Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Shelby, Dec 8, 2005.
I'm afraid roberts et al are correct on this one. while the whole issue is pretty retarded from both sides, the schools can't expect to have their cake and eat it. I really don't understand what they're afraid of anyways, since recruiters are hardly pressgangs or draft parties.
I'm glad the Supreme Court made the decision they made.
I think the only way to hit these windbags is in the wallet. I'd love to see a noteworthy university stand up to the challenge and say "Take your money and go buy some votes! Your discrimination is NOT welcome here!"
Just my sick fantasy, but maybe someone will have the balls to do it.
I mean, who'd really want a homo in the military? He might actually be able to focus on the tasks at hand rather than his wife and kids back home. Chances are, his partner could enlist with him since they don't have to worry about who's minding the kids.
The only way to overcome discrimination is with strict, complete non-compliance. Americans have GOT to stop playing the game by THEIR rules.
Time to tell them to fuck off until they straighten up and fly right.
Zora - you seem really passionate about this because your post came off more like a rant and was hard to understand.
Sounds like you are saying:
- the Supreme Court is wrong
- homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military (although I don't think that was part of the original issue).
- you would love to see a university tell the federal government, "Fine, here's your money back and we're not playing by your rules anymore."
Is that about right?
I don't think the military questions a homosexual's ability to serve. The concern is over potential conflict between straights and gays.
Regardless of how strongly you oppose it, homophobia exists and the military has to deal with it. That is why President Clinton introduced the current (military) law prohibiting anyone who is not heterosexual from disclosing his or her sexual orientation.
"That is why President Clinton introduced the current law prohibiting anyone who is not heterosexual from disclosing his or her sexual orientation."
guess what, it doesn't work. you don't deal with a problem by pretending it isn't there and hoping it will go away. if the force authorities were to quit actively fostering homophobia, and state unequivocably that sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with military service and that anyone who has a problem with that is free to go flip burgers (or supervise ford motor co. assembly lines) instead, they might start to actually make some progress with this mind-numbingly retarded ongoing shitstorm. but that would be too sensible and straight(HURR HURR)forward, wouldn't it.
I think that I read that some European armed forces had already integrated their forces.....like Germany.
If I'm not mistaken, Great Britain, Canada and Israel are integrated.
It is really pathetic that the homophobes use the exact same argument that was used to prevent the integration of blacks and whites. It was stupid then and it is stupid now.
I agree with the "put your money where your mouth is" comments concerning on campus military recruiting. You can't have it both ways.
This is a more difficult issue for me.
I grant that univeristy law schools and their parent institutions do not have to take federal moneys to support reasearch or develop academic programs to support federal initiatives such as homeland security. Assume that Harvard, Stanford, or Illinois decides not to accept federal grants because of a strong belief in academic freedom and the First Amendment, who is hurt?
Undoubtedly, the university, their professors and grad students will be hurt by the evaporation of federal funds. Equally damaged will be federal programs and intiatives. Why? The quality of research at NoName State Community College is and will not for a generation or two match the expertise of MIT, Michigan, or Penn. The government, therefore, will be funding third-rate research; the consequences would likely to be a waste of research dollars which fund programs that cannot deliver and a severe contraction in the technological expertise of the U.S.
Do I believe any major university would give up federal money? No way! But legislating a polarized view on a social problem is not the solution. Perhaps, the court has no way but to support the government's case; however, I think it is time that the President/Congress revisit the issue of discrimmination in the military. Some in the military command structure may have been asleep for the past 30 years or so. The Air Force Academy is one that has not got it right in terms of Evangelican Christian wing-nuts denigerating Jewish, Catholic, and moderate Protestants or the date rape of fellow cadets.
A good starting point might be the adoption of the EU's stated position on religious, sexual, and racial discrimination. Essentially, the position is zero tolerance.
Steps toward a Just Society and a Healthy, Manly Military
1) Ban the Fags
2) If someone protests, SLAP THEM DOWN.
Ya know, you would think that someone would realize that most gay men have a hell of a lot more sense than to nancy up to someone with access to rocket launchers. Sheesh. So ridiculous.
It just boils down to fear. We fear what we don't understand. It's amazing and terribly sad how quickly some people cut off a friend when the friend in question admits their sexuality, just because they're afraid the friend is going to make a move. Sad. It changes nothing about that person. If someone trusts you enough to admit you into that part of who they are, take it as the compliment it's intended to be!!
The backlash is happening, unfortunately, and it's gonna get worse before it gets better.
Just finished "Are Men Necessary?" by Maureen Dowd, and she makes the point that most of the straight men in power in this country are bigger queens than the entire gay male population. Chew on that thought.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments and the justices seemed to take the federal government's side, but they have not made a decision.
Yeah, I ranted, but I just so sick and tired of having to deal with this country's basic stupidity issues. Here's what I meant:
-as it stands, the supreme court is right
-homosexuals should be allowed to do any goddamned thing they're willing and capable of doing. Period. I sick of using the whole "we're afraid of them so we get to legislate against them" horseshit. Yes, I'm passionate, discrimination is bullshit!
-I would love to see ANYONE tell this administration to fuck off.
Further, I would like to recommend the sterilization of all neocons in government. Something must be done to ensure that we never return to such a black place in history. These idiots need to be stopped, and dead. It is simply not okay to be "tolerant" about THEIR intolerance of anyone who thinks slightly differently than they do, when almost everything they think is horseshit to begin with. Yes, other governments have integrated arms forces, there is really NO EXCUSE AT ALL for us to be so fucking backward, except that we allow it.
My goodness, Jana. Your post could never be described as tactful, could it?
Is it possible for those who disagree to either respect each other's opinions or at the very least recognize that there is opposition in all things without wishing they'd literally go to hell?
If I die in my sleep tonight you might never forgive yourself.
If I understand the situation correctly, the law schools were liberal trailblazers in trying to eliminate those law firms that discriminated against hiring homosexuals from recruiting on their campuses (and they were large prestigious firms). They were successful with their actions in getting the same firms to liberalize their hiring policies for the most part so that they could be allowed to recruit to remain competitive.
The challenge currently is about forcing the military recruiters to hold themselves to the same values and fairness policies that the law firms are expected to adhere to to gain access to recruit. And the government's challenge to the academic institutions is then you don't get this money. All or nothing.
Yes they can refuse to accept the government's money, BUT it affects the WHOLE institution not specifically the law school. It thereby cuts off funding for hundreds of millions dollars, for unrelated faculties like medicine and scientific research etc.
This is in the end an argument over liberal activists using their denial of access as a legitimate protest to pursue a change in policy in the military. As they see it, it is a freedom of speech issue.
The government will win. THIS time. there's a war on.
not when one of the opinions is fucking retarded, no
I don't know Pecker, you tell me. If I was supporting a movement in government that was gaining ground and popularity banning Chrisitans from having healthcare benefits and voting rights, would you respect my opinion? If I supported the downfall of YOUR lifestyle, would you just say "Oh well, she's entitled to her opinion"? I don't believe you would.
For what it's worth, I can (and do) respect you as a person and still vehemently reject some of your beliefs. If people had to agree to get along, there'd be very little getting along going on. I'm sorry you see things as you do, I really am. Unfortunately, conservative Christians are going to have to take responsibility for the hurt and damage they're doing to others, it's just not okay to curse your neighbor then wonder why they don't want to be your friend. I doubt Jesus would have done the same. Jesus made it clear that his followers had no business in government, but for some reason there are a lot of Christian churches that have found it quite convenient to reject a great deal of the message of the Bible in preference of domination, which was never the intention of Jesus, as I read the book. And further, shame on those who have done this, it's a disgrace. I most definitely will not be nice about it, sorry.
edit- Remeber how nice Jesus was about corruption in the church? Being nice isn't always the best way to get something done. Sometimes you have to physically eject the evildoers from amoung you.
Did anyone besides me miss the point that most of the federal funding for most universities in the US is for research grants in medical and scientific programs? Allowing military recruiters on the campus or not has nothing to do with the scientific research.
Also, the point made that legally allowing the universitites to disallow the military recruiters would lead to banning veterans from enrolling is just ludicrous. Job recruiters and potential students aren't exactly the same thing.
Baylor University undoubtedly gets hefty federal research grants every year. Would the Supreme Court side with Baylor if it were to ban gay rights organizations from recruiting? Ooops, I think some of these issues have come up there already.
The point is, the US Military should not get an exemption if a school requires recruiters on their campus to comply with their non-discrimination policies. The "Solomon Amendment" also includes strictures on who may work with grant monies in certain areas. So-called "sensitive research areas" would be prohibited from having professors, graduate students, or lab assistants either born in some countries (regardless of actual citizenship) or having citizenship in some countries. So, if federal grant money is involved, a student born in, say, Libya, even if he moved to the US at age 1.5 and a naturalized US citizen, could not do his doctoral thesis in, say, some area of nuclear physics.
And by the way, our current Supreme Court wouldn't know the US Constitution if it came up and bit the chief justice's nipples. They are just simply idiots.