• 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

no. but the intimacy with which I can interact with them is decreased by the presence of sexual tension. A barrier has been thrown up where previously there was none.

Why would there be a sexual tension? I can't even imagine that someone would even consider that. Why? Gays are not out to get in bed with straight people. I would have no interest at all in bedding some straight women. I would say that most gays feel the same. So what are these straight people afraid of?
 
Allowing gays to serve openly may have had a negative impact on their combat readiness.

We hear about how about allowing gays to serve openly has been tried and it suceeded, but in reality those armies that have open gay policies have yet to be tested in combat. One that has been tested--The Dutch--failed miserably and 20,000 people died, because of that failure.
Links to that information you shared that tells us that the problem is absolutely do to the gays. Thanks.
 
We cannot discuss the IDF (or its record of discipline or cohesion) outside of ME and under ML. Just delete the post so you don't cause a response.



.02

This is false. The IDF can be discussed here as it pertains to the topic. Not a good idea to tell other posters what to do.
 
You don't like being called a bigot. Maybe that would not happen if you didn't support bigoted positions. There would be no confusion that way.

Maybe you wouldn't feel compelled to call people--who don't think exactly like you--bigots, if it weren't for your own bigotted mindset.
 
Their combat record isn't what it was in the Yom Kippur War, nor have they gotten into a fight on that scale, since; nor have they tangled with an enemy as strong and organized as those it faced in '73 and '67. The Dutch Army in Serbia was attacked by such and enemy and totally fell apart.

During the '09 War, there were several IDF units that didn't perform very well.

When they get into another tank battle like The Golan Heights and kick ass on the same scale, come see me.

I will take stupid comparisons for 1000 Alex. Again, there is a total of zero evidence that the problems of the Dutch army was allowing gays to serve, and lots of evidence it was other problems.

The IDF is still one of the most busy militaries and one of the best in the world.

The US military has allowed gays to serve in some capacity for quite some time, and in many cases the gays are fairly open about it when they feel comfortable enough(it's a bad idea though), and yet the US military is still kicking ass and taking names. There is a total of zero evidence that allowing gays to serve reduces readiness.
 
Gay men are not women. Gay women are not men.

Your stellar grasp of human sexuality aside, its pretty foolish to pretend one should never be a problem while the other is EXPECTED to be a problem.
 
Links to that information you shared that tells us that the problem is absolutely do to the gays. Thanks.

I got a better idea. Show us units from armies with open gay policies that have been trully tested in combat and performed superbly. You don't have any. I already know that. Because units with open gay policies haven't been in any real battled.

How 'bout those British sailors that were captured--correction--up-n-surrendered to the Iranians a few year ago? They did a fine job. Eh?
 
Allowing gays to serve openly may have had a negative impact on their combat readiness.

We hear about how about allowing gays to serve openly has been tried and it suceeded, but in reality those armies that have open gay policies have yet to be tested in combat. One that has been tested--The Dutch--failed miserably and 20,000 people died, because of that failure.

Or it could have been the zodiac chart of their general was against them. Both equally likely.
 
I will take stupid comparisons for 1000 Alex. Again, there is a total of zero evidence that the problems of the Dutch army was allowing gays to serve, and lots of evidence it was other problems.

There is tons of evidence that proves that armies with open gay policies experience substandard performance in battle.

The IDF is still one of the most busy militaries and one of the best in the world.

The last real fight they were in was The Yom Kippur War. There hasn't been anything to really test the IDF's metal, since insituting an open gay policy.

The US military has allowed gays to serve in some capacity for quite some time, and in many cases the gays are fairly open about it when they feel comfortable enough(it's a bad idea though), and yet the US military is still kicking ass and taking names. There is a total of zero evidence that allowing gays to serve reduces readiness.

Not openly. There's the difference.

In your tactical studies of late, have you learned the importance of unit cohesion, yet? Have you learned the factors that positively/negatively effect unit cohesion?
 
Or it could have been the zodiac chart of their general was against them. Both equally likely.

That's the best retort you can come up with for their dispicable behavior in the face of the enemy?
 
There is tons of evidence that proves that armies with open gay policies experience substandard performance in battle.

So why have you provided none?

The last real fight they were in was The Yom Kippur War. There hasn't been anything to really test the IDF's metal, since insituting an open gay policy.

The IDF has not been in a big war, but they have done plenty of fighting, and are still among the most effective at doing so, despite allowing gays to serve.



Not openly. There's the difference.

At times, yes, some gays are fairly open. It's not a good idea, but in some units, gays feel safe enough to do so.

In your tactical studies of late, have you learned the importance of unit cohesion, yet? Have you learned the factors that positively/negatively effect unit cohesion?

There is no evidence gays serving openly causing any noticeable degradation of unit cohesion.
 
That's the best retort you can come up with for their dispicable behavior in the face of the enemy?

I was highlighting how poor your retort was actually. You are making an assumption about events with no evidence whatsoever that it was true, and ignoring the more likely causes.
 
So why have you provided none?



The IDF has not been in a big war, but they have done plenty of fighting, and are still among the most effective at doing so, despite allowing gays to serve.





At times, yes, some gays are fairly open. It's not a good idea, but in some units, gays feel safe enough to do so.



There is no evidence gays serving openly causing any noticeable degradation of unit cohesion.

I've given you several examples of units with open gay policies exhibiting piss poor performance in combat.

It's your turn.
 
See? Social reform isn't so bad now is it? :D
 
Last edited:
I've given you several examples of units with open gay policies exhibiting piss poor performance in combat.

It's your turn.

This is false,, and you have yet to be able to actually connect those dots.
 
I got a better idea. Show us units from armies with open gay policies that have been trully tested in combat and performed superbly. You don't have any. I already know that. Because units with open gay policies haven't been in any real battled.

How 'bout those British sailors that were captured--correction--up-n-surrendered to the Iranians a few year ago? They did a fine job. Eh?

Operation Moshtarak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to mention of the key players is attempting to retake United 93 was a gay man himself, I doubt anyone on board said "Hey not that I don't think we should stop these guys, but I can't storm the cockpit with a gay man!"
United Airlines Flight 93 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But yes fact is since openly gay service members are a fairly recent thing there aren't many examples, not because they can't fight but because its a recent development. But please give us some kind of detail on how 20,000 people were killed becaue gays were serving openly?
 
Allowing gays to serve openly may have had a negative impact on their combat readiness.

We hear about how about allowing gays to serve openly has been tried and it suceeded, but in reality those armies that have open gay policies have yet to be tested in combat. One that has been tested--The Dutch--failed miserably and 20,000 people died, because of that failure.

You need to show some proof that it was purely due to the Dutch allowing gays to serve openly that led to this, not some convoluted correlation equals causation.

Also, you might want to include why any policy like our own DADT would have been likely to prevent the event from happening. Even if the issue was caused by two gay soldiers leaving their post to get it on (not what the evidence I have seen suggests, but hypothetically speaking here), I want to know why it would have been less likely to have happened had the Dutch had a DADT policy instead of a openly gay policy. The two were breaking a rule either way (if this actually happened) and I can't believe that anyone would be more willing to break a rule about abandoning a post than they would be willing to break a rule about not being caught being gay.
 
I got a better idea. Show us units from armies with open gay policies that have been trully tested in combat and performed superbly. You don't have any. I already know that. Because units with open gay policies haven't been in any real battled.

How 'bout those British sailors that were captured--correction--up-n-surrendered to the Iranians a few year ago? They did a fine job. Eh?

Really? My husband's unit knew they had a gay marine in it. They were in battle. Are you telling me that you think their job performance was almost completely dependent on whether they knew about the gay guy being gay or not? I would call the fact that the guys knew that he was gay and didn't care a test by itself. And I am pretty certain that plenty of other units within the US military, including combat units, have guys that everyone knows are gay in them and it doesn't affect their performance one way or another.
 
Why would there be a sexual tension? I can't even imagine that someone would even consider that. Why? Gays are not out to get in bed with straight people. I would have no interest at all in bedding some straight women. I would say that most gays feel the same. So what are these straight people afraid of?

Being looked at and considered handsome/pretty by someone of the same gender while in the shower....thats really about it.

Edit: Oh and getting hit on by someone of the same gender. Of course I've never known a gay to hit on someone that they know is heterosexual so....
 
that reply utterly fails to address the point.

When you talk as if this is the case, then it is perfectly addressing your point to mention that it is in fact not the case.
 
really. like there was nothing else going on right now so it was the perfect time to do this.

The best time to deal with civil rights cases is normally as fast as possible.
 
Being looked at and considered handsome/pretty by someone of the same gender while in the shower....thats really about it.

Edit: Oh and getting hit on by someone of the same gender. Of course I've never known a gay to hit on someone that they know is heterosexual so....

Even if they did, the standard response that everybody should know is "I'm flattered, but I can't." They probably won't press you, but if they do, just say either "I'm taken" or "I'm straight."

It's a compliment, and should be treated as such.
 
Even if they did, the standard response that everybody should know is "I'm flattered, but I can't." They probably won't press you, but if they do, just say either "I'm taken" or "I'm straight."

It's a compliment, and should be treated as such.

if it is pressed after being asked not to, its harassment and the command can handle it.
 
Back
Top Bottom