• 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

apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

When is the last time there was a major battle inside the latrine where one lover was wounded, and the other lover stopped fighting to attend to them? It is my understanding that most battles take place outside.:confused:
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Actually, since 1983, but, just because it works in Israel doesn't mean it's going to work in the US military.
Click to expand...

Why not? What makes you think that Israeli soldiers are more likely than American soldiers to remain professional in a battle, or refrain from sexual harassment, or whatever other stupid reasons you have? Why don't you trust American soldiers?
 
Ethereal said:
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.
Click to expand...

And your inability to understand human relationships does not change the fact that context is as important as intensity and vice versa. One who sees their best friend fall in battle would have an intense reaction to that. The context might be different, but not the intensity.

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.
Click to expand...

And again, I will tell you that is irrelevant. Your claims in this are meaningless. People who do not experience specific situations can speak intelligently about that situation if they understand context and have experienced general situations that relate. Your dismissals mean nothing.

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.
Click to expand...

See above. Completely irrelevant. Understanding the complexities of human interactions in a variety of scenarios and situations, and how those interactions affect behavior is what I do. You have little knowledge on this. Experience is meaningless without understanding.

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.
Click to expand...

The basis of this discussion is how a gay man would react if his lover was injured in a combat situation. You are not gay and therefore would not know how a gay man would react. You cannot speak intelligently on this scenario. Your experience is different so your thoughts are without context nor understanding.

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.
Click to expand...

You do not seem to be attempting to discuss anything with me. You seem to be dismissing my comments; and yet in the same context, I see no value in yours. What is it you want to discuss?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And your inability to understand human relationships...
Click to expand...

Right. I disagree, so that means I don't understand human relationships. I guess you need a degree is head-shrinking to understand the subtle and nuanced differences between a lover and a best friend. Last time I checked, and correct me if I'm wrong, I am a human who's had numerous relationships in life, which means I understand human relationships perfectly well.

...does not change the fact that context is as important as intensity and vice versa. One who sees their best friend fall in battle would have an intense reaction to that. The context might be different, but not the intensity.
Click to expand...

Of course you would have an intense reaction to seeing your best friend fall in battle, but you would not have the same reaction of the same intensity were your lover to fall in battle. I cannot believe you refuse to concede this point. It's so glaringly and painfully obvious that watching one's lover die in combat would be far more disturbing than seeing your best buddy die.

This should be evident to anyone who's had both a best friend and lover i.e. almost everyone. The woman I love is far more important to me than my best friend. The woman I love is the person I care most about in this world. The woman I love is the one person I cannot live without.

And again, I will tell you that is irrelevant. Your claims in this are meaningless. People who do not experience specific situations can speak intelligently about that situation if they understand context and have experienced general situations that relate. Your dismissals mean nothing.
Click to expand...

There‘s been a miscommunication, perhaps it is my fault, but when you said:

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I assumed the emboldened portion of your statement was a generalized statement regarding the abolition of DADT. The ensuing exchange was, in my mind, a discussion concerning the overall risk presented by abolishing DADT in regards to unit cohesiveness and discipline, which I tried to validate with my experience in a Marine infantry platoon.

I wasn't trying to imply you're incapable of speaking intelligently about the lover/best friend scenario, I was trying to communicate your inability to understand the specific effects it could have on an infantry unit in regards to cohesiveness and discipline.


See above. Completely irrelevant. Understanding the complexities of human interactions in a variety of scenarios and situations, and how those interactions affect behavior is what I do. You have little knowledge on this. Experience is meaningless without understanding.
Click to expand...

:rofl

Yea, only a psychologist can understand the complexities of human emotion.

The basis of this discussion is how a gay man would react if his lover was injured in a combat situation. You are not gay and therefore would not know how a gay man would react. You cannot speak intelligently on this scenario. Your experience is different so your thoughts are without context nor understanding.
Click to expand...

This is preposterous, for reasons YOU have already stated:

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

...

You do not seem to be attempting to discuss anything with me. You seem to be dismissing my comments; and yet in the same context, I see no value in yours. What is it you want to discuss?
Click to expand...

The effect the abolition of DADT would have on specific units within the military, namely infantry units. I believe it would negatively affect unit cohesiveness and discipline because of the unique social makeup of most infantry units.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Right. I disagree, so that means I don't understand human relationships. I guess you need a degree is head-shrinking to understand the subtle and nuanced differences between a lover and a best friend. Last time I checked, and correct me if I'm wrong, I am a human who's had numerous relationships in life, which means I understand human relationships perfectly well.
Click to expand...

Wait, so you are saying that even if one is not in a precise situation, they can transpose a bit and understand what is being discussed? Interesting concept... :roll:



Of course you would have an intense reaction to seeing your best friend fall in battle, but you would not have the same reaction of the same intensity were your lover to fall in battle. I cannot believe you refuse to concede this point. It's so glaringly and painfully obvious that watching one's lover die in combat would be far more disturbing than seeing your best buddy die.
Click to expand...

Differently disturbing. That does not mean that the reaction would not create a problem with the person continuing to perform their duties. I cannot believe that you are unwilling to concede THIS point.

This should be evident to anyone who's had both a best friend and lover i.e. almost everyone. The woman I love is far more important to me than my best friend. The woman I love is the person I care most about in this world. The woman I love is the one person I cannot live without.
Click to expand...

OK. See above.


There‘s been a miscommunication, perhaps it is my fault, but when you said:

I assumed the emboldened portion of your statement was a generalized statement regarding the abolition of DADT. The ensuing exchange was, in my mind, a discussion concerning the overall risk presented by abolishing DADT in regards to unit cohesiveness and discipline, which I tried to validate with my experience in a Marine infantry platoon.
Click to expand...

No, I think you got my point, correctly. I am saying that abolishing DADT would have minimal effect because the issue already exists.

I wasn't trying to imply you're incapable of speaking intelligently about the lover/best friend scenario, I was trying to communicate your inability to understand the specific effects it could have on an infantry unit in regards to cohesiveness and discipline.
Click to expand...

And I am saying that though your experience counts for something, my non-experience does not preclude me from discussing the situation intelligently. Your presumption of that is obtuse. If you want to go that route, then any argument you make that you do not have specific experience with, you cannot discuss intelligently. That is what I have been illustrating to you and will continue to do so. You and I are both intelligent people and can speak intelligently on a wide array of topics, this being one of them. You have far more experience in the military than I. I have far more experience in group dynamics than you. So, instead of dismissing my position, based on some false perception of my ability to discuss this...quite a weak debating tactic, as you can see, try discussing the issues.

Or we can keep doing this.


:rofl

Yea, only a psychologist can understand the complexities of human emotion.
Click to expand...

Wait...so you are saying that someone who is not experienced in studying these things, but may have a layman's perspective, can discuss them intelligently? Interesting concept... :roll:



This is preposterous, for reasons YOU have already stated:
Click to expand...

Wait...so you are saying that it is preposterous to conclude that someone cannot speak intelligently on something that they have not specifically experienced? Interesting concept...:roll:

Are you getting the point, yet?

The effect the abolition of DADT would have on specific units within the military, namely infantry units. I believe it would negatively affect unit cohesiveness and discipline because of the unique social makeup of most infantry units.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...so you want to discuss this with me? Am I worthy? :roll: Yeah, I think I am. Please explain why you think it would affect cohesion negatively. And be sure to drop the "discussing intelligently" crap. I think we both know that you erred on that point.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Wait, so you are saying that even if one is not in a precise situation, they can transpose a bit and understand what is being discussed? Interesting concept... :roll:





Differently disturbing. That does not mean that the reaction would not create a problem with the person continuing to perform their duties. I cannot believe that you are unwilling to concede THIS point.



OK. See above.




No, I think you got my point, correctly. I am saying that abolishing DADT would have minimal effect because the issue already exists.



And I am saying that though your experience counts for something, my non-experience does not preclude me from discussing the situation intelligently. Your presumption of that is obtuse. If you want to go that route, then any argument you make that you do not have specific experience with, you cannot discuss intelligently. That is what I have been illustrating to you and will continue to do so. You and I are both intelligent people and can speak intelligently on a wide array of topics, this being one of them. You have far more experience in the military than I. I have far more experience in group dynamics than you. So, instead of dismissing my position, based on some false perception of my ability to discuss this...quite a weak debating tactic, as you can see, try discussing the issues.

Or we can keep doing this.




Wait...so you are saying that someone who is not experienced in studying these things, but may have a layman's perspective, can discuss them intelligently? Interesting concept... :roll:





Wait...so you are saying that it is preposterous to conclude that someone cannot speak intelligently on something that they have not specifically experienced? Interesting concept...:roll:

Are you getting the point, yet?



Hmmm...so you want to discuss this with me? Am I worthy? :roll: Yeah, I think I am. Please explain why you think it would affect cohesion negatively. And be sure to drop the "discussing intelligently" crap. I think we both know that you erred on that point.
Click to expand...

Let me try and clarify something, that way we can have a more constructive dialouge.

The main point of contention, in my opinion, stems from the following statement:

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe the reason you "see no risk" in the abolition of DADT as it concerns the cohesiveness and discipline of infantry units is because you lack an understanding of their unique social and psychological makeup. If you had the requisite information then I wouldn't doubt your ability to speak intelligently about the effects such a policy change would have on infantry units in particular.

I'm not trying to imply you lack the ability to speak intelligently about something you haven't directly experienced, I'm questioning your ability to arrive at informed conclusions when you lack crucial pieces of information that inform upon the issue at hand.

In a general context you are more than capable of speaking intelligently about group dynamics, but within a specific context you are limited because you do not have a good understanding of the group in question e.g., infantry units.

You can diagnose a patient with something but you can only do so when you know the patient. In this case the patient (infantry units) is largely unknown to you, so it stands to reason that you cannot render a proper diagnosis, despite your general ability to do so.

I'm willing to drop the best friend/lover scenario because it's not my primary concern. I was never worried that gay lovers would severely undermine the cohesiveness and discipline of an infantry unit (even though it COULD present a problem, albeit a minor one) enough to oppose the abolition of DADT on those grounds alone.

I'm concerned that openly gay Marines and Soldiers who operate within an infantry unit will jeopardize unit cohesiveness and discipline. It has nothing to do with the gay person per se, but more to do with the overall reaction the Marines and Soldiers would have to an openly gay member within their unit.

A Marine or Army infantry platoon has a unique social dynamic and makeup which is fundamentally recalcitrant to such a prospect - i.e. living and training in close quarters with an avowed homosexual.

This is the requisite knowledge you lack in regards to an infantry unit, knowledge that, if you were aware of it, would leave you more predisposed to arrive at an informed conclusion. You say you see no risk in abolishing DADT, I say that is because you do not know infantry platoons as well as I do. Does this make things more clear?
 
Ethereal said:
Let me try and clarify something, that way we can have a more constructive dialouge.

The main point of contention, in my opinion, stems from the following statement:



I believe the reason you "see no risk" in the abolition of DADT as it concerns the cohesiveness and discipline of infantry units is because you lack an understanding of their unique social and psychological makeup. If you had the requisite information then I wouldn't doubt your ability to speak intelligently about the effects such a policy change would have on infantry units in particular.

I'm not trying to imply you lack the ability to speak intelligently about something you haven't directly experienced, I'm questioning your ability to arrive at informed conclusions when you lack crucial pieces of information that inform upon the issue at hand.

In a general context you are more than capable of speaking intelligently about group dynamics, but within a specific context you are limited because you do not have a good understanding of the group in question e.g., infantry units.

You can diagnose a patient with something but you can only do so when you know the patient. In this case the patient (infantry units) is largely unknown to you, so it stands to reason that you cannot render a proper diagnosis, despite your general ability to do so.

I'm willing to drop the best friend/lover scenario because it's not my primary concern. I was never worried that gay lovers would severely undermine the cohesiveness and discipline of an infantry unit (even though it COULD present a problem, albeit a minor one) enough to oppose the abolition of DADT on those grounds alone.

I'm concerned that openly gay Marines and Soldiers who operate within an infantry unit will jeopardize unit cohesiveness and discipline. It has nothing to do with the gay person per se, but more to do with the overall reaction the Marines and Soldiers would have to an openly gay member within their unit.

A Marine or Army infantry platoon has a unique social dynamic and makeup which is fundamentally recalcitrant to such a prospect - i.e. living and training in close quarters with an avowed homosexual.

This is the requisite knowledge you lack in regards to an infantry unit, knowledge that, if you were aware of it, would leave you more predisposed to arrive at an informed conclusion. You say you see no risk in abolishing DADT, I say that is because you do not know infantry platoons as well as I do. Does this make things more clear?
Click to expand...

Much better explanation. And I agree in dropping the lover/best friend scenario. My only point in presenting the best friend scenario was as a rebuttal to the lover scenario. Relationship intensity can affect those in combat, those in the workplace, those in any situation where choices must be made. It is a red herring to the issue of DADT.

So, please explain how you see an openly gay person affecting the cohesiveness of a small unit. Part of my expertise lies in small group dynamics (not only am I certified, but I provide trainings). Your explanation would help me to see if my training does apply in either a general way (I suspect it does) and/or in a specific way (not sure it does). I believe that I would have no problem speaking intelligently on this issue. I'm not sure if I can speak specifically on this issue. With the parameters that I just set in the last two sentences, I would be happy to hear your experience and perceptions and consider how they apply to what I know.
 
Alex said:
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.
Click to expand...

Verified by anacdotal evidence, which, according to Redress, is a lie. Care to post something in the form of documentation supporting your claim?
 
apdst said:
Verified by anacdotal evidence, which, according to Redress, is a lie. Care to post something in the form of documentation supporting your claim?
Click to expand...

It's funny that you are asking for proof, when there is no actual proof that gays WOULD hinder the military since gays haven't been allowed to openly serve.

All the evidence you have against gays serving in the military IS anecdotal.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's funny that you are asking for proof, when there is no actual proof that gays WOULD hinder the military since gays haven't been allowed to openly serve.

All the evidence you have against gays serving in the military IS anecdotal.
Click to expand...


As is the evidence that you've provided that abolishing DADT will be an asset to the military. In reality, our side of the argument has provided more evidence and common sense than your's has.

Do you have a list of over one thousand officers that claim that abolishing DADT will be a plus for the military? Didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
In reality, our side of the argument has provided more evidence and common sense than your's has.
Click to expand...

The only evidence you have is OPINION, not much evidence there sorry.

Fact is the military overcomes change no matter what it is. It went through change of blacks being officers when blacks were considered second hand citizens, you are a fool to think the military wouldn't overcome gays being in the military when they already have served.

apdst said:
Do you have a list of over one thousand officers that claim that abolishing DADT will be a plus for the military? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

The military is not a democracy so it doesn't matter. Remember there were folks that said that having blacks as officers would be bad as well.

Opinion isn't fact.
 
TheNextEra said:
The only evidence you have is OPINION, not much evidence there sorry.

Fact is the military overcomes change no matter what it is. It went through change of blacks being officers when blacks were considered second hand citizens, you are a fool to think the military wouldn't overcome gays being in the military when they already have served.



The military is not a democracy so it doesn't matter. Remember there were folks that said that having blacks as officers would be bad as well.

Opinion isn't fact.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to support your pint of view? I mean, ANYTHING? Because, playing the race card is getting old as hell.
 
apdst said:
Do you have anything to support your pint of view? I mean, ANYTHING? Because, playing the race card is getting old as hell.
Click to expand...

Gays have ALREADY BEEN AND STILL ARE in the military, that is my evidence.

You somehow claiming that they being openly gay would destroy the military is ridiculous.

How about YOU come up with evidence that actually means anything.

You hate gays, we know this. What else you got?
 
TheNextEra said:
Gays have ALREADY BEEN in the military, that is my evidence.
Click to expand...

Not openly, duh!!!!

Women served in the military before women were allowed in the military, too. You're not making much a of a point with the, "they're already there", argument.

Are we going to allow gays to serve openly in job skills where women are presently prohibited from serving?
 
apdst said:
Are we going to allow gays to serve openly in job skills where women are presently prohibited from serving?
Click to expand...

Yes, if they are male. What you think gay males are girly men or something? I know a gay guy that can bench 320, can you?
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, if they are male. What you think gay males are girly men or something? I know a gay guy that can bench 320, can you?
Click to expand...

Do I know a gay dude that can bench 320? Well, no, but I know a gay dude that can hit a pie plate a thousand yards out with a rifle. Is that good enough?

To be honest, I'll take that level of marksmanship over the 320 benchpress, anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Do I know a gay dude that can bench 320? Well, no, but I know a gay dude that can hit a pie plate a thousand yards out with a rifle. Is that good enough?
Click to expand...

Meaning that a gay guy can serve in the military, thank you.
 
apdst said:
Do you think it's a good idea for males and females to share showers? It's a yes, or no question.
Click to expand...
Yes. I see no issue with men and women showering together. I've never had a problem with it myself.

jallman said:
Where did it say anything about that harassment being sexual in nature rather than just bigoted in nature?

And yeah, I took that right off the front page. It was the first point you tried to support. Unless you are saying that your comparing straight men in showers with gay men was somehow like putting women in showers with men was a "point". I'm sure all the straight soldiers would love being compared to fragile little women in the showers with men...
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but women aren't "fragile little flowers". For that, you get a smack

*SMACK*

apdst said:
Are we going to allow gays to serve openly in job skills where women are presently prohibited from serving?
Click to expand...
...

First off, there shouldn't be any jobs that women are prohibited from serving in.

Secondly, why do you feel that a gay man = a woman? :confused: Whatever the military's stupid reasons are for not allowing a woman to do a certain job has to do with the fact that she has breasts and a vagina. Last time I checked, gay men do not have breasts and vaginas. Thus, they have the proper DNA required to do the jobs that women aren't allowed to do. Even though it's retarded that women aren't allowed to do them.
 
TheNextEra said:
Meaning that a gay guy can serve in the military, thank you.
Click to expand...

I never said a gay guy, or gal, couldn't serve in the military. That's you're interpretation of what I'm saying.

I never said anywhere that I objected to gay soldiers. I dare to point where I did.

And, when you don't find it, you can apologize for all the hater bull**** you've been dishing out.
 
rivrrat said:
Yes. I see no issue with men and women showering together. I've never had a problem with it myself.


Excuse me, but women aren't "fragile little flowers". For that, you get a smack

*SMACK*


...

First off, there shouldn't be any jobs that women are prohibited from serving in.

Secondly, why do you feel that a gay man = a woman? :confused: Whatever the military's stupid reasons are for not allowing a woman to do a certain job has to do with the fact that she has breasts and a vagina. Last time I checked, gay men do not have breasts and vaginas. Thus, they have the proper DNA required to do the jobs that women aren't allowed to do. Even though it's retarded that women aren't allowed to do them.
Click to expand...


So, what unit were you in?
 
apdst said:
Verified by anacdotal evidence, which, according to Redress, is a lie. Care to post something in the form of documentation supporting your claim?
Click to expand...

Please do not misrepresent what I am saying. In point of fact, Alex's observations match mine very closely.
 
Redress said:
Please do not misrepresent what I am saying. In point of fact, Alex's observations match mine very closely.
Click to expand...

YOU, sir, called me a liar for not presenting the documentation that you required to be convinced, then called me a liar, twice.


How 'bout that shower sharing documentation? Got that? No, huh?
 
apdst said:
As is the evidence that you've provided that abolishing DADT will be an asset to the military. In reality, our side of the argument has provided more evidence and common sense than your's has.

Do you have a list of over one thousand officers that claim that abolishing DADT will be a plus for the military? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Actually, a bunch of evidence has been given in this very thread. Abolishing DADT and allowing gays to serve openly means less likelihood of quality soldiers being forced out of service due to being outed, and increases the recruit pool, which could potentially allow for higher standards to serve. Remember the story of the gay officer who was an Arab translator who was outed and forced out? Significant loss to the service, both of a rare skill and a large investment in training.

On the subject of possible troubles for the services with removing DADT far and away suggests no such trouble. Interviews of current service members, both strait and gay suggest that their should be no problem, as does the numbers from the service, where the lowest estimate I have seen suggests 35k gays in service now. Further, looking at other countries with more liberal rules on gays in service show no problems from those more liberal rules. This includes the Isreali service, which places no limitation on gays in service, and is one of the most effective soldier for soldier, and has more combat experience than pretty much any service.

To argue against all this, you have the opinion of 100 retired officers who mostly belong to a conservative organization. These are countered by a large number of retired officers who support gays serving openly in the military.
 
apdst said:
Are we going to allow gays to serve openly in job skills where women are presently prohibited from serving?
Click to expand...

Gay men are men, gay women are women. Why would gay men not be allowed and expected to do jobs that the rest of the men in service do?
 
Redress said:
Actually, a bunch of evidence has been given in this very thread. Abolishing DADT and allowing gays to serve openly means less likelihood of quality soldiers being forced out of service due to being outed, and increases the recruit pool, which could potentially allow for higher standards to serve. Remember the story of the gay officer who was an Arab translator who was outed and forced out? Significant loss to the service, both of a rare skill and a large investment in training.

On the subject of possible troubles for the services with removing DADT far and away suggests no such trouble. Interviews of current service members, both strait and gay suggest that their should be no problem, as does the numbers from the service, where the lowest estimate I have seen suggests 35k gays in service now. Further, looking at other countries with more liberal rules on gays in service show no problems from those more liberal rules. This includes the Isreali service, which places no limitation on gays in service, and is one of the most effective soldier for soldier, and has more combat experience than pretty much any service.

To argue against all this, you have the opinion of 100 retired officers who mostly belong to a conservative organization. These are countered by a large number of retired officers who support gays serving openly in the military.
Click to expand...

Still no docs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom