• 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 call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says


From your link:

The largest population living with HIV (45%) comprised men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by persons infected through high-risk heterosexual contact (27%)...

More than half of those living with HIV did not contract it through homosexual activities.

Well done, sir! :2wave:

Of course, you do realize that sodomy =/= HIV (just as sodomy =/= gay), right? :roll:
 
I wonder what some other military experts say on this. You know about the Rand Corp study for the Pentagon which stated that it DADT could be eliminated with no problems, as you and I have discussed that, so we will skip it even though it is the most authoritative look at the subject.

Actually, we never really discussed the Rand Study, and they didn't say what you're claiming they did. In fact, they acknowledged some of the study's limitations for drawing conclusions and suggested conducting future studies which were more robust:

Although the present findings can inform military policy and practice, it is important to consider these findings in light of some limitations. Specifically, as is the case with many survey studies, the present findings may reflect self-report bias. Perceptions and reports of military personnel are important and typical sources of data for informing military policy and practice. But studies that assess objective, observable indicators of cohesion and readiness and the actual presence of gay and lesbian service members would be useful. Such research would require identifying and linking lesbian and gay service members with the observed units, but DADT is a challenge to such research. An additional limitation is that the present data are cross-sectional. Thus, interpretations about direction of causality among the variables of interest cannot be made. The current policy precludes gathering of accurate identifying information about gay and lesbian service members or those who have served with them. Thus, tracking participants over time to collect longitudinal data that allow examination of prospective links among the variables of interest is not possible. To address the limitations of the present study, efforts within the military to gather systematic data from randomly drawn samples about the presence of lesbian and gay personnel and their impact on objective indicators of unit cohesion, readiness, morale, and effectiveness would clearly be useful. Empirical data are critical for informing military policy and practice, and the present study represents a step in addressing the paucity of data addressing the rationale underlying DADT.

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/randstudy(3).pdf

...

Lets go to Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the JCS:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html?_r=1

Then we find out that there are alot more military "brass" in favor of it's repeal 104 retired military brass against 'don't ask-don't tell' - CNN.com

Not bad, but I have more brass on my side:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/FGOM-SigList(1087)-033109.pdf

Then there is the famous Zogby poll of servicemembers who served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan: Zogby International

The Zogby poll was the same data set used in the Rand study, which was inconclusive.

I have a world of respect for Colin Powell, but that does not mean I think he is always right, and in this case, I think he is dead wrong.

Did I say Colin Powell is always right? No, I didn't. I took issue with someone's characterization of DADT as "stupid". Obviously, that person knows much more about the military than Colin Powell and the other upper echelon military commanders who drafted the policy.

I have not seen any evidence that repeal of DADT and allowing gays to serve in the military will lead to any problems.

The onus shouldn't fall on me to support your position. If you want to radically alter the policies of our military then you should provide a rock-solid case in support of your position. That has yet to happen.

Moreover, my problem isn't with gays serving openly in the military. I don't think that would cause many problems. My issue is specifically about the infantry. Their composition and training is radically different from the residuum.

Further, as we already know, gays are in the military, and lets go back to that Zogby poll one more time:

Get that? Almost half already know some one they think is gay, and yet we still have the most effective military in the world, and all the morale and discipline problems that some predict just are not there.

We've already discussed the limitations of the Zogby poll. It does not prove anything.

So, until you can make a real case in support of your position, I'll just differ to my experience in the military, which is far more robust than any studies you've presented thus far.
 
It's a silly, childish policy.

And you're basing this on what, exactly? Your extensive military expertise?

If our military is so terrified of gay people openly serving (and they're already serving from the closet) then maybe we need stronger people in our military.

This is laughable. Who's going to replace these weaklings? You?

And if it weren't for our military ending segregation, another policy that people were terrified of ending, Colin Powell would have never reached the rank of General. He would have been a cook or a Supply Officer somewhere back behind the lines.

It's a lot harder to conceal your blackness than it is your sexuality. Anyway...

Everyone makes sacrifices when they join the military - gays are no exception. Serving isn't about some Hollywood ideal of flags waving and people being proud of their individuality. It's about winning and protecting the country, period. If DADT helps to serve that end, and I think it does to some extent, then it's a sacrifice any gay patriotic American should be willing to make. I mean, I sure as hell wasn't "myself" when I was in the Marines. No, I was a damn pawn who did what he was told when he was told to do it, but that's what I signed up for, so who am I to bitch?
 
Everyone makes sacrifices when they join the military - gays are no exception. Serving isn't about some Hollywood ideal of flags waving and people being proud of their individuality. It's about winning and protecting the country, period. If DADT helps to serve that end, and I think it does to some extent, then it's a sacrifice any gay patriotic American should be willing to make.

And ignoring everyone else's sexual preferences should be a sacrifice any straight patriotic American should be willing to make. Are you or are you not so willing?

I mean, I sure as hell wasn't "myself" when I was in the Marines. No, I was a damn pawn who did what he was told when he was told to do it, but that's what I signed up for, so who am I to bitch?

That makes you and gay soldiers exactly the same.
 
And you're basing this on what, exactly? Your extensive military expertise?

No not at all. Although I did serve in the Navy over 20 years ago, but that's not what I'm basing my opinion on. I'm basing it on common sense and basic human rights.

I'm certain our military service members are smart enough and tough enough to deal with gay men and women.

What is wrong with removing DADT? Gays and lesbians already serve. Who cares if everyone knows their gay??? They're not going to suddenly go bat-**** crazy and start raping all of the straight people.

This is laughable. Who's going to replace these weaklings? You?

You seem to assume vast numbers of our service members will immediately demand a discharge if we end don't ask don't tell. Can you please show proof of this mass exodus that you fear? I'm guessing some service members will complain for awhile, the issue will pass, and life will go on.



It's a lot harder to conceal your blackness than it is your sexuality. Anyway...

I'm not sure what that means. The "blackness" was never the problem with desegregation in the military. It wasn't literally about skin color. And you know that. The problem was racism. The problem wasn't with blacks, the problem was with the whites.


Everyone makes sacrifices when they join the military - gays are no exception. Serving isn't about some Hollywood ideal of flags waving and people being proud of their individuality. It's about winning and protecting the country, period. If DADT helps to serve that end, and I think it does to some extent, then it's a sacrifice any gay patriotic American should be willing to make. I mean, I sure as hell wasn't "myself" when I was in the Marines. No, I was a damn pawn who did what he was told when he was told to do it, but that's what I signed up for, so who am I to bitch?

I agree. Sacrifices must be made in the military. But gays already make all of the same sacrifices that straight people make. Why should they have to make more sacrifices?

So again, show me what you believe. Tell me how an openly gay person serving in the military causes a problem?
 
I'm certain our military service members are smart enough and tough enough to deal with gay men and women.

What is wrong with removing DADT? Gays and lesbians already serve. Who cares if everyone knows their gay??? They're not going to suddenly go bat-**** crazy and start raping all of the straight people.

You seem to assume vast numbers of our service members will immediately demand a discharge if we end don't ask don't tell. Can you please show proof of this mass exodus that you fear?

All excellent points, worthy of reposting.

I'm not sure what that means. The "blackness" was never the problem with desegregation in the military. It wasn't literally about skin color. And you know that. The problem was racism. The problem wasn't with blacks, the problem was with the whites.

This is the same bigoted crap all over again. The problem is not created by gays in the military; the problem comes from all the straight people in the military acting like teh gay is catching. OH NOESSS!!!!

:roll:
 
The problem is not created by gays in the military; the problem comes from all the straight people in the military acting like teh gay is catching. OH NOESSS!!!!

:roll:

I know that. But I want them to admit that. Gays aren't the problem, they never have been. The perception of others toward gay people is the problem.

And did you notice it's never about gay women? The concern seems to be about gay men. I wonder why that is?

But still I'd like an answer on what exactly will go wrong if we end DADT? I realize you're in favor of ending it, but would you care to take a guess? And I'm being serious here, I really can't figure out what will go wrong. Will our military suddenly become a bunch of wimps? Will a country like Paraguay invade us and kick our ass? What???
 
More than half of those living with HIV did not contract it through homosexual activities.

Well done, sir!

Yes, I know. About 25% from high risk heterosexual contact. Wonder why they don't call it high risk homosexual contact? It just seems funny.......it's been estimated 5% of the population is gay. So....2.5% are homosexual men, however, they account for 45% of Aids cases, 75% of all Aids cases are male. Why is that?

Of course, you do realize that sodomy =/= HIV (just as sodomy =/= gay), right?

Then why is it far more male gays contract HIV?
 
Ah. Fair enough. Billet = Barracks.

So a soldier can't be forced to be a "roommate" (can we agree on that?) with a soldier of a different sex. I completely understand that.

But what does that have to do with a gay soldier? They're not a different sex. A woman rooming with a gay woman is not the same as a woman rooming with a man. Why would you be against a straight soldier sharing a room with a gay soldier?

If a gay soldier isn't comfortable sharing living quarters with a straight soldier, or vice versa, then it's that soldier's right to refuse to do it. It's that soldier's right just like it's a female soldier's right to refuse to share living quarters with a male soldier.
 
If a gay soldier isn't comfortable sharing living quarters with a straight soldier, or vice versa, then it's that soldier's right to refuse to do it. It's that soldier's right just like it's a female soldier's right to refuse to share living quarters with a male soldier.

Fair enough.

So why would a straight soldier be uncomfortable sharing a room with a gay soldier?
 
Why do I even bother. Here is a hint: 10 USC Sec. 654 01/06/97 just like I said. Now, you are right, you cannot prove a negative, but you claim that Obama cannot do something, so there must be something(see, a positive) preventing him from doing it. Care to show what that positive something is? No one else is making this claim, so what do you know that no one else does?

Anyone who has spent more than a few weeks in the military knows that soldiers aren't disciplined, neither judicially, nor non-judicially, using the United States Criminal code. They are disciplined using the regulations and the UCMJ.
 
I already did, little one. Try thinking about what the words mean as you move your finger across the screen...



But, see, this is not a discussion about sodomy. This is a discussion about the President's wish to get rid of an ignorant and bigoted military rule (DADT).

Your only/best argument in support of DADT ("the only thing you need to know") is that sodomy is a crime in the military.

BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SODOMY.

YOU ARE.

What we have here is a group of people discussing the idea of getting rid of arcane, discriminatory military rules, and you jump up and shout "ZOMG!! SODOMY!!#!"

There's the connection right there. See it? DADT. DADT. DADT. DADT. SODOMY!!

So, back to my earlier point: Once we have a baseline reading of incidents of straight sex on the job, we can then properly judge/prosecute all those icky, perverted gay soldiers.

Since this is your big argument ("SODOMY!@@! ARGGH!@!") please verify for us how often straight people hump like bunnies at every opportunity, even while on the job in the military, so we have a real basis for comparison.



Or, y'know, you could forget about sodomy being a strictly gay thing.

It's not a discussion about sodomy, however the military law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the military is Article 125.
 
Yes, I know. About 25% from high risk heterosexual contact. Wonder why they don't call it high risk homosexual contact? It just seems funny.......it's been estimated 5% of the population is gay. So....2.5% are homosexual men, however, they account for 45% of Aids cases, 75% of all Aids cases are male. Why is that?



Then why is it far more male gays contract HIV?

Well I think you're being evasive here. You already know the answer to that is because of anal sex. Other than sharing needles, anal sex is probably the easiest way to spread the HIV virus.

EDIT" But apdst is right. This is NOT a discussion about sodomy. It's about Don't Ask Don't Tell.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough.

So why would a straight soldier be uncomfortable sharing a room with a gay soldier?

For the same reason that a gay soldier might be uncomfortable sharing quarters with a straight soldier. That door can and will swing both ways.
 
For the same reason that a gay soldier might be uncomfortable sharing quarters with a straight soldier. That door can and will swing both ways.

You lost me. What does "that door swings both ways" mean?

They're both men. Last time I checked they have the same parts. Granted not all parts are the same size... :mrgreen:
 
You lost me. What does "that door swings both ways" mean?

They're both men. Last time I checked they have the same parts. Granted not all parts are the same size... :mrgreen:

You keep insisting that a [homophobic] straight soldier will the one to request different billets. All I'm saying, is that it might not necessarily be a straight soldier who makes that request. Hence, the door swings both ways.
 
You keep insisting that a [homophobic] straight soldier will the one to request different billets. All I'm saying, is that it might not necessarily be a straight soldier who makes that request. Hence, the door swings both ways.

Okay. That's fine. But I don't think any of that is a reason to keep DADT.

And I never once used the word homophobic in any post. I'm simply trying to figure out why ending DADT is a bad thing. That's it.
 
I know that. But I want them to admit that. Gays aren't the problem, they never have been. The perception of others toward gay people is the problem.

Exactly, but this thread (and countless others) reveal that those who are against gays in the military and/or DADT will NEVER admit the problem actually lies with them.

And did you notice it's never about gay women? The concern seems to be about gay men. I wonder why that is?

Two ideas come to mind.

1. Because girl-on-girl sex is hawt (so, therefore not as gay as guy-on-guy sex?). Silly, but there it is. Straight guys watch gay porn all the time and I assume they'd like to keep doing so, so... vilify gay men, but give gay women a pass. Probably they imagine they'll accidentally stumble onto a couple of gay female soldiers having a pillow fight in their pretty white undies, and a nipple will inadvertently be exposed in the melee. Wouldn't want to see that possibility eradicated, now, would we? ;)

2. Because we're all a little bit gay, no matter our sexual preference. The military is populated primarily by men, and most men would NEVER admit they've had the occasional homosexual thought.

Reminds me of a Ron White bit:

[about his cousin Ray having made a homophobic remark]
Ron White: I said "We're all gay, buddy. It's just to what degree are you gay." And he goes, "That's bull****, man. I ain't gay at all." And I go "Yeah, you are. And I can prove it." He goes "Fine. Prove it."

I go, "All right. Do you like porn?" He says "Yeah, I love porn. You know that." I said, "Oh, and do you only watch scenes with two women?" And he goes, "No, I'll watch a man and a woman makin' love." And I say "Oh, and do you like the guy to have a flabby, half-flaccid penis?" And he goes "No, I like big, hard, throbbing ****..."
[he trails off]

But still I'd like an answer on what exactly will go wrong if we end DADT? I realize you're in favor of ending it, but would you care to take a guess?

We'd be able to end at least some of the bigotry and discrimination in our military, but other than that, I'm baffled. I'm just as interested as you are in responses from the pro-DODT crowd.
 
It's not a discussion about sodomy

Yes. I've already explained that to you.

So why did you bring it up? Why is the fact that "sodomy is a crime in the military" the ONLY thing I need to know about DADT?

however the military law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the military is Article 125.

Yes. And we're discussing why it's a bad thing and should be rescinded. Glad you could join us in discussing the actual topic at hand.
 
Okay. That's fine. But I don't think any of that is a reason to keep DADT.



I think it's exactly why DADT is the most practical policy to deal with gays in the military. Do your job, keep your sex life private--as it should be--and everybody's happy.

And I never once used the word homophobic in any post. I'm simply trying to figure out why ending DADT is a bad thing. That's it.

No, but you kept assuming that the straight soldier would be the one with the issues. Your comments speaks for themslves.

Glinda:1. Because girl-on-girl sex is hawt (so, therefore not as gay as guy-on-guy sex?). Silly, but there it is. Straight guys watch gay porn all the time and I assume they'd like to keep doing so, so... vilify gay men, but give gay women a pass. Probably they imagine they'll accidentally stumble onto a couple of gay female soldiers having a pillow fight in their pretty white undies, and a nipple will inadvertently be exposed in the melee. Wouldn't want to see that possibility eradicated, now, would we?

And, in my opinion you're going to see more problems with female soldiers than you are male soldiers.
 
Probably they imagine they'll accidentally stumble onto a couple of gay female soldiers having a pillow fight in their pretty white undies, and a nipple will inadvertently be exposed in the melee....


Uuuhhh what were we talking about?


:lol:
 
I think it's exactly why DADT is the most practical policy to deal with gays in the military. Do your job, keep your sex life private--as it should be--and everybody's happy.

Does the same apply to heterosexuals?
 
Yes. I've already explained that to you.

So why did you bring it up? Why is the fact that "sodomy is a crime in the military" the ONLY thing I need to know about DADT?

I'm trying to educate you as to why the military doesn't allow gays to serve openly. It's not fault you aren't getting it. The section of the UCMJ is Article 125.

Stop worrying about when and where I get ***** and start reading and comprehending.
 
Back
Top Bottom