.
 
Tonington
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

What does this even mean?

It's fuzzy, isn't it....Jack may think students have the right to have employers like the US military come to their schools.

"To hell with resumes!" they'll say. "Someone come to my school and give me a job!"

 
YukonJack
Conservative
#23
Kagan kicked out campus recruiters at first chance - Washington Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us...s/07kagan.html

Posts #23 and #24 are articles referring to military recruiters being banned from University campuses. Knowing the virulently anti-military mindset of those who run the universities in the States that is not at all surprising.

However, that was in the days when the military did not openly encourage gays and Lesbians - one of the most important constituency of Democrats - to join the forces. Now, that they can openly flaunt their sexuality, surely the liberals can no longer object to military recruiters coming to campuses.

Mind you, they probably will not bother so much any more.

mentalfloss and Tonnington, maybe this clears it up even more:

ROTC and Military Recruiters Still Banned From College Campus Be A Patriot!
 
Tonington
#24
That doesn't clear it up at all.
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

That doesn't clear it up at all.

Then, I guess you are beyond hope.
 
Tonington
#26
No, your links don't point to what right it is that you asserted-without naming-is being circumvented. What personal right includes having the military come onto a campus to recruit an individual?
 
DaSleeper
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Then, I guess you are beyond hope.

You are wasting your time trying to undertand liberal logic
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#28
I think there's a million other things Obama's government needed to be working on. However gays are serving in the Canadian and US Forces and should not have to do so underground because of stereotyping and homophobia.

Get over it.
 
Tonington
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

You are wasting your time trying to undertand liberal logic

Liberal logic? Maybe you can name the right Jack is referring to. Use any kind of logic you want.

If someone wants to join the military, they don't require a recruiter. You can talk to them on the phone, through email, or go to a recruiting office...
 
YukonJack
Conservative
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

You are wasting your time trying to undertand liberal logic

Liberal logic? Ain't that an oxymoron?

If the articles I posted and my own post had been given even a cursory glance (never mind reading them) there would be no misunderstanding. At least not willful, obstinate misunderstanding.

BTW, this is my last post on this topic. (Unless properly provoked).