• 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

I really don't want to be offended...but I am finding really hard not to be. So, if you don't mind helping me out here, please explain to me how you arrive at that.
Click to expand...

I think what he's trying to say is that gay men are big sissies! But seriously folks...

My position, at least, does not stem from a belief that gay men cannot fight just as well as others - I certainly believe they can and do - nor does it stem from a personal dislike of gay people - I don't really care if the guy clearing a house with me thinks Brad Pitt is hot - my position is this...

Given the socially conservative composition of the military - combat units in particular - a policy that attempts to fully integrate homosexuality represents a potential complication and loss of operational proficiency, as such it stands to reason that such a potentiality must be avoided. The military is what it is and wishful thinking isn't going to change anything. In the interests of practicality we sometimes have to sacrifice our ideals...shades of grey I'm afraid.
 
jallman said:
I really don't want to be offended...but I am finding really hard not to be. So, if you don't mind helping me out here, please explain to me how you arrive at that.
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough.

What I am saying, is females aren't allowed in the front lines because men will do irrational things in order to protect them.

I'm sure gay folks already practice this policy (or maybe not) but in order for the military to justify keeping them in the front line they've got to plead ignorance. I.E. "Don't ask, don't tell".

I don't see that policy so much as discriminatory towards gays as it is protection.


Like I said, nothing anti-gay about it. I'm merely pondering the amount of water those flood gates will let through.
 
Wessexman said:
Read it again, I didn't deny being partisan. I said in Britain that being partisan is normal, it is in the US where you get this bipartisan crap.


We aren't talking about houses but society and institutions although it is characteristic of political rationalism that you apply an enginerring metaphor to politics as if society and institutions were so simplistic as to be apply to be molded by simplistic formulas.

All I'm saying is caution should be used and change should as far as possible be gradual and piecemeal rather than massive and sweeping in the field of politics. It is a epistomolgical modesty that realises that in social and political affairs humans have many gaps in their understanding so caution is needed. #

This is ancient Conservative wisdom, in fact along with support for intermediate associations it is basically Conservatism.
Click to expand...

You keep saying "gradually". I ask for clarification and you get out your thesaurus. It's either they are open about their sexual preference or they aren't. I don't know what you mean by gradual change.

Will it start by allowing them to say, "Sir, fabulous, sir!"?
 
RightOfCenter said:
I really am all for this. You don't have to be straight to shoot straight.

One has to wonder if it will have any adverse effects on our military. You average private is not necessarily the most open minded person.
Click to expand...



I agree with this point, personally i could care less what people do in their own privacy but you have to figure that a huge majority of the volunteer force that makes up our armed services are country boys who would be affected mentally by this.
 
MBona said:
I agree with this point, personally i could care less what people do in their own privacy but you have to figure that a huge majority of the volunteer force that makes up our armed services are country boys who would be affected mentally by this.
Click to expand...

Their fragile psyches shouldn't be trusted with weapons then.
 
Shewter said:
Are homosexual men going to be given the same treatment as women based on principle then?

Trust me, there is no anti-gayness about this. I just don't know how they would justify holding women out of the frontlines if they allow openly gay men.
Click to expand...

Because women and gay men are the same?

What?

And I don't see a problem with women serving in combat either. If it works for the Israelis then it will certainly work for us. Though I would say that if they want to they should have to match the same physical fitness standards as men.
 
Ethereal said:
I think what he's trying to say is that gay men are big sissies! But seriously folks...

My position, at least, does not stem from a belief that gay men cannot fight just as well as others - I certainly believe they can and do - nor does it stem from a personal dislike of gay people - I don't really care if the guy clearing a house with me thinks Brad Pitt is hot - my position is this...

Given the socially conservative composition of the military - combat units in particular - a policy that attempts to fully integrate homosexuality represents a potential complication and loss of operational proficiency, as such it stands to reason that such a potentiality must be avoided. The military is what it is and wishful thinking isn't going to change anything. In the interests of practicality we sometimes have to sacrifice our ideals...shades of grey I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this during a war. However, if it was peace time I can't see any logical reason to keep them out.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Hey, we're supposed to tell now, right?
Click to expand...

Not yet. You have to look at their sausages secretly. Think of yourself as a walking hidden camera. :mrgreen:
 
RightOfCenter said:
Because women and gay men are the same?

What?

And I don't see a problem with women serving in combat either. If it works for the Israelis then it will certainly work for us. Though I would say that if they want to they should have to match the same physical fitness standards as men.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for or against that.

What I'm saying is we would see more people trying to get their piece of the "Equality" and the structure of the military would end up vastly changing (I think) that's all.

I could care less if there are openly gay men anywhere in the military, or the world for that matter.

I do not support women in the front-lines however. There are too many risks.
 
winston53660 said:
What risks? The IDF has women serving in the front lines.
Click to expand...

Our culture has raised men to protect women as much as possible. A woman in the heat of battle stirs up emotional actions and set morals that would normally be left at the door.

I would not say for a minute that it's fair. But life usually isnt.
 
Shewter said:
Our culture has raised men to protect women as much as possible. A woman in the heat of battle stirs up emotional actions and set morals that would normally be left at the door.

I would not say for a minute that it's fair. But life usually isnt.
Click to expand...

I think you are talking aabout a 1950s mentality not a 21st century mentality or cultral norm.
 
winston53660 said:
I think you are talking aabout a 1950s mentality not a 21st century mentality or cultral norm.
Click to expand...

Prove otherwise and I'll gladly rethink my position.

I don't know about you, but my parents raised me to protect and resist getting physical with women for the reason that they are usually more fragile physically and emotionally than I am.

(Keyword USUALLY)
 
Shewter said:
Okay, fair enough.

What I am saying, is females aren't allowed in the front lines because men will do irrational things in order to protect them.

I'm sure gay folks already practice this policy (or maybe not) but in order for the military to justify keeping them in the front line they've got to plead ignorance. I.E. "Don't ask, don't tell".

I don't see that policy so much as discriminatory towards gays as it is protection.


Like I said, nothing anti-gay about it. I'm merely pondering the amount of water those flood gates will let through.
Click to expand...

Okay...that's fair and I am much less offended than I was about to be.

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that you are worried that romantic involvements or attractions may make gay men more likely to act out in protection of the objects of their affections in ways that would hurt the unit much the same way that a hetero male may act out in protection of unit females.

I can see that point but if I may point out, homos are in the military now and nondisclosure of one's preference isn't going to hinder attractions. Whether DADT is in effect or not, the attractions are going to be there and, so far, I've not seen any rash of homos throwing themselves into the line of fire over their crushes.

But again, I do see your point.
 
jallman said:
Okay...that's fair and I am much less offended than I was about to be.

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that you are worried that romantic involvements or attractions may make gay men more likely to act out in protection of the objects of their affections in ways that would hurt the unit much the same way that a hetero male may act out in protection of unit females.

I can see that point but if I may point out, homos are in the military now and nondisclosure of one's preference isn't going to hinder attractions. Whether DADT is in effect or not, the attractions are going to be there and, so far, I've not seen any rash of homos throwing themselves into the line of fire over their crushes.

But again, I do see your point.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I was able to explain it in a less offensive manner.

But, no that is not what I am concerned with. Gay men are going to know other gay men in the military already, I am not concerned with that.

What I am concerned with is that this will become a femme issue ASAP.
 
Shewter said:
Prove otherwise and I'll gladly rethink my position.

I don't know about you, but my parents raised me to protect and resist getting physical with women for the reason that they are usually more fragile physically and emotionally than I am.

(Keyword USUALLY)
Click to expand...

I was going to ask you to quantify your position as well. I think over the last several generations the view of women has changed among younger generations. To the point where if a man can do it so can a woman equally as well.
 
winston53660 said:
I was going to ask you to quantify your position as well. I think over the last several generations the view of women has changed among younger generations. To the point where if a man can do it so can a woman equally as well.
Click to expand...

That may be alot of womens perspective. But most every man I know had the protection of women pounded into him throughout his upbringing.

I honestly don't think much has changed in that respect.


P.S. You may as well call myself and my peers the "Younger Generation".

I am 23 years old.
 
Shewter said:
Prove otherwise and I'll gladly rethink my position.

I don't know about you, but my parents raised me to protect and resist getting physical with women for the reason that they are usually more fragile physically and emotionally than I am.

(Keyword USUALLY)
Click to expand...

Your parents taught you misogyny. You may think it's chivalry, but thinking that they are emotionally fragile crossed the line.
 
jallman said:
Okay...that's fair and I am much less offended than I was about to be.

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that you are worried that romantic involvements or attractions may make gay men more likely to act out in protection of the objects of their affections in ways that would hurt the unit much the same way that a hetero male may act out in protection of unit females.

I can see that point but if I may point out, homos are in the military now and nondisclosure of one's preference isn't going to hinder attractions. Whether DADT is in effect or not, the attractions are going to be there and, so far, I've not seen any rash of homos throwing themselves into the line of fire over their crushes.

But again, I do see your point.
Click to expand...

Additionally what about masculine friendship? Are we going to ban that too? I've gotten in zero fights over bfs but plenty for my best friends that I've known my whole life. I have to assume soldiers form very compelling- and completely platonic -friendships that distort judgement just as easily as a romantic involvement.
 
Shewter said:
What I am concerned with is that this will become a femme issue ASAP.
Click to expand...

Meaning what? I'm not following...do you mean the women leveraging this to gain a place on the battlefield.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Your parents taught you misogyny. You may think it's chivalry, but thinking that they are emotionally fragile crossed the line.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see anything (experience) that shows me otherwise.

My parents may have taught me misogyny, if that's the word you choose to label it. But it has proved true more often than not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom