• 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!

Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy

RightinNYC said:
Question for you "pro-black military" folk:

What purpose is there in openly allowing blacks to serve. What does this accomplish?
Click to expand...

Well homosexuality is not a race.
 
Blackdog said:
Well homosexuality is not a race.
Click to expand...

Well, by the same virtue that a person can't change the color of their skin, a person can't change who they are attracted to.
 
Hatuey said:
....any blacks getting removed from the military for being black? Being removed from the military for sexual orientation is discrimination or do you not understand that signaling a particular group out because of something people who created DADT oppose is discrimination?
Click to expand...
Comparing blacks and females to DADT is ridiculous.
Actual discrimination against them serving in the armed forces was based on race and gender not on sexual conduct.
This isn't a case of discrimination on sexual orientation either, but of conduct.
See below quote.

TheNextEra said:
It is discrimination by definition.

But then not all discrimination is bad. We discriminate against those convicted against sexual assaults on minors and not allow them to be day care operators or teachers for example.

IMO, the discrimination against gays in the military is wrong, but it is discrimination.
Click to expand...
I fully understand why you are calling it as such but it isn't discrimination within the confines of the Military environment as it would be in the civilian environment.
And we are discussing the Military environment here, so in context, it is not.



This persons opinion pretty much sums up why it isn't.

'Don't ask, don't tell' is red herring in ROTC debate

Published Monday, January 31, 2005

To the Editor:

...

Just to be clear, "don't ask, don't tell" is not a blanket discrimination against homosexuals. The most flamboyantly gay student can join the military if he is willing to abstain from homosexual behavior in the context of his training and service, just as the most morbidly obese candidate can join the service if he is willing to lose enough weight to meet the somewhat stringent and arbitrary physical standards applied to all active-duty personnel (regardless of their job). The military wants anyone who is qualified and willing to maintain military standards of conduct, and they particularly value the intelligent, competent leaders they find at elite universities.

Soldiers are required to deprive themselves of many civil liberties while in the service of our country. It may surprise civilians to learn that these constraints go far beyond haircuts and earrings to encompass strict limits on free speech as well as social and sexual behavior. Furthermore, this code of conduct is open for review by all three branches of the federal government.

It is true that any other employer would be charged with unlawful discrimination if it enforced a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on sexuality. But note likewise that any other employer would be hauled into court for enforcing such strict and arbitrary physical requirements as does the military, for forcing employees to at times work 100-hour weeks for below minimum wage, or for intentionally putting its employees in mortal danger. Yep, the military is pretty special.

I personally know two homosexual men who discreetly served with distinction on active duty. I believe opponents of military access to the Ivy League cite discrimination as a red herring. I'm sure they have other reasons to despise the military, but it is a shame that they are keeping more of our country's most talented young leaders from serving in the armed forces.

David Bookstaber '99
Code: 
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/13004
Click to expand...
 
Blacks are allowed to serve in the military openly.
Click to expand...

As opposed to being in the "white closet"?
 
MrVicchio said:
Can't wait to see how the sub service handles this.
Click to expand...

I'm looking to volunteer for sub and I was thinking the exact same thing.

But in general, yes, I have no problem with the policy being ended. It won' be for a while, though.
 
As opposed to not serving openly.
Click to expand...

So prior to integration, the blacks in the military couldn't be open to the fact they were black? They had to keep it to themselves or risk getting kicked out?
 
rathi said:
So prior to integration, the blacks in the military couldn't be open to the fact they were black? They had to keep it to themselves or risk getting kicked out?
Click to expand...

If you're actually asking, they were kept in segregated units which were generally considered inferior to other units.
 
MrVicchio said:
You miss the point. And are side tracking into silliness now.

You work Lt. Joe, you're Chief is gay, you're E-5 is gay. The E-5 get's great evals, they seem to be friendly. Nothing out of bounds, just... friendly.

Reality is nothing is going between them, but what do you think folks will think?

Two E-5's fall in love, that's not a problem? We have enough of that crap going on with straight folk.

And if you don't think gay sex won't become a problem on post/base/ship if this happens you're nuts.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I see one assumption here that I don't think would necessarily apply in real life. You assume that DADT would keep people from knowing who's gay and who's not, which I doubt is always the case at the "un-official" level. The existance/nonexistance of DADT doesn't really impact your scenario at all, but it's a completely detached issue. And I thought US also had rules against fraternization. If you can trust female/male relations in general to be kept at a professional level, I don't understand why you think this would be any different.
 
rathi said:
So prior to integration, the blacks in the military couldn't be open to the fact they were black? They had to keep it to themselves or risk getting kicked out?
Click to expand...

Indeed although it was probably very hard to hide in most cases so I doubt most would have tried.
 
Coolguy said:
Care to back up your use of percentages because I am sure that the disparity is far greater.
Click to expand...

Your use of fonts makes me want to say...... no...... :lol:


What makes you think the Army was successfully integrated?
I left the Army in 92 and to say it was successfully integrated meant you had to twist the meaning of "successfully".
Regardless of real or perceived favoritism or racial hatred, were blacks and those of other races able to work together... yep.
But off duty was a different story and most who serve/d know this.
Click to expand...



Hmm, anyone else find this true? :lol::roll: I didn't.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
If irrational fears make a soldier lose focus, he has no business being a soldier.
Click to expand...


Fact, we are all humans, with our courage, fears, irrationalities, socially programmed prejudices and what not. To suggest making sweeping social change in an insitutions....

Fact is those who do choose to serve may have just as strong feelings on this as those who choose not to serve.


Furthermore, are you saying we should go through the military and purge anyone who does not approve of homosexuality?


kinda short sighted idealism you got there....



How many male on male rapes happen between adult males outside of prisons? How many of these are actual acts of homosexuality (It's a crime about power)?
Click to expand...




What does this have to do with anything?
 
WI Crippler said:
Ideally yes, but unfortunantley the stigma that we are all wiped clean in boot camp and are nice little programmed robots for the government simply isn't true. The military is made up of individuals who still carry their personal issues and fears with them through their service career. Some may carry their prejudices in as well, although I believe the tougher the service, the less discrimination you will have. Special Forces, you won't ever see or hear it because they know the value of each mans contribution moreso than a regular.
Click to expand...




Exactly..........
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
exactly the opposite. they can, the 1% though that cant may have a detrimental affect on the 99% who dont care.
Click to expand...

That's fine. The 1% who can't adapt can be dishonorably discharged for dereliction of duty. Or they can just not renew their contracts when they're up.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I bet I know more gays that served in the military than you, honorably..... just sayin... I am also saying that if you change a policy like this in the middle of a war you are gonna get someone killed. not one life is worth a social experiment/change for ones political agenda.
Click to expand...

Really. I'm trying to envision any possible circumstance in which allowing gays in the military would get someone killed: Adam, Bob, and Charlie are in a Humvee in Afghanistan when all of a sudden, a band of Taliban sympathizers waving guns start charging at them screaming "DERKADERKA MOHAMMED JIHAD!!!!" Adam orders Bob and Charlie to shoot the militants...but they're both distracted because Bob is fellating Charlie in the back of the Humvee, and all three are killed. :lol:
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Okay, but people usually don't get killed during that stupid **** do they?
Click to expand...





You do know there were more military deaths under Clinton than have under Bush right?


Not to point out anything bad Clinton did, just that yes, troops sometimes die doing stupid ****......
 
It's about time. That policy is pointless. Like any struggle, it'll probably be tough for a while, but then it'll die down and be alright.
 
RightinNYC said:
You wanna know what really gets people killed?

1) Not having enough troops. Considering how overstretched our military already is, you'd think that the 12,500 gay soldiers kicked out of the military since DADT started might have been useful. Guess you don't think so.
Click to expand...



Do you have a link showing the breakdown of this "12,500" number, could you also show me unit reporting of being understaffed in iraq or afghanistan due to a gay person being kicked out?

Thank you.


Note ultimatley I agree that DADT is a stupid policy. I have no issues with honorable people serving honorably. I just do not think it is wise to monkey with things at this stage of two wars.


2) Not being able to understand the enemy.
Click to expand...
We have a massive shortage of Arabic translators, which gets troops killed every day. It's a shame we kicked 80 of them out for being gay since 2003 alone, because otherwise some red-blooded straight American soldiers might not have been killed because of inadequate intelligence. But I guess you think that's far less important than whether or not the troops have to deal with QUEERS in their midst.
Click to expand...


I thought that was a travesty actually. And I also think that the commander or whoever was in charge handled this wrong.

That said


If I were the gay translators, I would have put my country over my gayness, whether this is right or wrong until I served my time, I knew the rules going in. I made the choice. I need to live by my voluntary contract with the USG.

Period.



Anyone else find it odd that there were 80 gay translaters in such a small specialty? :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Fact, we are all humans, with our courage, fears, irrationalities, socially programmed prejudices and what not. To suggest making sweeping social change in an insitutions....
Click to expand...

What is this "sweeping social change"?

Homosexuals already serve. They are watching their straight brother's backs and vice versa. It sounds like a trumped up charge of "sweeping social change" if they were open about an irrelevant fact. Yes, the fact is irrelevant because they are serving already without a problem.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Fact is those who do choose to serve may have just as strong feelings on this as those who choose not to serve.
Click to expand...

People have strong feelings about lots of things. Somehow, they don't realize that they are already serving with homosexuals. This is all about enabling their denial of this fact.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Furthermore, are you saying we should go through the military and purge anyone who does not approve of homosexuality?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that all the soldiers who disapprove of homosexuality would shoot their brothers in the back or not watch their back?

We both know this isn't the case though. You don't have to approve of a lifestyle of your brother to defend his life. Catholics serve with Protestants who serve with Muslims who serve with Jews who serve with Wiccans who serve with Atheists who serve with agnostics etc.

I have a feeling that our Military personal have issues with Muslims currently. Yet somehow, they manage to serve right next to them.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
kinda short sighted idealism you got there....
Click to expand...

Nice boogieman you've brought to the table.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What does this have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

It's the only reason I can think of that people would fear homosexuals. (Not that it's realistic, which was the point of my question)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I bet I know more gays that served in the military than you, honorably..... just sayin...
Click to expand...

How did you know they were gay?

How did they survive what with all of the people looking to shoot them in the back?

What is your beef with DADT if you already know who all the gay soldiers are?

I know, you can tell. They don't write letters to girlfriends and wives right?

They don't have pictures of love interests around.

Let's just ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom