Obama to Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I am sorry, but in a real sense Choi was not kicked out for being gay, but for knowingly and openly flouting army rules and regulations.

There is nothing to prevent Obama from reversing the same "regulation" that was created by Bill Clinton's Presidential order, as well as override its application to Choi's case.

Obama is free to do so simply because it's the right thing to do, ethically, morally, politically and primarily for the good of the service that needs his skills and the skills of other gay members of the military more than they need to continue abusing them with antiquated, irrational, counterproductive homophobic rules.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I agree, get rid of the rule.

BTW If I was a gay activist I would focus less on gay marriage and more on this issue.

Look at the civil rights movement. One of the biggest steps on the march to equality was the decision to allow blacks and whites to serve together. This caused a lot of people who had never socialized or even met a black person to serve side by side with that person and destroy many of the myths and biases that may have existed in their minds. These people then went back to their communities and helped to break down those barriers as well.

The marriage issue is most important for its legal implications. If you can get marriage, you can get almost anything else. Also it seems like gay people are winning pretty decisively on the marriage issue these days, why abandon a winning strategy?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: n yusef
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am sorry, but in a real sense Choi was not kicked out for being gay, but for knowingly and openly flouting army rules and regulations.

I am sure that there were plenty of people who served with him and knew he was gay and did nothing and said nothing about it. He may have even been openly gay among those he served with.

But you can not allow members of the military to go on national TV and openly violate rules and regulations without having them suffer the consequences. The military is an organization that is built on discipline and the actions of Choi are an attempt to undermine that discipline.

If you allow him to make his statement without any consequences then what comes next?
It is immoral to force homosexuals into the closet. Full stop.
It is immoral to kill someone too, but we ask the members of the military to do so everyday.

Again, rules and regulations exist for a very specific reason. Even if you don't like them the military MUST have those rules followed or their whole structure could fall down around them.

Read up on Patton and what he did when he took over the II Corps and did something as simple as requiring people to follow regulations that had been ignored prior to his arrival.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
There is nothing to prevent Obama from reversing the same "regulation" that was created by Bill Clinton's Presidential order, as well as override its application to Choi's case.

Obama is free to do so simply because it's the right thing to do, ethically, morally, politically and primarily for the good of the service that needs his skills and the skills of other gay members of the military more than they need to continue abusing them with antiquated, irrational, counterproductive homophobic rules.

I don't think that's how DADT was implemented.
wiki
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Why is DADT bad?

getting rid of highly quailified peopel in essential roles is bad.

what is good about dadt?

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
There is no need for a gay Arabic linguist. Gays are not welcome in the middle east.

how would anyone know they are gay? Its not like gays have to wear a sign on their back.

most linguists work in intelligence translating stuff, not on the front lines. The important part is that he is an arab linguist, not that he is gay.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I agree, get rid of the rule.

BTW If I was a gay activist I would focus less on gay marriage and more on this issue.

Look at the civil rights movement. One of the biggest steps on the march to equality was the decision to allow blacks and whites to serve together. This caused a lot of people who had never socialized or even met a black person to serve side by side with that person and destroy many of the myths and biases that may have existed in their minds. These people then went back to their communities and helped to break down those barriers as well.

The marriage issue is most important for its legal implications. If you can get marriage, you can get almost anything else. Also it seems like gay people are winning pretty decisively on the marriage issue these days, why abandon a winning strategy?
Say what???

Every time the public is allowed to vote it losses. Even in a very liberal state like California.

The only place it is winning is in the courts and a few liberal leaning state legislators.

Nationally though popular opinion is still against it link

April poll 38% support 55% oppose (the results are almost the exact opposite for allowing civil unions)

CNN poll shows almost no movement in the past year 44% should 54% should not be allowed

NY Times poll with multiple options:
42% legal marriage 25% civil union 28% nothing.

My point with the military is that by allowing gays to serve in the military it will increase overall acceptance of gays which will down the road lead to people accepting the idea of gay marriage.
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
April poll 38% support 55% oppose (the results are almost the exact opposite for allowing civil unions)

CNN poll shows almost no movement in the past year 44% should 54% should not be allowed

NY Times poll with multiple options:
42% legal marriage 25% civil union 28% nothing.

My point with the military is that by allowing gays to serve in the military it will increase overall acceptance of gays which will down the road lead to people accepting the idea of gay marriage.

Have you been watching the news? Support for gay marriage is constantly increasing. It may not be majority-supported yet, but it will be very soon. In a decade, I predict 65% + support
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I agree, get rid of the rule.

BTW If I was a gay activist I would focus less on gay marriage and more on this issue.

Look at the civil rights movement. One of the biggest steps on the march to equality was the decision to allow blacks and whites to serve together. This caused a lot of people who had never socialized or even met a black person to serve side by side with that person and destroy many of the myths and biases that may have existed in their minds. These people then went back to their communities and helped to break down those barriers as well.

The marriage issue is most important for its legal implications. If you can get marriage, you can get almost anything else. Also it seems like gay people are winning pretty decisively on the marriage issue these days, why abandon a winning strategy?
Say what???

Every time the public is allowed to vote it losses. Even in a very liberal state like California.

The only place it is winning is in the courts and a few liberal leaning state legislators.

Nationally though popular opinion is still against it link

April poll 38% support 55% oppose (the results are almost the exact opposite for allowing civil unions)

CNN poll shows almost no movement in the past year 44% should 54% should not be allowed

NY Times poll with multiple options:
42% legal marriage 25% civil union 28% nothing.

My point with the military is that by allowing gays to serve in the military it will increase overall acceptance of gays which will down the road lead to people accepting the idea of gay marriage.

The primary strategy is not to have it legal by referendum nationwide. It's to legalize it in as many states as possible through court and legislative action, and then either have DOMA repealed or ruled unconstitutional. Once DOMA is gone, gay marriage is effectively legal everywhere.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Harvey

There is nothing to prevent Obama from reversing the same "regulation" that was created by Bill Clinton's Presidential order, as well as override its application to Choi's case.

Obama is free to do so simply because it's the right thing to do, ethically, morally, politically and primarily for the good of the service that needs his skills and the skills of other gay members of the military more than they need to continue abusing them with antiquated, irrational, counterproductive homophobic rules.

I don't think that's how DADT was implemented.
wiki

I stand corrected. It was enacted as a statute. It started with Clinton's executive order overturning previous bans on gays having security clearances. Here's a detailed history.