Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: The gay generation gap

  1. #1
    Elite Member Chalet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    13,726

    Default The gay generation gap

    Wasn't sure where to put this. It's an interesting article from NY Magazine for those interested. I bolded a couple of things that I've myself or from friends.

    The Gay Generation Gap


    Forty years after Stonewall, the gay movement has never been more united. So why do older gay men and younger ones often seem so far apart?

    This week, tens of thousands of gay people will converge on New York City for Pride Week, and tens of thousands of residents will come out to play as well. Some of us will indulge in clubbing and dancing, and some of us will bond over our ineptitude at both. Some of us will be in drag and some of us will roll our eyes at drag. We will rehash arguments so old that they’ve become a Pride Week staple; for instance, is the parade a joyous expression of liberation, or a counterproductive freak show dominated by needy exhibitionists and gawking news cameras? Other debates will be more freshly minted: Is President Obama’s procrastinatory approach to gay-rights issues an all-out betrayal, or just pragmatic incrementalism?

    We’ll have a good, long, energizing intra-family bull session about same-sex marriage and the New York State Senate, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Project Runway and Adam Lambert.

    And at some point, a group of gay men in their forties or fifties will find themselves occupying the same bar or park or restaurant or subway car or patch of pavement as a group of gay men in their twenties. We will look at them. They will look at us. We will realize that we have absolutely nothing to say to one another. And the gay generation gap will widen.

    You hear the tone of brusque dismissiveness in private conversations, often fueled by a couple of drinks, and you see the irritation become combustible when it’s protected by Internet anonymity. On the well-trafficked chat site DataLounge, a self-described repository of “gay gossip, news, and pointless bitchery,” there’s no topic, from politics to locker-room etiquette to the proper locations for wearing cargo pants and flip-flops, that cannot quickly devolve into “What are you, 17?”–“What are you, some Stonewall-era relic?” sniping.

    And some not entirely dissimilar rhetoric is showing up in loftier media. In April, a 25-year-old right-of-center gay journalist argued in a Washington Post op-ed that many gay-rights groups are starting to outlive their purpose, and chided older activists for being stuck in “a mind-set that sees the plight of gay people as one of perpetual struggle … their life’s work depends on the notion that we are always and everywhere oppressed.” The scathing message-board replies pounded him at least as hard for his age as for his politics. “You twentysomething gays seem to think being out equals acceptance … Don’t be so quick to dissolve the organizations that made it possible for you to be so naïve,” wrote one reader. Another, blunter response: “Forgive me for not falling all over myself to do exactly what an inexperienced 25-year-old decrees … Don’t waltz in and start barking orders, little boy.”

    Public infighting is a big minority-group taboo—it’s called taking your business out in the street. And it may seem strange to note this phenomenon at a juncture that, largely because of the fight for gay marriage, has been marked by impressive solidarity. But let’s have a look.

    Here’s the awful stuff, the deeply unfair (but maybe a little true) things that many middle-aged gay men say about their younger counterparts: They’re shallow. They’re silly. They reek of entitlement. They haven’t had to work for anything and therefore aren’t interested in anything that takes work. They’re profoundly ungrateful for the political and social gains we spent our own youth striving to obtain for them. They’re so sexually careless that you’d think a deadly worldwide epidemic was just an abstraction. They think old-fashioned What do we want! When do we want it! activism is icky and noisy. They toss around terms like “post-gay” without caring how hard we fought just to get all the way to “gay.”

    And here’s the awful stuff they throw back at us—at 45, I write the word “us” from the graying side of the divide—a completely vicious slander (except that some of us are a little like this): We’re terminally depressed. We’re horrible scolds. We gas on about AIDS the way our parents or grandparents couldn’t stop talking about World War II. We act like we invented political action, and think the only way to accomplish something is by expressions of fury. We say we want change, but really what we want is to get off on our own victimhood. We’re made uncomfortable, or even jealous, by their easygoing confidence. We’re grim, prim, strident, self-ghettoizing, doctrinaire bores who think that if you’re not gloomy, you’re not worth taking seriously. Also, we’re probably cruising them.

    To some extent, a generation gap in any subgroup with a history of struggle is good news, because it’s a sign of arrival. If you have to spend every minute fighting against social opprobrium, religious hatred, and governmental indifference, taking the time to grumble about generational issues would be a ridiculously off-mission luxury; there are no ageists in foxholes. But today, with the tide of history and public opinion finally (albeit fitfully) moving our way, we can afford to step back and exercise the same disrespect for our elders (or our juniors) as heterosexuals do. That’s progress, of a kind.

    Summer Guide 2009 - The Gay Generation Gap, Forty Years After Stonewall -- New York Magazine

  2. #2
    Elite Member greysfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Burning Down Your Windmill
    Posts
    51,524

    Default

    To some extent, a generation gap in any subgroup with a history of struggle is good news, because it’s a sign of arrival.
    And this is the best point of this article. Bravo.
    FUCK YOU AND GIVE ME MY GODDAMN VENTI TWO PUMP LIGHT WHIP MOCHA YOU COCKSUCKING WHORE BEFORE I PUNCH YOU IN THE MOUTH. I just get unpleasant in my car. - Deej

    http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/signaturepics/sigpic4098_9.gif Healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

  3. #3
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    I'd like to point out the exact opposite.. with Obama being a fucking retard ass when it comes to LGBT rights (instead of the Sasha Fierce advocate he proclaimed to be in the election) a lot of the established, entrenched "work behind the scenes" gays that are in their middle years seem perfectly happy, like an abused wife, to not rock the boat, say anything up upset the establishment, and seem content with whatever disingenuous pathetic scraps the DNC is throwing their way.

    It's the younger gays, the 20-s and 30's who are pissed the fuck off right now and are agitating for more direct confrontation.. meanwhile the elder gays, who's strategy has netted absolutely NOTHING on the federal level, are saying "shhh,. be quiet, dont be so impatient, there are more important things..." like a bunch of fucking uncle tom, house faggots.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  4. #4
    Elite Member lurkur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,351

    Default

    This writer is describing a divide that isn't there, or making way too much out of the usual 'kids are irresponsible' view that has nothing to do with homosexuality (but possibly with paternalism). It's not like the "gay family" is about to have a falling out, with son running away from home.

    It's good to be aware of a possible dividing point, though. "Kids" in general are interested in their own interests, just like the older generation had their own interests when they were younger. Hopefully the interests bring the movement forward instead of backward.

  5. #5
    Gold Member mamaste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    fishcakes... blah blah blah
    Posts
    875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    I'd like to point out the exact opposite.. with Obama being a fucking retard ass when it comes to LGBT rights (instead of the Sasha Fierce advocate he proclaimed to be in the election) a lot of the established, entrenched "work behind the scenes" gays that are in their middle years seem perfectly happy, like an abused wife, to not rock the boat, say anything up upset the establishment, and seem content with whatever disingenuous pathetic scraps the DNC is throwing their way.

    It's the younger gays, the 20-s and 30's who are pissed the fuck off right now and are agitating for more direct confrontation.. meanwhile the elder gays, who's strategy has netted absolutely NOTHING on the federal level, are saying "shhh,. be quiet, dont be so impatient, there are more important things..." like a bunch of fucking uncle tom, house faggots.
    It's the older gays that are more often being confrontational. Sure, you have some "don't rock the boat" types. But you can find them everywhere. And when young people do take the initiative, you end up with what happened in CA. Not that it was entirely their fault, but there were definitely some actions (or lack thereof) that older gays knew better than to commit. Hell, if it weren't for the older gays, nothing at all would have happened. They're the ones doing all the work getting laws changed.

    As for Obama, WTH? 1. He's been in office 6 months. Give it some time. It's not that easy to create change in this country, especially at the federal level. 2. Despite what GWB has made people think about America, he's the president not the supreme ruler. Presidents have limited powers. Like GWB, much of what he can do is based on what Congress allows him to do. GWB did not fuck up this country alone. 3. He was never a fierce advocate for gay rights. 4. What about the people that have been in DC for 20 and 30 years? Barney Frank has been in Washington for decades. He's hardly done anything for ay rights at the federal level.

    We have all these people in DC who have done nothing for years yet Obama is there 6 months and it's all his fault. Again, WTH?

    ETA: I what I take issue with is the way this siutation is characterized. It's not that I'm against gay rights.

  6. #6
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    I am still confused as to why gays presumed Obama/Biden was the gay activist ticket? They stated they didn't support certain gay initiatives. Even though they hold the top positions in the executive branch, neither Obama nor Biden can change anything. They can plead before Congress and/or the SC, but that's it. If those two entities don't move, the executive branch is out.

    I know Bush stomped on his limitations, but the president is not omnipotent, not legally anyway. Bush just had ideas at a time he knew he would be supported by the other powers that be. They were all idiots.

    Why is equal, if not more, pressure not being placed upon Congress and the Supreme Court, the two groups who can do something but won't?



  7. #7
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mamaste View Post

    As for Obama, WTH? 1. He's been in office 6 months. Give it some time.
    Yes yes, let me categorize the excuses for you.

    There's other things that are more important right now. - right, which is why his DOJ went out of its way to attack gays in the legal brief regarding DOMA, more are coming down the pipe. That hideous brief the DOJ filed has his full support. He has endorsed it. Those are his views.

    He's already defended DADT a number of times as well and plans to keep doing so, all the while there's a 70% want of repeal among the public AND 77 senators sent him a letter saying "you have the power to stop this"... and he hasn't.

    his 'benefits for federal employees' thing was just panicked window dressing, UNPLANNED i might add, to shut up gay groups by tossing them a bone.

    It isn't a matter of "give it time". It's the fact that he's done a 180 degree turn and is actively opposing gay rights. ACTIVELY. That means purposefully doing so. It's not that he has "too much on his plate"... he is finding time to OPPOSE EQUAL RIGHTS.

    2. Despite what GWB has made people think about America, he's the president not the supreme ruler. Presidents have limited powers. Like GWB, much of what he can do is based on what Congress allows him to do. GWB did not fuck up this country alone.
    He has already been clarified on what powers he does and does not have, and he has chosen to go the exact opposite route. Nobody is expecting Bushesque flouting of the law but he DOES have options open (ie: not defending DOMA, he did not have to but chose to, same with DADT) and issueing a stop loss for DADT to put the gay firings on hold while congress looks over the matter. He's chosen to do the opposite.

    3. He was never a fierce advocate for gay rights
    Clearly, despite saying so many a time and using that to get money from gay consituencies for the election. But I'm confused.. a second ago ytou said it's a matter of time, and now you seem to say it'll never happen anyway.

    4. What about the people that have been in DC for 20 and 30 years? Barney Frank has been in Washington for decades. He's hardly done anything for ay rights at the federal level.
    Barney frank is a political opportunist and a toad. Same with most of the "gay leaders" in Washington, they've become too used to galas and cocktails, accepting scraps while saying how "disappointed" they all are that NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE FOR DECADES. They have become part of the useless machine, and that's why the gay cash spigot is being closed to them.

    Gays are tired of the same old "wait longer" excused and accepting what inconsequential bones are tossed their way.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #8
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    I am still confused as to why gays presumed Obama/Biden was the gay activist ticket? They stated they didn't support certain gay initiatives. Even though they hold the top positions in the executive branch, neither Obama nor Biden can change anything. They can plead before Congress and/or the SC, but that's it. If those two entities don't move, the executive branch is out.
    They have options that they have not taken that do not flout the law, but also do not support them, stop loss orders, etc. It's grey areas that all politicians use, but Obama has (amazingly) not.

    He goes on and on about having to obey the law, which is fine, but then amazingly finds ways to use the grey areas on other issues.. just not LGBT ones.

    I know Bush stomped on his limitations, but the president is not omnipotent, not legally anyway. Bush just had ideas at a time he knew he would be supported by the other powers that be. They were all idiots.
    True, omnipotence is bad. However, disingenuousness regarding what options he DOES have is just as bad. He's being selectively powerless.

    Why is equal, if not more, pressure not being placed upon Congress and the Supreme Court, the two groups who can do something but won't?
    Equal pressure is being applied, the problem is Congress is pointing the finger at Obama and Obama is pointing the finger right back and nothing is getting done.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #9
    Gold Member mamaste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    fishcakes... blah blah blah
    Posts
    875

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Yes yes, let me categorize the excuses for you.

    There's other things that are more important right now. - right, which is why his DOJ went out of its way to attack gays in the legal brief regarding DOMA, more are coming down the pipe. That hideous brief the DOJ filed has his full support. He has endorsed it. Those are his views.

    He's already defended DADT a number of times as well and plans to keep doing so, all the while there's a 70% want of repeal among the public AND 77 senators sent him a letter saying "you have the power to stop this"... and he hasn't.

    his 'benefits for federal employees' thing was just panicked window dressing, UNPLANNED i might add, to shut up gay groups by tossing them a bone.

    It isn't a matter of "give it time". It's the fact that he's done a 180 degree turn and is actively opposing gay rights. ACTIVELY. That means purposefully doing so. It's not that he has "too much on his plate"... he is finding time to OPPOSE EQUAL RIGHTS.



    He has already been clarified on what powers he does and does not have, and he has chosen to go the exact opposite route. Nobody is expecting Bushesque flouting of the law but he DOES have options open (ie: not defending DOMA, he did not have to but chose to, same with DADT) and issueing a stop loss for DADT to put the gay firings on hold while congress looks over the matter. He's chosen to do the opposite.



    Clearly, despite saying so many a time and using that to get money from gay consituencies for the election. But I'm confused.. a second ago ytou said it's a matter of time, and now you seem to say it'll never happen anyway.



    Barney frank is a political opportunist and a toad. Same with most of the "gay leaders" in Washington, they've become too used to galas and cocktails, accepting scraps while saying how "disappointed" they all are that NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE FOR DECADES. They have become part of the useless machine, and that's why the gay cash spigot is being closed to them.

    Gays are tired of the same old "wait longer" excused and accepting what inconsequential bones are tossed their way.
    Grimm, you keep saying Obama this and Obama that. What I am trying to point out is Obama is not our king. No matter what media reports might have us believe about the DOJ or Obama's powers or role as President, it's not true. People keep saying it's Obama's responsibility, when that isn't the case. The branches of gov't. do not work that way. I realize you are Canadian and didn't have the U.S. civics courses that the rest of us did. Here's a Wiki about the variopus branches of gov't. and their powers: Federal government of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this to help clear up some misunderstandings you have.

    What I mean by give it time is the President cannot introduce new legislation. Congress has to. Unless the SC overturns DOMA, they will have to. As for DADT, right now Obama has the power to change that policy. Unfortunately, the President loses that power during times of peace. IMO, Congress would be a better place to repeal that policy, especially considering they introduced it in the first place. That would prevent future Presidents from enacting DADT again or an outright ban.

    I never said it wouldn't happen. There is a lot of expectation from Obama when in relaity his powers are limited. We need more pressure on Congress (or court cases that directly address gay marriage unlike Smelt v. U.S.). Crafting legislation is their job. The President is only supposed to enforce the laws they write.

  10. #10
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    They have options that they have not taken that do not flout the law, but also do not support them, stop loss orders, etc. It's grey areas that all politicians use, but Obama has (amazingly) not.
    Again, the powers Obama has would do nothing to help gay rights. As soon as he exercised those powers, Congress and the Supreme Court would step in. What would he get for his troubles? A hand smack. What would it do for the gays? Inspire Congress to bring forth new legislation which would slap them in the face and the Supreme Court to sit back and watch or take LGBT cases and rule in a manner which kicks gays in the stomach.


    He goes on and on about having to obey the law, which is fine, but then amazingly finds ways to use the grey areas on other issues.. just not LGBT ones.
    Obama is doing what you won't, looking at what is and not what should be. If he lights the fuse right now concerning LGBT causes, it will blow up in his face and the faces of the LGBT community. His powers can not give you what you seek. What they can do is set of a chain reaction which will see the restraints being pulled even tighter.



    True, omnipotence is bad. However, disingenuousness regarding what options he DOES have is just as bad. He's being selectively powerless.
    For Obama to be labeled disingenuous, he would have had to say he fully supported everything the gay rights movement seeks, then chosen to backtrack. He stated publicly he did not support gay marriage, which should have resulted in the gay community asking him what he specifically supported as far as gay causes are concerned and demanding unambiguous replies. The gay community did not do that, but assumed being liberal equated with supporting gay causes. It obviously does not. One's assumption is neither the other person's fault nor burden to bear.

    Equal pressure is being applied, the problem is Congress is pointing the finger at Obama and Obama is pointing the finger right back and nothing is getting done.
    Equal pressure is not being applied; if that were true, Obama would have very little heat directed at him. Congress and the Supreme Court are the only branches who can help gays here and would be sweltering if the heat were turned up properly. The Supreme Court can knock down laws. Congress can legislate new ones. Obama can hold a pen and sign when those laws are presented to him.



  11. #11
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RevellingInSane View Post
    Again, the powers Obama has would do nothing to help gay rights. As soon as he exercised those powers, Congress and the Supreme Court would step in. What would he get for his troubles? A hand smack. What would it do for the gays? Inspire Congress to bring forth new legislation which would slap them in the face and the Supreme Court to sit back and watch or take LGBT cases and rule in a manner which kicks gays in the stomach.
    again, you missed the point. DOMA and DADT don't have to be defended in actuality, the admin can simply say they won't. It's been done innumerable times in the past and isn't the sort of thing that is out of place. Instead, the Obama admin has vociferously and quite homophobically done the opposite, using every hack argument, disproved with wing scare tactic and downright debunked lies (gay marriage is bad for economy) to do it.



    Obama is doing what you won't, looking at what is and not what should be. If he lights the fuse right now concerning LGBT causes, it will blow up in his face and the faces of the LGBT community. His powers can not give you what you seek. What they can do is set of a chain reaction which will see the restraints being pulled even tighter.
    see above. blow up in his face? THere is wide public support (especially for repealing DADT) and for ditching DOMA according to a number of polls.

    Wtf can blow up in his face? How would it blow up exactly? It's not going to blow up NOW any more than LATER and gays are tired of waiting. He's trying to play both sides and he's going to lose.


    For Obama to be labeled disingenuous, he would have had to say he fully supported everything the gay rights movement seeks, then chosen to backtrack. He stated publicly he did not support gay marriage, which should have resulted in the gay community asking him what he specifically supported as far as gay causes are concerned and demanding unambiguous replies.
    No, he stated a full repeal of DOMA, and DADT.. DOMA has been removed from the agenda, and DADT has gone from being repealed to "changed". Congress has received no impetus from the White House to move on either issue, and congress in fact just sent a letter signed by 77 members to Obama to sign on to ANYTHING for a repeal of DADT, which has already been put forth by congress.

    The response:

    SILENCE.

    The gay community did not do that, but assumed being liberal equated with supporting gay causes. It obviously does not. One's assumption is neither the other person's fault nor burden to bear.
    No, he stated one thing and has done another. I did not say anything about marriage. I'm talking specifically about DOMA and DADT. He has in fact done THE OPPOSITE OF HIS STATED ELECTION GOALS.


    Equal pressure is not being applied; if that were true, Obama would have very little heat directed at him. Congress and the Supreme Court are the only branches who can help gays here and would be sweltering if the heat were turned up properly. The Supreme Court can knock down laws. Congress can legislate new ones. Obama can hold a pen and sign when those laws are presented to him.
    see above yet again.

    every argument you present has already been shot down by 3/4 of the lawmakers out there, government groups, advocacy groups and everybody else.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  12. #12
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,128

    Default

    house faggots.
    LOL at that term. Doesn't Tom Cruise have one of those? I believe he refers to him as "the butler".

  13. #13
    Elite Member RevellingInSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Where Being PC is understood as a fault!
    Posts
    11,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    again, you missed the point. DOMA and DADT don't have to be defended in actuality, the admin can simply say they won't. It's been done innumerable times in the past and isn't the sort of thing that is out of place. Instead, the Obama admin has vociferously and quite homophobically done the opposite, using every hack argument, disproved with wing scare tactic and downright debunked lies (gay marriage is bad for economy) to do it.
    You, as usual, miss the point. If he attempted to use his power, as limited as that is in the overall picture, right now, the legislators and the Supreme Court have shown where their loyalties lie. Remember what the SC said about DADT last week, was it? To say the OA should either say it won't defend DOMA or DADT or quietly refuse to could be seen as movement to oppose it or at least lead to those who support it questioning the OA on what they really feel and leading to even more laws and work against gay rights from Congress and upholding of those laws by the SC.

    Obama could issue an executive order to suspend DADT or DOMA, but The Supreme Court could overrule him, as they did before during Truman's presidency.

    see above. blow up in his face? THere is wide public support (especially for repealing DADT) and for ditching DOMA according to a number of polls.

    Wtf can blow up in his face? How would it blow up exactly? It's not going to blow up NOW any more than LATER and gays are tired of waiting. He's trying to play both sides and he's going to lose.
    Quantify "wide public support". Where are these polls? According to CBS news in a poll published in April (Poll: Americans Divided On Gay Marriage - Political Hotsheet - CBS News )35 percent of America feels there should be no recognition of same-sex relationships and twenty-seven percent feels there should be some type of non-marital civil union. Only 33 percent, down from 34 percent, just months prior, support full legal marriage.

    Looking at those numbers, the majority of Americans do not support full gay marriage and their elected officials aren't going to touch the one law is creating the strongest block.

    While that did not specifically speak of DOMA, it does lead me to ask where the wide support of repealing DOMA is coming from if 62 percent of Americans do not support the one thing DOMA is standing in the way of?

    As for DADT, yes, there is growing support for it being repealed, but, you seem to overlook one little issue. The public does not make the rules and the military is a very loud voice and heavy hand politically. While civilians may support it, the military can effectively pull strings to see it does not get changed.


    No, he stated a full repeal of DOMA, and DADT.. DOMA has been removed from the agenda, and DADT has gone from being repealed to "changed". Congress has received no impetus from the White House to move on either issue, and congress in fact just sent a letter signed by 77 members to Obama to sign on to ANYTHING for a repeal of DADT, which has already been put forth by congress.

    The response:

    SILENCE.



    No, he stated one thing and has done another. I did not say anything about marriage. I'm talking specifically about DOMA and DADT. He has in fact done THE OPPOSITE OF HIS STATED ELECTION GOALS.




    see above yet again.

    every argument you present has already been shot down by 3/4 of the lawmakers out there, government groups, advocacy groups and everybody else.
    I remember Obama stating his goals, and repealing those two laws were in the list. If people had paid attention and knew how government in the US works, they would have known the President can not repeal laws. Hey, if you bought the kool aid, that's your fault. Even the third and fourth graders in my family knew the only ways laws could be changed.

    He got a reality check. He can't change those laws and if he thought he had Congress and the Courts on his side, he knows better now. He is learning, along with many Americans, the Oval Office is not the center of power in Washington. So many would benefit if they had the same epiphany.

    My arguments have been shot down? Has DADT or DOMA been repealed or reworked by Congress or declared illegal by the Supreme Court? If anything, the political players are doing exactly what those who are not deluded by their double talking expected. Obama is learning he can't burst in and change anything and the public is seeing the SC and Congress aren't going to budge. Exactly how have I been incorrect is saying no branch is going to make a move to allow the changes the gay community wants? They are proving they aren't. My understanding their strategy and moves does not mean I support what they are doing. Presumption is so dangerous.



  14. #14
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Again, let me quote for you:

    [I]t is puzzling that there is not a stronger momentum within the administration to begin the process of repealing DADT, given the unacceptable moral and national security implica- tions of DADT, as well as President Obama’s stated campaign pledge. This inaction is due, in part, to the commonly held belief that there exists no road map for repealing and then implementing the new policy once DADT is overturned. However, this is not the case.

    A clear and comprehensive road map for repealing DADT and implementing an alterna- tive, non-discriminatory policy already exists. This report provides a realistic outline for repealing DADT and opening our armed forces to the many qualified men and women who have been excluded under that law. These steps include:

    1. Signing an Executive Order banning further military separations based on DADT and sending a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress

    2. Forming a presidential panel on how to implement the repeal

    3. Repealing DADT in Congress and changing the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, or UCMS

    4. Changing other necessary military guidelines to conform to the new policy

    5. Following-up to ensure that the armed forces implement the policy changes

    Obama refuses to do step 1. Well, he refuses to do all the steps, but particularly step 1. The Obama administration has never explained why it refuses to simply stop the discharges pending legislation. They keep saying that a partial fix now isn't enough. Well duh. But why does a future legislative fix somehow preclude the president from picking up his pen and stopping the two gay American soldiers from being discharged each day, saving their careers and their lives from ruin? As I reported yesterday, the Obama administration stopped the implementation of an immigration law, pending a congressional fix. So why not do it on DADT too?

    like i said.. selectively powerless.

    p.s. I almost forgot.. the military reluctance regarding DADT and its repeal is all about that bogus "unit cohesion" shit.. turns out gay servicemembers a number of years back who came out WERE SENT TO THE IRAQI FRONT ANYWAY to complete their tours of duty, and then dishonorably discharged.

    So they can serve however many years side by side and out, fighting like anybody else, ORDERED to do so by the very military institutions that then turnaround, after major combat has ceased, and say "oh sorry, your gayness somehow affect unit cohesion"?

    bullshit.

    it's all lies.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  15. #15
    Gold Member mamaste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    fishcakes... blah blah blah
    Posts
    875

    Default

    Grimm, he did explain. He said he wanted to discuss it with cabinet members before he did anything. He didn't say he wouldn't repeal DADT. He said it wouldn't happen until 2010. Military representatives have stated they have some concerns about a repeal. They never stated what those concerns are IIRC. The other issue, like I said is he can only repeal DADT when the military is under his command. I'll be honest and say I have no idea if they are or not. There is no war in Afghanistan. I remain confused if there is actually still one officially in Iraq. Last I heard they were "policing". So, that could be an issue. I don't know.

    Grimm, please remember our laws are different here. Our political process is different. The powers of our legislature and leader are different. I understand your anger, but your argument isn't rooted in realism at least not for America.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Kanye West is the icon of this generation
    By cmmdee in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: February 19th, 2009, 09:34 AM
  2. So cool! Tweens are emerging generation
    By celeb_2006 in forum News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 6th, 2009, 09:08 AM
  3. The pornification of a generation
    By celeb_2006 in forum News
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 13th, 2008, 02:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •