• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

If it adds stress than the mindless idiots that are stressed certainly do not belong in the military.

bigotry is actually the least of my worries with regards to this issue. You will get some, but it won't be the driver of the increased stress on combat units that comes from the introduction of sexual tension.

Those that believe that it will add stress and want to support that fact and would defend bigots that are stressed by gays make the same statement about themselves.

this is incorrect. those who point out that it will increase stress aren't bigots - they are realistically appraising the results of introducing sexual and social tension into a group that needs to be tightly and intimately knit in order to function well.

I don't get stressed by straight people. Why would a straight person that isn't a bigot get stressed by gays?

as a single example....

:) post naked pictures of yourself on the internet. right here, right now. in your response to this post.

what? you don't want to do that?

why don't you want to expose yourself in front of a mixed audience? are you a bigot?
 
The bold would seem to say that you support bigoted behavior

only if one is an idiot and/or lacks reading comprehension.

and you would rather defend bigots right to stay in the military than gays. You really need to decide what side of the fence you stand on.

that's easy. I stand with the grunts - who have to go out and do a difficult and dangerous job and don't need politicians grandstanding on their ability to make it tougher.
 
The military is always stressed. Always.

which doesn't mean that increasing that stress will not have impact.

This will have basically zero impact however on those manifestations of stress you list. The idea that 1 in 20 soldiers around them might be gay is not going to cause PTSD, nor suicides

no, what it will do is reduce unit cohesion and create a whole new bevy of problems for the units that can least afford them. up until this point combat units had been somewhat protected by the fact that they were all-male units - and thus didn't have to deal with the problems that women servicemembers bring with them as regards the natural effects of the introduction of sexual tension. now, we are stripping that from them. these units are already dealing with enough problems and now we are dumping another in their laps :shrug: if you think it's worth the price they will pay in blood so be it - we are a society that deliberately places the military subordinate to politics, and believes fundamentally in fair play - but let's be upfront about the price they will pay.
 
bigotry is actually the least of my worries with regards to this issue. You will get some, but it won't be the driver of the increased stress on combat units that comes from the introduction of sexual tension.



this is incorrect. those who point out that it will increase stress aren't bigots - they are realistically appraising the results of introducing sexual and social tension into a group that needs to be tightly and intimately knit in order to function well.



as a single example....

:) post naked pictures of yourself on the internet. right here, right now. in your response to this post.

what? you don't want to do that?

why don't you want to expose yourself in front of a mixed audience? are you a bigot?

You you supported bigoted attitudes it is reflective of your own attitude. I ask again why does serving with a gay add stress for a heterosexual? If that is a problem for that person perhaps they should seek help for their problem.
Your little tidbit about posting naked pictures on line make zero sense.
 
many, many, many, many more than are ever prosecuted for it.

the claim that repealing DADT will reduce administrative backlogs strikes me as..... well, frankly, ridiculous.

Which means that you are for allowing our troops to continue to discriminate against people just because they might be more "stressed out" by paperwork if they can't do so? That is ridiculous.

I asked specifically for numbers for a reason. Many, many, many more could be any amount.

Here I'll help you out a little.

It is estimated that about 66000 gays serving in our armed forces. Only about 13000 of those are estimated to be serving on active duty. That is a small amount of gays and most probably work in support units, not combat units. It is unlikely that that number is distributed evenly amongst the services and also does not take into account those that are women, but even if we just assume that 2% of those are going to sexually harass someone else, that is only a total of 260 cases of sexual harassment due to homosexuals throughout the entire active duty force, not just the combat units. Even if we said that it was 5% would harass someone, that is only 650 cases total. And that doesn't mean that everyone of those cases will be reported.

Military sexual harassment data released - US news - Military - msnbc.com

On top of that, there is going to be a much bigger stigma to begin with within the combat units to not sexually harass a guy that a gay guy might work with since it is likely that the troops will take care of such actions themselves. I can't imagine any grunt that would not react aggressively to being hit on by someone in their own unit.

Federal Eye - Eye Opener: Estimate: 66,000 gays in the military
 
only if one is an idiot and/or lacks reading comprehension.



that's easy. I stand with the grunts - who have to go out and do a difficult and dangerous job and don't need politicians grandstanding on their ability to make it tougher.

Your first statement here is dead wrong. If you support a bigoted attitude which you do you yourself are a bigot. If you defend someones right to be bigoted you are a bigot. So the comprehension problem is in your court. You want to pretend to be open minded about gays but yet you defend a bigoted attitude. Like I said you need to pick a side and stand on it.
 
as soon as you begin advocating forcing female servicemembers to strip down in front of the males, let me know.
That again is an asinine statement.
Are you so afraid of gays that you think they are going to want you if you drop your drawers. That is just a childish attitude.
 
as soon as you begin advocating forcing female servicemembers to strip down in front of the males, let me know.

As for this, I have changed with males before. I have no problem asking for this, especially if it would help our military. I don't think it would, but I could be wrong. There are times when having men and women live together and/or be naked together would actually be efficient, especially if everyone understood that it was necessary to keep costs low or accomodate space restrictions. And the vast majority of the time a person can avoid being naked in front of others and seeing others naked, even in a combat zone.

I don't believe that women and men being naked in front of each other though is the same thing as gay men being naked in front of straight men, because this happens now and we don't have nearly as many problems with same sex sexual harassment and assault that we do with opposite sex sexual harassment and assault. It is a cultural thing. We have separate bathrooms for men and women in society, but we do not have separate bathrooms for gays and straights.
 
You you supported bigoted attitudes it is reflective of your own attitude. I ask again why does serving with a gay add stress for a heterosexual?

still waiting on you to post those naked pictures :)

Your little tidbit about posting naked pictures on line make zero sense.

not at all. this is what - after all - you are demanding that male members of the military be willing to do.
 
Which means that you are for allowing our troops to continue to discriminate against people just because they might be more "stressed out" by paperwork if they can't do so?

discrimination here factors not one way or the other in my assessment. the mission of the Rifle Squad is to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy through fire and maneuver and repel his assault through fire and close combat. that is the standard that I measure by - does this help, or hurt, the ability of the rifle squad to perform it's mission. my claim on paperwork is merely to point out that your claim that repealing DADT would reduce it is exceedingly unlikely to be correct.

On top of that, there is going to be a much bigger stigma to begin with within the combat units to not sexually harass a guy that a gay guy might work with since it is likely that the troops will take care of such actions themselves. I can't imagine any grunt that would not react aggressively to being hit on by someone in their own unit.

alright, now. think about what that means for discipline and unit cohesion.
 
That again is an asinine statement.

no, it is merely an accurate depiction of the social setting you are creating.

Are you so afraid of gays that you think they are going to want you if you drop your drawers. That is just a childish attitude.

are you so afraid that the guys on the board here will want you if you post naked pictures? why do you persist in such a childish attitude?
 
Your first statement here is dead wrong. If you support a bigoted attitude which you do you yourself are a bigot. If you defend someones right to be bigoted you are a bigot

this is incorrect. the ACLU, for example, defends racists, nazis, the westboro baptist folks, etc. alike. The Supreme Court and the Constitution does so as well.

You want to pretend to be open minded about gays but yet you defend a bigoted attitude. Like I said you need to pick a side and stand on it.

i don't have to pretend anything. opposing the repeal of DADT because it would have a deleterious effect on combat readiness is not the equivalent of bigotry, however much you wish to pretend that it is.
 
discrimination here factors not one way or the other in my assessment. the mission of the Rifle Squad is to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy through fire and maneuver and repel his assault through fire and close combat. that is the standard that I measure by - does this help, or hurt, the ability of the rifle squad to perform it's mission. my claim on paperwork is merely to point out that your claim that repealing DADT would reduce it is exceedingly unlikely to be correct.

I didn't say that it "reduce it". I said it might be balanced out. Most likely it will be a slight, unnoticeable difference, unless people start acting stupid and falsely reporting incidents just to get people in trouble.

alright, now. think about what that means for discipline and unit cohesion.

Nothing more than it would now or before the repeal was even voted for. That could happen now. And the repeal of DADT will make it no more likely for cases of sexual harassment or assault than has always existed, especially by gays.

You seem to be of the belief that just because gay men can serve openly, that they will start hitting on the straight guys in their unit. This is not likely to happen, because there are still some social stigmas in place to keep most of the gay men, especially within combat units virtually "in the closet" just for safety and/or comfort reasons.
 
I didn't say that it "reduce it". I said it might be balanced out. Most likely it will be a slight, unnoticeable difference, unless people start acting stupid and falsely reporting incidents just to get people in trouble.

or we have to deal with the paperwork side that comes with all of the sexual and discipline issues that we already see in the mixed-gender units.

Nothing more than it would now or before the repeal was even voted for.

you just said that the response would be aggressive. are you honestly going to tell me that that kind of a history won't negatively impact a units' later performance?

That could happen now. And the repeal of DADT will make it no more likely for cases of sexual harassment or assault than has always existed, especially by gays.

given that the only change that could be introduced now would be in a positive direction, i find this exceedingly unlikely.

You seem to be of the belief that just because gay men can serve openly, that they will start hitting on the straight guys in their unit

not at all (although the law of numbers says that will happen - certainly our straight males hit on females that aren't interested all the time). i am of the belief that if a gay man is serving openly, that means the other male members of the unit will know he is gay, and that will reduce intimacy and cohesion.

This is not likely to happen, because there are still some social stigmas in place to keep most of the gay men, especially within combat units virtually "in the closet" just for safety and/or comfort reasons.

well it will be better for the units if they do so. but if you are willing to admit this, then why not have come clean with that at the beginning?
 
Last edited:
:) post naked pictures of yourself on the internet. right here, right now. in your response to this post.

what? you don't want to do that?

why don't you want to expose yourself in front of a mixed audience? are you a bigot?

Will, it appears your cheese done slid clear off your cracker. You really think a military shower is comparable to posting one's .... seriously, I can't even dignify that thought with a re-type.
 
Will, it appears your cheese done slid clear off your cracker. You really think a military shower is comparable to posting one's .... seriously, I can't even dignify that thought with a re-type.

why betty? why wouldn't you expose yourself in front of a mixed audience? would it be better if that audience instead was generally made up solely of 18-22 year old males?
 
why betty? why wouldn't you expose yourself in front of a mixed audience? would it be better if that audience instead was 18-22 year old males?

Well, since you edited out my quote, I don't feel the need to answer you.
 
what? i quoted your post in full.


but the question stands. if you yourself would feel awkward exposing yourself to a mixed audience, why do people demand that the only reason people in the military could feel the same way is because they must be bigoted?
 
what? i quoted your post in full.


but the question stands. if you yourself would feel awkward exposing yourself to a mixed audience, why do people demand that the only reason people in the military could feel the same way is because they must be bigoted?

That's not what they actually think is the lord's truth.

That's just the sort of thing they say to polarize the issue.
 
I'll post nekked pics, clear it with the mods.

Everyone will want me, it'll be awesome.
 
That's not what they actually think is the lord's truth.

That's just the sort of thing they say to polarize the issue.

it's the sort of thing they post to try to silence dissent, then.
 
or we have to deal with the paperwork side that comes with all of the sexual and discipline issues that we already see in the mixed-gender units.



you just said that the response would be aggressive. are you honestly going to tell me that that kind of a history won't negatively impact a units' later performance?



given that the only change that could be introduced now would be in a positive direction, i find this exceedingly unlikely.



not at all (although the law of numbers says that will happen - certainly our straight males hit on females that aren't interested all the time). i am of the belief that if a gay man is serving openly, that means the other male members of the unit will know he is gay, and that will reduce intimacy and cohesion.



well it will be better for the units if they do so. but if you are willing to admit this, then why not have come clean with that at the beginning?

Will, it appears your cheese done slid clear off your cracker. You really think a military shower is comparable to posting one's .... seriously, I can't even dignify that thought with a re-type.

Well, since you edited out my quote, I don't feel the need to answer you.

See your post? See my post quoting you, but missing the bit I quoted? Why did you edit it out?
 
Well, since you edited out my quote, I don't feel the need to answer you.

He didn't edit your post, but I would like to know where in Azeroth you are.

Grinding some city rep, perhaps?
 
Back
Top Bottom