• 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

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.

Disagree. Though the type of feelings may be different, the degree may not.

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?

Irrelevant, and don't pull the "holier than thou, you didn't serve" bs on me. I can speak intelligently on things that I have not experienced. If this were not the case for scenarios in this forum, then excuse yourself from this thread, since, not being having served in the military as one who is gay, you have nothing intelligent to say on the matter.



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.

Just because they are not allowed to serve openly does not mean they do not serve...which they do. My scenario certainly can exist.
 
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.

I knew gays who, for all intents and purposes where openly gay, and I got out before DADT. One guy brought his boyfriend to squadron family functions. We all knew he was gay. Just because technically something is not allowed does not mean that it is not done sometimes.
 
Disagree. Though the type of feelings may be different, the degree may not.

You can disagree all you like, but it doesn't change the absolute fact that watching your lover die is in no way comparable to seeing your best friend die.

I am not in love with my best friend. I do not think about him when I go to sleep and when I wake up. My heart doesn't beat out of my chest when he walks into the room naked. It's not the same, and you know it's not. I refuse to believe you cannot see the utter difference between a best friend and a lover.

Irrelevant, and don't pull the "holier than thou, you didn't serve" bs on me.

I'm not pulling any "holier than thou bs" on you. I'm simply stating a fact. You know little to nothing about operational risk management, military methodology, and the makeup of combat units, therefore you are not in a position to speak intelligently about the effects a policy change would have on them.

I can speak intelligently on things that I have not experienced.

But you cannot speak intelligently on things you don't know anything about. What do you know about a Marine or Army infantry unit? How are you able to speak intelligently about them?

If this were not the case for scenarios in this forum, then excuse yourself from this thread, since, not being having served in the military as one who is gay, you have nothing intelligent to say on the matter.

I have extensive experience serving in a Marine infantry unit, therefore I am in a position to speaking intelligently about how it would react to such a policy change. Whether or not I'm gay has absolutely no bearing on my ability to speak intelligently about the reaction and perception of a Marine infantry unit to the policy change in question.

Just because they are not allowed to serve openly does not mean they do not serve...which they do.

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? The difference between serving openly and just serving?

My scenario certainly can exist.

Yes, but it didn't exist in my neck of the woods.
 
I knew gays who, for all intents and purposes where openly gay, and I got out before DADT. One guy brought his boyfriend to squadron family functions. We all knew he was gay. Just because technically something is not allowed does not mean that it is not done sometimes.

What works for one unit may not work for another. Can we at least agree on that?
 
You can disagree all you like, but it doesn't change the absolute fact that watching your lover die is in no way comparable to seeing your best friend die.

I am not in love with my best friend. I do not think about him when I go to sleep and when I wake up. My heart doesn't beat out of my chest when he walks into the room naked. It's not the same, and you know it's not. I refuse to believe you cannot see the utter difference between a best friend and a lover.

Sorry. Feelings are feelings. They may take a different form, but their intensity, in that context is still as intense. The context may be different, but, for me, the intensity would be the same.

I'm not pulling any "holier than thou bs" on you. I'm simply stating a fact. You know little to nothing about operational risk management, military methodology, and the makeup of combat units, therefore you are not in a position to speak intelligently about the effects a policy change would have on them.

That's bull****. You are certainly pulling the holier than thou crap. I certainly understand these concepts well enough to speak on them. Your dismissals are irrelevant. Perhaps you should check your objectivity.



But you cannot speak intelligently on things you don't know anything about. What do you know about a Marine or Army infantry unit? How are you able to speak intelligently about them?

Again, this is irrelevant. We are speaking about human interactions and relationships in times of stress and in times of working together. I have a hell of a lot of experience in that area. I can certainly speak intelligently on this issue.



I have extensive experience serving in a Marine infantry unit, therefore I am in a position to speaking intelligently about how it would react to such a policy change. Whether or not I'm gay has absolutely no bearing on my ability to speak intelligently about the reaction and perception of a Marine infantry unit to the policy change in question.

You are not gay and do not know how you would react in the scenario presented. Therefore, according to your logic, you cannot speak intelligently on this scenario.



Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? The difference between serving openly and just serving?

Sure. And since they do, show when this scenario has created widespread problems.

Yes, but it didn't exist in my neck of the woods.

Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 
What works for one unit may not work for another. Can we at least agree on that?

Absolutely true. However, this was back around 1990. Attitudes and policy have changed dramatically since then. The military and the country as a whole are much more accepting of gays today than they where then.
 
How about your best friend?

I would go get some payback.



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.

Actually, since 1983, but, just because it works in Israel doesn't mean it's going to work in the US military.

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.


As I said before, there is a great divide between being best friends with someone and being lovers with someone.

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.

Then, I am forced to question your claims of actually serving in the United States military, sir.
 
Actually, since 1983, but, just because it works in Israel doesn't mean it's going to work in the US military.

This is where the arguments against gays in the military ultimately break down. We're told that unit cohesiveness and morale will be eroded. Disciplinary problems will abound. Sexual harassment will be rampant. Readiness will suffer. The troops will revolt.

Yet when we look at military forces that have abolished the ban, we see none of these results.

What we're left with are ambiguous claims that the U.S. military is somehow 'different.'

:2wave:
 
Then, I am forced to question your claims of actually serving in the United States military, sir.

What years did you serve in the United States military?
 
Every dorm I lived in had men and women living side by side. They were like mini, (real mini) apartments.



Kinda convienent. :lol:
 
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 was not the only openly gay member of the military, I have known plenty of others in many other units. The mission was never compromised.

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.

Absolutely right, the military is about what we have to do, as I did everyday for 4 years. It isn't about sex, it isn't about finding a lover, it isn't about gawking at someone in the showers. The men and women I served with understood this, they knew what they were there for so it did not matter that I was gay. We were all able to focus on the mission when we had to.

Above the issue of sexuality, the military expects every member to respect every other member, that is what they 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.

There is no risk, gays already serve and nothing bad has happened. That "social experiment" has drawn its conclusion for a long time now.



What really gets me about all of this is that people who believe the military will crumble if DADT were repealed are insulting all the men and women that I served with. All of them were outstanding members for being able to focus on their missions without distractions, including a gay man next to them.

From my experience, anyone who believes that the military will crumble if gays are serving openly are the ones who cannot focus on what is important in the service, so they are the ones who do not belong in the military.
 
Then, I am forced to question your claims of actually serving in the United States military, sir.

Now there are 2 other people in this thread who have supported the claim I made about gender integration. Both served in the military, 3 including me.

Are you going to question all of our service?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/51330-gay-west-point-grad-testifies-before-army-22.html#post1058116669

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/51330-gay-west-point-grad-testifies-before-army-24.html#post1058116999
 
Yet when we look at military forces that have abolished the ban, we see none of these results.

And. most armies that have abolished the ban haven't been in a battle in over a hundred years. I mean specifically, Sweden, Switzerland. Israel didn't abolish the ban till well after the Yom Kippur War. That was the last time they were in a full scale battle. So, we have nothing to use as a barometer to say that it works as you say.
 
Now there are 2 other people in this thread who have supported the claim I made about gender integration. Both served in the military, 3 including me.

Are you going to question all of our service?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/51330-gay-west-point-grad-testifies-before-army-22.html#post1058116669

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/51330-gay-west-point-grad-testifies-before-army-24.html#post1058116999

Sir, let me be as plain as I can. NOWHERE in the military do males and females share the same latrine/showers/rooms. They don't do sleep-overs, or any of that sort of thing. The ONLY time that a male and female soldier can share billets, is if they're married. Yes, they do share dining facilities. I never said otherwise.

1 in 3 female soldiers experiences sexual assault while in the service. Do you SERIOUSLY think that the services are going to allow males and females to use, simoltaniously, the same showers? I don't even think will happen in a dream world.

You're not going to be pinchin' a loaf and some chick walk in to use the latrine. You're not going to be taking a shower and a female cruise in to take a showe with you. It ain't gonna happen, unless a male and female soldier are doing something they shouldn't be.

There are males and female areas, period.

Anyone that says different, I have to seriously question the varacity of their claiming to have actually served in the military.
 
Sir, let me be as plain as I can. NOWHERE in the military do males and females share the same latrine/showers/rooms. They don't do sleep-overs, or any of that sort of thing. The ONLY time that a male and female soldier can share billets, is if they're married. Yes, they do share dining facilities. I never said otherwise.

1 in 3 female soldiers experiences sexual assault while in the service. Do you SERIOUSLY think that the services are going to allow males and females to use, simoltaniously, the same showers? I don't even think will happen in a dream world.

You're not going to be pinchin' a loaf and some chick walk in to use the latrine. You're not going to be taking a shower and a female cruise in to take a showe with you. It ain't gonna happen, unless a male and female soldier are doing something they shouldn't be.

There are males and female areas, period.

Anyone that says different, I have to seriously question the varacity of their claiming to have actually served in the military.

Showers in dorms can be shared because they are more private. You are talking about shower bays here, which I have no experience with after BT. I knew couples that lived as such in the same dorm room. Females stayed in men's rooms, and vice versa. The bottom line is that there is gender integration in the military, verified by 3 people in this thread.

The claim that gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military because it is unfair to women who are seeking lovers in the showers is silly at best. Men and women share a lot more than showers in the military.
 
Sorry. Feelings are feelings. They may take a different form, but their intensity, in that context is still as intense. The context may be different, but, for me, the intensity would be the same.

The intensity is NOT the same because it is happening to two totally DIFFERENT (key word, hint-hint) people. I care for my lover more than my best friend. I feel differently about my lover than my best friend. It is not the same and your obtuse insistence to the contrary will do nothing to change that.

That's bull****. You are certainly pulling the holier than thou crap. I certainly understand these concepts well enough to speak on them. Your dismissals are irrelevant. Perhaps you should check your objectivity.

No, you must accept, as a fact, that you know little, if anything, about the methods and composition of an infantry unit. That is a fact, as such, it inhibits your ability to speak intelligently about how a policy change would affect its operational efficiency.

Again, this is irrelevant. We are speaking about human interactions and relationships in times of stress and in times of working together. I have a hell of a lot of experience in that area. I can certainly speak intelligently on this issue.

We are also discussing the effects a policy change would have on specific units within the military, specific units which you know little, if anything, about.

You are not gay and do not know how you would react in the scenario presented. Therefore, according to your logic, you cannot speak intelligently on this scenario.

That's only one scenario which we are talking about. I'm also (and primarily) talking about the overall scenario e.g., the reaction of straight Marines and Soldiers to a policy of integration and the possible effects it can have on unit cohesiveness and discipline. As a straight man who served in a Marine infantry unit I am in perfect position to speak intelligently to the possible reactions within such a unit.

Sure. And since they do, show when this scenario has created widespread problems.

Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think there has been a miscommunication. You seem to be hung up on this lover/best friend thing. Although it is conceivable that such a scenario could present problems, and that such a scenario could arise more often as a consequence of abolishing DADT, it is not my primary concern, nor is the only scenario I've been attempting to discuss with you.
 
Absolutely true. However, this was back around 1990. Attitudes and policy have changed dramatically since then. The military and the country as a whole are much more accepting of gays today than they where then.

I agree with you that the military as a whole has become more accepting of gays, but I must disagree that this trend has made any significant headway within infantry units.

I also agree that - in an ideal situation - this policy would be enacted and our gay brothers and sisters could serve openly, but until I feel the primary combat units within the military are representative of societal attitudes towards gays I must communicate my reservation about any policy changes which would engender possible complications in the way of unit cohesiveness and discipline.

Basically, I think we should wait a little longer before we decide to rock the boat. I also think that in depth studies into the prevailing attitudes -as it concerns gays - of infantry units should be produced before I will waver in my opposition.
 
I was not the only openly gay member of the military, I have known plenty of others in many other units. The mission was never compromised.

And how many of them were serving in a Marine or Army infantry unit?

Absolutely right, the military is about what we have to do, as I did everyday for 4 years. It isn't about sex, it isn't about finding a lover, it isn't about gawking at someone in the showers. The men and women I served with understood this, they knew what they were there for so it did not matter that I was gay. We were all able to focus on the mission when we had to.

Above the issue of sexuality, the military expects every member to respect every other member, that is what they have to do.

It's too bad that not everyone in the military shares your sentimentality.

There is no risk, gays already serve and nothing bad has happened. That "social experiment" has drawn its conclusion for a long time now.

You must stop pretending like all military units are the same. What works for one unit may not work for another. The current policy permits discretion and flexibility. You were allowed to serve openly because it didn't affect the cohesiveness and discipline of your unit; I say bravo to you and your unit, but, as I said earlier, perhaps it wouldn't have worked the same way in apdst's or my unit. In fact, I could guarantee you that it wouldn't have worked the same in my unit. Are you going to ignore this fact?

What really gets me about all of this is that people who believe the military will crumble if DADT were repealed are insulting all the men and women that I served with. All of them were outstanding members for being able to focus on their missions without distractions, including a gay man next to them.

From my experience, anyone who believes that the military will crumble if gays are serving openly are the ones who cannot focus on what is important in the service, so they are the ones who do not belong in the military.

Nowhere have I implied that gays serving openly within the military will result in its downfall. My concern is a partial degredation of cohesiveness and discipline within specific units, namely infantry units.
 
And how many of them were serving in a Marine or Army infantry unit?

It's too bad that not everyone in the military shares your sentimentality.

You must stop pretending like all military units are the same. What works for one unit may not work for another. The current policy permits discretion and flexibility. You were allowed to serve openly because it didn't affect the cohesiveness and discipline of your unit; I say bravo to you and your unit, but, as I said earlier, perhaps it wouldn't have worked the same way in apdst's or my unit. In fact, I could guarantee you that it wouldn't have worked the same in my unit. Are you going to ignore this fact?

Nowhere have I implied that gays serving openly within the military will result in its downfall. My concern is a partial degredation of cohesiveness and discipline within specific units, namely infantry units.

As I stated earlier, I was trained in combat situations.

If a member is in a combat situation, should they be thinking about what the guy next to them is thinking about sexually? If so, that is the person who does not belong in the military because they are the one who cannot focus on the mission. Everyone I came across felt this way.

Where in any military mission does it say, "Think sex during combat"?
 
As I stated earlier, I was trained in combat situations.

If a member is in a combat situation, should they be thinking about what the guy next to them is thinking about sexually? If so, that is the person who does not belong in the military because they are the one who cannot focus on the mission. Everyone I came across felt this way.

Where in any military mission does it say, "Think sex during combat"?

You are only looking at one facet of military life. In the Marines, we had seven month build-ups prior to a deployment. We lived together and we trained together during this seven months. My experience with the Marines tells me that your openness would have presented numerous complications among the unit. Why do you continually ignore this fact?
 
Actually, since 1983, but, just because it works in Israel doesn't mean it's going to work in the US military.

1983 for most military jobs, 1993 for all. This does not necessarily mean that it would work for the US, but it is a strong indicator that it would. This is known as offering evidence to support a position.


Then, I am forced to question your claims of actually serving in the United States military, sir.

I have seen the same thing Alex saw in terms of barracks. Newer(well to me, late 80's) barracks in the navy where coed and much like hotels. I saw this also in the one Air Force base I spent time on(Nellis, much love for that place), with the barracks feeling much more like a hotel, with a cleaning service and a small "geedunk" store in the barracks. The one marine base I spent time on(Yuma, much hate for Yuma) had older style barracks which where segregated by sex. Before you call some one a lier, please check your facts.
 
I agree with you that the military as a whole has become more accepting of gays, but I must disagree that this trend has made any significant headway within infantry units.

I also agree that - in an ideal situation - this policy would be enacted and our gay brothers and sisters could serve openly, but until I feel the primary combat units within the military are representative of societal attitudes towards gays I must communicate my reservation about any policy changes which would engender possible complications in the way of unit cohesiveness and discipline.

Basically, I think we should wait a little longer before we decide to rock the boat. I also think that in depth studies into the prevailing attitudes -as it concerns gays - of infantry units should be produced before I will waver in my opposition.

Again, the research into this question suggests this will not be a problem within any portion of the military, as does viewing other countries that allow gays to serve openly. With the number of gay people serving now, it is highly likely that most military people have to deal with a gay person or 2 daily already.
 
You are only looking at one facet of military life. In the Marines, we had seven month build-ups prior to a deployment. We lived together and we trained together during this seven months. My experience with the Marines tells me that your openness would have presented numerous complications among the unit. Why do you continually ignore this fact?

Anything like the stresses of navy deployments? We managed to handle a couple gay people, despite living in tiny berthings with racks stacked 3 high, shops with 8 people all crammed into a 10 X 10 foot shop together for 12 hours + a day doing high stress jobs.
 
What if the leadership of that unit isn't aware than they're lovers?

What if the leadership isn't aware that they're gay in the first place? Yet you support DADT. :doh

apdst said:
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?

The person who is harassing them is punished appropriately. If it continues, the harasser is dishonorably discharged.

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

Then the murderer is court-martialed, just as any other murderer would be.

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

Again, why don't you just separate the lovers if their relationship is a problem, instead of banning all homosexuals?
 
Back
Top Bottom