• 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!

Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

Therein lies the problem. Two gay lovers in the same unit; the unit is on the attack/defense; one of the lovers is wounded; the other lover drops out of the fight to tend to his/her lover; thereby compromising the mission.

Everyone stop and think that your life hangs in the balance. You want you life, or the life of your son/daughter jeopordized by that situation?

Umm then why don't you just separate the two lovers so it isn't a problem, instead of banning all homosexuals from the military? Derrrrr.
 
Therein lies the problem. Two gay lovers in the same unit; the unit is on the attack/defense; one of the lovers is wounded; the other lover drops out of the fight to tend to his/her lover; thereby compromising the mission.

Everyone stop and think that your life hangs in the balance. You want you life, or the life of your son/daughter jeopordized by that situation?

I'll tell you what: You show me where this is a recurring problem between men and women in existing co-ed units, and I'll concede the point.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Folks let's remember to keep things civil in here.
 
Umm then why don't you just separate the two lovers so it isn't a problem, instead of banning all homosexuals from the military? Derrrrr.

What if the leadership of that unit isn't aware than they're lovers?

What's the policy going to be if those lovers file a complaint, saying they're being picked on because they're gay and their rights to date anyone they want is being violated?

What if there's some torrid love triangle and one member of the triangle decides to ice the competition?

What if there's some kind of lover's spat, over a broken heart in the middle of a battle?

Have the supporters of this really put some thought into it? Insuring the utmost safety and security for our soldiers on the battlefield is priority #1. Yes? Is it worth someone's life just to be all politically correct and fashinable and cool and tolerant and stuff?
 
Therein lies the problem. Two gay lovers in the same unit; the unit is on the attack/defense; one of the lovers is wounded; the other lover drops out of the fight to tend to his/her lover; thereby compromising the mission.

Everyone stop and think that your life hangs in the balance. You want you life, or the life of your son/daughter jeopordized by that situation?

I see little difference between this and having two best friends in the same unit. These people are professionals. They would act as such.
 
But, not in military billets, they're not. Males aren't even allowed to even be present in female billets--and vice versa--much less in the showers.

That is a British thing, which I do not know about.

About American barracks:

"The U.S. Marine Corps have gender-separate basic training units. The U.S. Army has gender-separate basic training, but like the United States Coast Guard, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy, has training where male and female recruits share barracks, but are separated during personal time and lights out. However, all the services integrate male and female members following boot camp and first assignment."

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracks]Barracks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

As I stated, some gender segregation only occurs in training. After that, males and females are free to integrate.
 
I see little difference between this and having two best friends in the same unit. These people are professionals. They would act as such.

There's a huge difference between best friends and lovers. That is the reason that the IDF abolished coed combat units in 1950.

"The U.S. Marine Corps have gender-separate basic training units. The U.S. Army has gender-separate basic training, but like the United States Coast Guard, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy, has training where male and female recruits share barracks, but are separated during personal time and lights out. However, all the services integrate male and female members following boot camp and first assignment."

That's a complete misinterpretation of the information. Yes, males and females share the same building, but their quarters and their latrines are completely seperate. i.e. males and females are housed in a three story building. The different floors are designated male and female. The male areas are off limits to females and vice versa.

I believe everyone can attest to that.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't really necessary to allow blacks into the service. Times changed.

It's kind of hard to conceal one's skin color.

Few people look back on the segregated services with nostalgia. We recognized bigotry for what it was.

Years from now, people will read these old message boards and chuckle at the bigotry.

If this policy change resulted in the death of one service member, would you be okay with that?

Yes. I use the word bigots. Sorry if that offends anyone. It is what it is. If you don't like homosexuals, you're a bigot.

:2wave:

I should have known I couldn’t fool you. I suppose I’ll just come clean…

Everyone, I don’t want homosexuals serving openly in the military because I hate queers. I thought I could conceal my intolerance from you all but Grateful Heart is far too perceptive. He has exposed me for the bigot that I am.
 
There's a huge difference between best friends and lovers. That is the reason that the IDF abolished coed combat units in 1950.

This is not relevant based on what I commented on. You stated that someone would cease combat/defense to attend to one they were close to, in your example their lover. My contention is that when someone you are close to is injured in combat, it doesn't matter what the relationship is. If they are someone you care a lot about, as a professional, one would act professionally.
 
This is not relevant based on what I commented on. You stated that someone would cease combat/defense to attend to one they were close to, in your example their lover. My contention is that when someone you are close to is injured in combat, it doesn't matter what the relationship is. If they are someone you care a lot about, as a professional, one would act professionally.

So, you assume would what happen, but you do not know.
 
There's a huge difference between best friends and lovers. That is the reason that the IDF abolished coed combat units in 1950.

That's a complete misinterpretation of the information. Yes, males and females share the same building, but their quarters and their latrines are completely seperate. i.e. males and females are housed in a three story building. The different floors are designated male and female. The male areas are off limits to females and vice versa.

I believe everyone can attest to that.

I was in the military and I can tell you that is not true. The dorms are not segregated by floors. Women can live next to men, they can eat with them, shower with them, and sleep in each other's rooms together.
 
I was in the military and I can tell you that is not true. The dorms are not segregated by floors. Women can live next to men, they can eat with them, shower with them, and sleep in each other's rooms together.

That is not true in the Marines.
 
There's a huge difference between best friends and lovers. That is the reason that the IDF abolished coed combat units in 1950.

What is the IDF policy on gays in the military? Just in case you where wondering, it's been allowed since 1993. Somehow, miraculously, they have been spared all the problems with it you think we will have. In fact, they are one of, if not the absolute best military force in the world soldier for soldier.



That's a complete misinterpretation of the information. Yes, males and females share the same building, but their quarters and their latrines are completely seperate. i.e. males and females are housed in a three story building. The different floors are designated male and female. The male areas are off limits to females and vice versa.

I believe everyone can attest to that.

Not like that in the navy at all.
 
So, you assume would what happen, but you do not know.

No, what I'm saying is that if someone is going to act professionally, they will regardless of the circumstances. And if they are not, they won't. Lover or best friend who is injured, it would be irrelevant. The relationship would either have an impact or it wouldn't, but I do not believe that the nature of the relationship would matter. However, what I am saying is conjecture...as is what apdst is saying. My point is that what he said is a very narrow view, and other possibilities are easily presented.
 
No, what I'm saying is that if someone is going to act professionally, they will regardless of the circumstances. And if they are not, they won't. Lover or best friend who is injured, it would be irrelevant. The relationship would either have an impact or it wouldn't, but I do not believe that the nature of the relationship would matter. However, what I am saying is conjecture...as is what apdst is saying. My point is that what he said is a very narrow view, and other possibilities are easily presented.

One thing we do have is some evidence. Claims of over 30k gays in the military suggest that we can draw some conclusions based on things as they are now. What we are not seeing is a rash of gay sexual harassment, or lack of unit cohesion, or abnormal numbers of disciple problems.
 
This entire thread is an assumption of what would happen.

Precisely, and since you served you should know that operational risk management is a key aspect of military methodology. Everything the military does is predicated upon a risk vs. reward scenario. Abolishing DADT fails to past muster.

Risk: Possible degradation of unit cohesion and discipline within combat forces.

Reward: Homosexuals feel better about themselves while serving and progressives feel super warm and fuzzy about making the world a sweet and nice place to live.

I find it funny that you were able to serve openly under DADT without any problems yet you still insist on abolishing it. Why would you take a policy that permits flexibility and change it into one that is rigid and uncompromising? What do you hope to accomplish?

I say, if ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
Precisely, and since you served you should know that operational risk management is a key aspect of military methodology. Everything the military does is predicated upon a risk vs. reward scenario. Abolishing DADT fails to past muster.

Risk: Possible degradation of unit cohesion and discipline within combat forces.

Reward: Homosexuals feel better about themselves while serving and progressives feel super warm and fuzzy about making the world a sweet and nice place to live.

I find it funny that you were able to serve openly under DADT without any problems yet you still insist on abolishing it. Why would you take a policy that permits flexibility and change it into one that is rigid and uncompromising? What do you hope to accomplish?

I say, if ain't broke, don't fix it.

That is not quite accurate. There is a risk in doing anything, the question is how big a risk, and how big a reward. In the case of gays openly serving, the risk is almost zero. Gays serve now, and the only trouble is the chance they might get discharged for being gay. Other countries allow gays to serve openly, and do not have troubles. The reward however is high, with no longer having to discharge people who have served honorably for long periods, and a larger pool of potential recruits.
 
No, what I'm saying is that if someone is going to act professionally, they will regardless of the circumstances. And if they are not, they won't. Lover or best friend who is injured, it would be irrelevant. The relationship would either have an impact or it wouldn't, but I do not believe that the nature of the relationship would matter.

This is an assumption. I was pretty damn professional myself, but I can't say for sure I'd maintain my professionalism if I saw my lover dying right in front of my eyes.

However, what I am saying is conjecture...as is what apdst is saying. My point is that what he said is a very narrow view, and other possibilities are easily presented.

I won't disagree that you make good and sensible points, I've already admitted that this is a difficult stance for me to take, but it is one I take out of necessity.

Operational risk management dictates that you default to the proven method, especially when the alternate method offers very little in the way of improvement. The mere possibility of endangering our troops is enough for me to resist this policy change.
 
Precisely, and since you served you should know that operational risk management is a key aspect of military methodology. Everything the military does is predicated upon a risk vs. reward scenario. Abolishing DADT fails to past muster.

Risk: Possible degradation of unit cohesion and discipline within combat forces.

Reward: Homosexuals feel better about themselves while serving and progressives feel super warm and fuzzy about making the world a sweet and nice place to live.

I find it funny that you were able to serve openly under DADT without any problems yet you still insist on abolishing it. Why would you take a policy that permits flexibility and change it into one that is rigid and uncompromising? What do you hope to accomplish?

I say, if ain't broke, don't fix it.

The risk mentioned here is proven false by the fact that gays serve openly as we speak yet unit cohesion and discipline are not compromised.
 
That is not quite accurate. There is a risk in doing anything, the question is how big a risk, and how big a reward. In the case of gays openly serving, the risk is almost zero.

How can you say "the risk is almost zero" when you know little to nothing about the psychological makeup of the average combat unit?

Also, what possible reward can be obtained from abolishing DADT?

Gays serve now, and the only trouble is the chance they might get discharged for being gay.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It's situational and flexible.

Other countries allow gays to serve openly, and do not have troubles.

We're talking about America.

The reward however is high, with no longer having to discharge people who have served honorably for long periods...

Did you ever stop to consider the fact that discharging certain people helps maintain the integrity of a unit? Numbers aren't everything, you know.

...and a larger pool of potential recruits.

If someone really wants to serve then I'm certain they will make the necessary sacrifices.
 
This is an assumption. I was pretty damn professional myself, but I can't say for sure I'd maintain my professionalism if I saw my lover dying right in front of my eyes.

How about your best friend?


I won't disagree that you make good and sensible points, I've already admitted that this is a difficult stance for me to take, but it is one I take out of necessity.

Operational risk management dictates that you default to the proven method, especially when the alternate method offers very little in the way of improvement. The mere possibility of endangering our troops is enough for me to resist this policy change.

Since I see little or no difference between the two issues...the one being presented and the alternate that I am presenting, I see no risk. In fact, since my scenario already exists, the risk is already there.
 
The risk mentioned here is proven false by the fact that gays serve openly as we speak yet unit cohesion and discipline are not compromised.

The military is not a monolith. What works in one unit may not work in another. Just because you were able to serve openly in your unit does not mean it would have worked the same way in a Marine infantry unit.

I think the problem here is pride - can't say I blame you either. I sure as hell wouldn't want to hide my sexuality from others but the military isn't about what we want to do, it's about what we have to do.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps nothing bad will happen at all, but why should we take the risk? So gays don't have to swallow their pride? Hell, all I did was swallow my pride, day in and day out.

We all make sacrifices, Alex. That's just the nature of the business.
 
How about your best friend?

It's totally different and you know it is. There is no way to compare a person's lover to their best friend. I don't **** my best friend. I don't stare deep into his eyes in the wee hours of the morning and declare my undying love to him.

Since I see little or no difference between the two issues...the one being presented and the alternate that I am presenting, I see no risk.

That's because you didn't serve. How can you speak intelligently about operational risk management and the military when you know little to nothing about either one?

In fact, since my scenario already exists, the risk is already there.

No, it does not exist. Gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military. If your scenario already existed there would be no need to change anything.
 
How can you say "the risk is almost zero" when you know little to nothing about the psychological makeup of the average combat unit?

Also, what possible reward can be obtained from abolishing DADT?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09west.html?_r=2&ref=opinion


A 2006 poll of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans showed that 72 percent were personally comfortable interacting with gays. Bonnie Moradi, a University of Florida psychologist, and Laura Miller, a sociologist at the Rand Corporation, summarized the study this way: “The data indicated no associations between knowing a lesbian or gay unit member and ratings of perceived unit cohesion or readiness. Instead, findings pointed to the importance of leadership and instrumental quality in shaping perceptions of unit cohesion and readiness.”

And there is this older study done by Rand for the DoD: Changing the Policy Toward Homosexuals in the U.S. Military

The reward is not having to discharge openly gay personnel, which does happen, and every time it does, costs us a significant amount. The reward is further having more highly qualified recruits, and maybe actually being able to raise recruitment standards, instead of lower them.
 
Back
Top Bottom