• 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 reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

apdst said:
I would segregate units by gender.
Click to expand...

Ahh, yes, you've said that already.

How would you do it if the units were not segregated?
 
reefedjib said:
Please explain why Army policy needs congressional approval and not merely the instructions of the commander in chief?
Click to expand...

Dude, read the thread. The policy is enshrined within the US Code. It's statutory law, not just "army policy."
 
Jackboot said:
Haven't gay men served in the Navy for decades now, I don't see the big deal here, seems the people have settled this long ago?
Click to expand...

Gays have served in every branch of the military for years. I linked to a report that estimates over 1 million gay veterans, with them going back to Korea.
 
Redress said:
Gays have served in every branch of the military for years. I linked to a report that estimates over 1 million gay veterans, with them going back to Korea.
Click to expand...

Like I said, what is the problem then, this seems like a political problem to me.
 
Redress said:
Please show a case where this has happened. I think you are talking out your ass on this. Nothing in all the classes I took on this topic in the military suggested anything like that would be sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

You were in the Navy. I was in the Army. We probably went through different training.

this is how the Army defines sexual harrassment:

Sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination that involves unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

There are two types of sexual harassment:

Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment refers to conditions placed on a person's career or terms of employment in return for sexual favors. It involves threats of adverse actions if the victim does not submit or promises of favorable actions if the person does submit

Hostile Environment sexual harassment occurs when a person is subjected to offensive, unwanted, and unsolicited comments and behavior of a sexual nature that have the interferes with that person's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.
Click to expand...

Take notice of the last sentence that I highlighted, "creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment". Treating a female as inferior, because of her gender could create those exact conditions in the workplace. It's called gender discrimination and is rated right up there with sexual harrassment.
 
apdst said:
You were in the Navy. I was in the Army. We probably went through different training.

this is how the Army defines sexual harrassment:



Take notice of the last sentence that I highlighted, "creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment". Treating a female as inferior, because of her gender could create those exact conditions in the workplace. It's called gender discrimination and is rated right up there with sexual harrassment.
Click to expand...

Which does not prove your point. Your claims as to what is sexual harassment is nothing like that statement.

By the way, all branches of service have the same sexual harassment policy.
 
reefedjib said:
Ahh, yes, you've said that already.

How would you do it if the units were not segregated?
Click to expand...

Not much you could do with it, without gender segregated units. The Army's policy on sexual harrassment sucks, but I can understand why it is the way it is. All it would take is one phone call from a female soldier to her congress critter and the congress critter conduct a congressional inquiry of that unit and it's commanders and life would turn real miserable, real fast. It's easier just to fry the accused soldier and move on.
 
apdst said:
It's why soldiers, and especially sailors serving on a ship, aren't allowed to be romantically involved.
Click to expand...

This is untrue. On sexually integrated ships, romances are common.
 
Redress said:
Which does not prove your point. Your claims as to what is sexual harassment is nothing like that statement.

By the way, all branches of service have the same sexual harassment policy.
Click to expand...

That documentation goes all the way to prove my point. What did you do in the Navy, perhaps our different rates has something to do with different experiences.
 
Redress said:
This is untrue. On sexually integrated ships, romances are common.
Click to expand...

But, unauthorized. Show me where NAV/MAC regulations authorizes romatic relations onboard ship.
 
apdst said:
But, unauthorized. Show me where NAV/MAC regulations authorizes romatic relations onboard ship.
Click to expand...

So this would some how change when President Obama orders DADT to be repealed?
 
apdst said:
But, unauthorized. Show me where NAV/MAC regulations authorizes romatic relations onboard ship.
Click to expand...

Holy ****, that is the funniest thing I have ever read. Show me where it is illegal. Show me where I was authorized to take a piss onboard ship, and yet I did it frequently.
 
apdst said:
Not much you could do with it, without gender segregated units. The Army's policy on sexual harrassment sucks, but I can understand why it is the way it is. All it would take is one phone call from a female soldier to her congress critter and the congress critter conduct a congressional inquiry of that unit and it's commanders and life would turn real miserable, real fast. It's easier just to fry the accused soldier and move on.
Click to expand...

That's messed up. I can see your point, at least I think this is your point, that without a change in SH policy, removing DADT won't work.
 
Redress said:
Holy ****, that is the funniest thing I have ever read. Show me where it is illegal. Show me where I was authorized to take a piss onboard ship, and yet I did it frequently.
Click to expand...


You mean you aren't familiar with the Navy's latrining regulations? I bet there's something somewhere that states you can't piss off the side of the ship, ain't it?
 
apdst said:
You mean you aren't familiar with the Navy's latrining regulations? I bet there's something somewhere that states you can't piss off the side of the ship, ain't it?
Click to expand...

Different situation. There where places where it was proscribed, and written rules as such, but no rules allowing me to take a piss. If it is illegal to have a romance onboard ship, there has to be a rule stating this. Please find it.
 
reefedjib said:
That's messed up. I can see your point, at least I think this is your point, that without a change in SH policy, removing DADT won't work.
Click to expand...

I think with the current policy, removing DADT will do more harm--especially to gay soldiers--than good.

Another scenario I see happening, is that there will be a double standard created, where the regulations aren't applied to gay soldiers the same way they're applied to straight soldiers. There's already a double standard between males and females.
 
Redress said:
Different situation. There where places where it was proscribed, and written rules as such, but no rules allowing me to take a piss. If it is illegal to have a romance onboard ship, there has to be a rule stating this. Please find it.
Click to expand...

You just answered you own challenge. Good job.
 
apdst said:
I think with the current policy, removing DADT will do more harm--especially to gay soldiers--than good.

Another scenario I see happening, is that there will be a double standard created, where the regulations aren't applied to gay soldiers the same way they're applied to straight soldiers. There's already a double standard between males and females.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see what you mean. There was a double-standard for men and women when I served. Verbal harrassment was SH then too.

So to successfully remove DADT, we have to change the current policy. This is why I was asking how you would do that. Prevent that congressional investigation from occurring. What are they doing investigating a unit anyways? Where is that in the Constitution? It's probably in there. I read the first 8 or so pages of this thread - long thread - and saw where UCMJ is US Code. That was new to me. Anyway, we have to change the current SH policy.
 
apdst said:
You just answered you own challenge. Good job.
Click to expand...

But you have not. Show me the rule that says you cannot have a romance on ship, as you claimed.
 
reefedjib said:
Yeah, I see what you mean. There was a double-standard for men and women when I served. Verbal harrassment was SH then too.

So to successfully remove DADT, we have to change the current policy. This is why I was asking how you would do that. Prevent that congressional investigation from occurring. What are they doing investigating a unit anyways? Where is that in the Constitution? It's probably in there. I read the first 8 or so pages of this thread - long thread - and saw where UCMJ is US Code. That was new to me. Anyway, we have to change the current SH policy.
Click to expand...

It's going to be a complete charlie foxtrot. Alot of the folks who support the abolition of DADT don't care, because they're not, nor will they ever be a member of the armed services and won't have to deal with it. It all looks fine and dandy from their nice, clean, safe, politically correct perch.
 
apdst said:
It's going to be a complete charlie foxtrot. Alot of the folks who support the abolition of DADT don't care, because they're not, nor will they ever be a member of the armed services and won't have to deal with it. It all looks fine and dandy from their nice, clean, safe, politically correct perch.
Click to expand...

Again, over 1 million gay veterans. We can see that gays have served, we can see that many gays thrown out doing to being gay where in jobs where there are a shortage of trained troops, we can see the country has changed and is ready. It's not that we do not care, it's that we understand that the status quo is not always the best thing.
 
Redress said:
Again, over 1 million gay veterans. We can see that gays have served, we can see that many gays thrown out doing to being gay where in jobs where there are a shortage of trained troops, we can see the country has changed and is ready. It's not that we do not care, it's that we understand that the status quo is not always the best thing.
Click to expand...

The change won't make things better, period. I've already exhibited that. The sad part, is that people like you are pushing this and you'll never see the mayhem that it causes within our armed services.
 
apdst said:
The change won't make things better, period. I've already exhibited that. The sad part, is that people like you are pushing this and you'll never see the mayhem that it causes within our armed services.
Click to expand...

No you have not shown anything. You have made tons of claims with no backing facts. Some of the things you have claimed are really stupid, like your wild ideas about what can be sexual harassment, how romance is banned about ship, that gays in the military is like women sharing a shower with men. You have completely failed to show a single thing other than your ignorance on the topic. The best, most complete and up to date study on the topic, requested by the Pentagon, shows that it is not only feasible to allow gays in the military, but that it would have a trivial at worst effect on military readiness and effectiveness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom