• 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

Ethereal said:
You're right. It's based upon my first-hand experience in the modern military. Much more reliable than arcane historical analysis.
Click to expand...

Really? What kind of experience did you have that would make you any sort of reliable person of general morale? Did you conduct research on the rest of the armed forces? See their social dynamics? No. Historical evidence is a lot more reliable than your "first-hand" and biased experience in this matter.

How do you know the Marines adapted well to desegregation? Can you show that more people didn't die because of increased unit friction?

For one thing, we're not in a desperate World War anymore, which means we can play the numbers game a little tighter with the troops' lives. The Generals didn't have that luxury in WWII with desegregation. The amount of people who would die as a result of unit friction was mathematically offset by the infusion of black soldiers. It's not as much of a numbers game, anymore.
Click to expand...

This is really a ridiculously ignorant argument. The history of black soldiers during WWII proves that the military under stressful situations the military simply will not disintegrate in the manner you picture it. Much less with something as socially trivial as openly gay soldiers serving.

During WWII more people volunteered for the military than at any other point in American history with the exception of the Civil War and the Independence War. That said, the fact that the majority of socially conservative men within the military stayed and the volunteering rate only went up as the war rolled into 1944 and 1945 shows that radical change is nowhere near the issue you make it out to be.

This is supported by the sheer number of people involved with the military at the time :

Today's U.S. forces number somewhere around 1.5-2 million. In the early 1940s it grew to 11 million people. A small minority of which were black soldiers. How "desperate" were we for soldiers? Not all that desperate. More people were joining every year that the war went on. Your argument simply isn't based on historical evidence.

What does military policy have to do with social conservatism? Are you saying I'm a social conservative? If my position isn't grounded in reality, then what is it grounded in?
Click to expand...

No. I am saying your position is that of social conservatives. What do you not understand about that? It is not grounded in reality because it is not supported by any examples or historical evidence. Just on your own biased and sociologically inept understanding of the military. Regardless of how long you've served your personal experience is worthless in this matter because it does not concern the few hundred servicemen you might have met in your service. It concerns a few hundred thousand. You were never involved in policy making, research or can provide an accurate picture of how the military as a whole will react.

Obviously, if this were a matter of what individual units might think of the change, then your opinion would be reasonable. However it is not. It is a matter of how the military as a whole will react to social changes. So far we've seen that it reacts quite well even during the most stressful situations.
 
Winnb said:
Well now you're talking about violence against gays in the military should it be discovered they're gay.
Click to expand...

Partially, yes, but there's more to it than that. In my opinion, repealing DADT would create extra friction in units that can ill afford it.

Why would Marines not be fond of other gay Marines living and training with them? The gay Marines have passed all of the same training and requirements. They may have even served beside each other in battle.

Why would that cause a problem?
Click to expand...

Homophobia, dude. How many times do I have to say it? The Marine infantry is a small gun club and I know it intimately. Homophobia is not rampant, but it's definitely substantial.

You have stated that "Homophobia has a very biological quality to it". That's quite a statement. Are you saying homophobia is a trait people are born with and can't be helped?
Click to expand...

No. I don't blame people's shortcomings on their genes. I'm just saying that men are more predisposed towards homophobia because they are genetically aggressive. In addition to this, many infantrymen are Southern and Midwestern Christians. Do you think none of this matters?

You also seem to be assuming that homophobia is rampant in the Marines. I don't believe that. And then you hinted that homophobia would cause violent actions to be taken against gay Marines. So you're asserting that straight Marines would take violent action against gay Marines and open themselves up to a Court Martial and imprisonment?

I have more faith in our military than that. I think our service members are above the pettiness and silliness. And if we remove DADT the issue of who's gay and who's not goes with it.
Click to expand...

That's one way to side-step all my questions and points.

I also have another question. Just for my own curiosity. Is there some sense of "manliness" being undermined if gay men are allowed to openly serve? If a Marine goes through all of this tough training and then finds out that some gay guy went through it too and not only passed it but surpassed the straight guys, would that cause animosity?
Click to expand...

My senior Marines hated me when I first came to the fleet (probably hated me when I left, too), because my platoon sergeant was impressed with me. They didn't like seeing a "boot" receive praise, so they made things extra hard for me, and I'm not even gay...
 
MSgt said:
I said this a year ago...

...As soon as Obama is done asking the military to bleed for him, he will force the issue. Until then..he's just looking for the gay vote. Clinton spent years and years dealing with the rift between him and the Pentagon over his Don't Ask Don't Tell fiasco. Obama is very well aware. He has military support now. He will not rock the boat in the midst of a war he believes in.

You people who are enthused over his words will hear the same words next year and the next year and...
Click to expand...

...Obama is looking for the gay vote? I really doubt that with the way Republicans inside the country treat gays, Obama really has to look all that hard for the "gay vote" whatever that is. Maybe he'd have to work hard for Jallman's vote. But the "gay vote"? No. I do not think so.
 
Hatuey said:
Really? What kind of experience did you have that would make you any sort of reliable person of general morale? Did you conduct research on the rest of the armed forces? See their social dynamics? No. Historical evidence is a lot more reliable than your "first-hand" and biased experience in this matter.



This is really a ridiculously ignorant argument. The history of black soldiers during WWII proves that the military under stressful situations the military simply will not disintegrate in the manner you picture it. Much less with something as socially trivial as openly gay soldiers serving.

During WWII more people volunteered for the military than at any other point in American history with the exception of the Civil War and the Independence War. That said, the fact that the majority of socially conservative men within the military stayed and the volunteering rate only went up as the war rolled into 1944 and 1945 shows that radical change is nowhere near the issue you make it out to be.

This is supported by the sheer number of people involved with the military at the time :

Today's U.S. forces number somewhere around 1.5-2 million. In the early 1940s it grew to 11 million people. A small minority of which were black soldiers. How "desperate" were we for soldiers? Not all that desperate. More people were joining every year that the war went on. Your argument simply isn't based on historical evidence.



No. I am saying your position is that of social conservatives. What do you not understand about that? It is not grounded in reality because it is not supported by any examples or historical evidence. Just on your own biased and sociologically inept understanding of the military. Regardless of how long you've served your personal experience is worthless in this matter because it does not concern the few hundred servicemen you might have met in your service. It concerns a few hundred thousand. You were never involved in policy making, research or can provide an accurate picture of how the military as a whole will react.

Obviously, if this were a matter of what individual units might think of the change, then your opinion would be reasonable. However it is not. It is a matter of how the military as a whole will react to social changes. So far we've seen that it reacts quite well even during the most stressful situations.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to waste my time debating you if you're going to misrepresent what I say. You really are such a BS'er sometimes, Hat.
 
MSgt said:
I said this a year ago...

...As soon as Obama is done asking the military to bleed for him, he will force the issue. Until then..he's just looking for the gay vote. Clinton spent years and years dealing with the rift between him and the Pentagon over his Don't Ask Don't Tell fiasco. Obama is very well aware. He has military support now. He will not rock the boat in the midst of a war he believes in.

You people who are enthused over his words will hear the same words next year and the next year and...
Click to expand...

Obama didn't ask the military to bleed for him. He took over a military that was already bleeding. NOW they're bleeding for him.

Clinton did not spend years dealing with the rift of DADT. Once DADT was in place the issue quietly subsided. Our military is currently the most powerful/ass kicking force on the planet. So it would seem DADT did not have a negative impact on the efficiency of our military.

Obama is not "looking for the gay vote". Pretty sure he already has most of that. Plus he's still almost 3 years away from his next election.

So why are you against ending DADT? Also do you think gays should be discharged from the military if it is discovered they are gay?
 
Ethereal said:
I'm not going to waste my time debating you if you're going to misrepresent what I say. You really are such a BS'er sometimes, Hat.
Click to expand...

What you said :

I agree, they should be willing to do that, but a lot of the infantry folks won't, so where does that leave us? Just kick out all the conservative Christians and headstrong alpha males? That's like 90% of the Marine Corps infantry!
Click to expand...

My comment stands. The military simply will not disintegrate in the manner that you picture it. 90% of "conservative Christian" men have had to deal with much bigger social changes and it has not affected the military one bit. Matter of fact, we've won wars and even managed to increased the number of volunteers in our military. If you do not like this fact then that is not my fault.
 
MSgt said:
I said this a year ago...

...As soon as Obama is done asking the military to bleed for him, he will force the issue. Until then..he's just looking for the gay vote. Clinton spent years and years dealing with the rift between him and the Pentagon over his Don't Ask Don't Tell fiasco. Obama is very well aware. He has military support now. He will not rock the boat in the midst of a war he believes in.

You people who are enthused over his words will hear the same words next year and the next year and...
Click to expand...

Nice to see the promotion there MSgt.

Obama does not have to look for the gay vote, he will get the vast majority of gay voters no matter what he does. Very few people who support gay rights issues are not going to vote for obama.
 
Ethereal said:
Partially, yes, but there's more to it than that. In my opinion, repealing DADT would create extra friction in units that can ill afford it.



Homophobia, dude. How many times do I have to say it? The Marine infantry is a small gun club and I know it intimately. Homophobia is not rampant, but it's definitely substantial.



No. I don't blame people's shortcomings on their genes. I'm just saying that men are more predisposed towards homophobia because they are genetically aggressive. In addition to this, many infantrymen are Southern and Midwestern Christians. Do you think none of this matters?



That's one way to side-step all my questions and points.



My senior Marines hated me when I first came to the fleet (probably hated me when I left, too), because my platoon sergeant was impressed with me. They didn't like seeing a "boot" receive praise, so they made things extra hard for me, and I'm not even gay...
Click to expand...

You know what, you're one of the few people I've ever talked to that has answered those types of questions honestly. Most people try desperately, twisting themselves into knots, to try and avoid using the word homophobia or saying anything bad about our military.

I appreciate you admitting that homophobia is substantial. And yeah my use of "rampant" was probably a bit much there. But you knew what I meant.

So now comes the next step. Should we try to find a way to limit and eventually remove that homophobia from our military? I obviously think we should. We risk losing some very good people because of it.

My opinion is that if someone wants to risk putting their body in harm's way, deal with the travel, the never ending BS, the all powerful hierarchy, and then serve in the defense of this great nation.... well they should be able to do all of that and not worry about getting kicked out because someone found out they were gay.
 
Hatuey said:
What you said...
Click to expand...

...was in response to a specific point made by another person, who said that we should just get rid of anyone that might be uncomfortable with a gay person serving in their unit; admittedly, I was exaggerating a little bit when I said 90%, but it's still generally true. A lot of grunts would be uncomfortable.

Anyway, how does this factor into the argument I've made - that is, repealing DADT will not result in disintegration but friction.

My comment stands.
Click to expand...

How can your comment stand when it has no legs? Really, Hat, this is getting old.

90% of "conservative Christian" men have had to deal with much bigger social changes and it has not affected the military one bit.
Click to expand...

Really? Not one bit, eh? How do you know that?
 
Hatuey said:
...Obama is looking for the gay vote? I really doubt that with the way Republicans inside the country treat gays, Obama really has to look all that hard for the "gay vote" whatever that is. Maybe he'd have to work hard for Jallman's vote. But the "gay vote"? No. I do not think so.
Click to expand...

Oh, do you? Obama is the "pure" politician amongst the thousands? The Gay vote is everyone that has anything to do with any gay in the U.S. of A. and anyone that thrives on the idea of perfect equality and utopia within society. Regardless, he relies upon the military support for his international issues and he will not rock the boat past his words of comfort to gay America.
 
Last edited:
Winnb said:
You know what, you're one of the few people I've ever talked to that has answered those types of questions honestly. Most people try desperately, twisting themselves into knots, to try and avoid using the word homophobia or saying anything bad about our military.

I appreciate you admitting that homophobia is substantial. And yeah my use of "rampant" was probably a bit much there. But you knew what I meant.
Click to expand...

Thank you for being reasonable.

:2razz:

So now comes the next step. Should we try to find a way to limit and eventually remove that homophobia from our military? I obviously think we should. We risk losing some very good people because of it.
Click to expand...

I suppose, but I'm not sure how we would go about it exactly. More seminars and briefs certainly aren't the answer. Every grunt hates those things with a passion, and nobody is going to be talked out of being homophobic.

Honestly, I think the only good option is to let the generals address this issue in peace time. I would want them to conduct a robust analysis when they are able.

My opinion is that if someone wants to risk putting their body in harm's way, deal with the travel, the never ending BS, the all powerful hierarchy, and then serve in the defense of this great nation.... well they should be able to do all of that and not worry about getting kicked out because someone found out they were gay.
Click to expand...

I think the zero-tolerance policy can be immediately done away with in all branches and units. Commanders can exercise discretion, but they should still have the option. Like Jall, I don't want a bunch of gay men thinking it's all good to come out to their units before they ship off to a combat zone. I'm not saying stray bullets will find their way into gays' backs, but it can certainly create friction, which puts everyone at increased risk.
 
MSgt said:
Oh, do you? Obama is the "pure" politician amongst the thousands? The Gay vote is everyone that has anything to do with any gay in the U.S. of A. Regardless, he relies upon the military support for his international issues and he will not rock the boat past his words of comfort to gay America.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like the military is somehow going to revolt, or stop doing as ordered because he repeals DADT.
 
Redress said:
Yeah, like the military is somehow going to revolt, or stop doing as ordered because he repeals DADT.
Click to expand...

Clinton relied largely on civilian counselors because the Pentagon gave him the bare minimum. The Pentagon argued and fought with him when it came to deployment and international mission.

Like it or not, the military is not an entity of slaves and they do hold a very large political power base for the White House. When the White House needs mission support they rely upn the military and when the military offers the bare minimum it makes it that much harder on the White House to make decisions. This is a fact and it happened throughout the Clinton years.

If opening the flood gates to homosexuals is such an easy thing to do why has Obama looked the other way after making such bold promises over a year ago? In another year, you and I will have the same argument...much like we did last year.

Revolt? Think beyond the simplicity of things.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Thank you for being reasonable.

:2razz:



I suppose, but I'm not sure how we would go about it exactly. More seminars and briefs certainly aren't the answer. Every grunt hates those things with a passion, and nobody is going to be talked out of being homophobic.

Honestly, I think the only good option is to let the generals address this issue in peace time. I would want them to conduct a robust analysis when they are able.



I think the zero-tolerance policy can be immediately done away with in all branches and units. Commanders can exercise discretion, but they should still have the option. Like Jall, I don't want a bunch of gay men thinking it's all good to come out to their units before they ship off to a combat zone. I'm not saying stray bullets will find their way into gays' backs, but it can certainly create friction, which puts everyone at increased risk.
Click to expand...

Well the point about creating friction during war time is about the best one I've heard. And yeah Jall brought it up earlier in the thread too. That's a point of serious concern.

I KNOW it'll cause friction. Any change does. And especially change in a system that is as rooted in tradition as the military. So maybe Obama waits until the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq end. Of course who knows when that will be.

I don't know if the friction will ever reach the level of straights shooting gays. I think it'll be subtle and sneaky, just like some racism was and still is.

I'm not even sure Obama's got the stones to end it. It will probably just be one of those things that slowly becomes a non-issue as time goes by and the generations become less concerned about an individual's sexual orientation.

And I agree with the elimination of the zero-tolerance policy and giving Commanders discretion to interpret the laws and regs. That makes sense.
 
MSgt said:
Oh, do you? Obama is the "pure" politician amongst the thousands? The Gay vote is everyone that has anything to do with any gay in the U.S. of A. and anyone that thrives on the idea of perfect equality and utopia within society. Regardless, he relies upon the military support for his international issues and he will not rock the boat past his words of comfort to gay America.
Click to expand...

No. Obama is a Democrat. The gay vote with Democrats is like the military vote for Republicans. It is not going anywhere any time soon regardless of how much they screw up. Seriously. The gay vote with Democrats is as locked down as the black vote. It has nothing to do with purity but how each party treats its voting blocks. Democrats as a rule basically support gay rights. More so than Republicans. Gays recognize this. While Democrats support giving gays visitations rights, Republicans have opposed it. While Democrats support at the very LEAST gay civil unions with the same recognition as marriage, Republicans have stood in its way. While Democrats support gays adopting children, Republicans oppose it. It is a very general rule of thumb. But that is how it work. If you're a Democrat and in politics, chances are you don't have to look too hard for the gay vote.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
No. Obama is a Democrat. The gay vote with Democrats is like the military vote for Republicans. It is not going anywhere any time soon regardless of how much they screw up. Seriously. The gay vote with Democrats is as locked down as the black vote. It has nothing to do with purity but how each party treats its voting blocks. Democrats as a rule basically support gay rights. More so than Republicans. Gays recognize this. While Democrats support giving gays visitations rights, Republicans have opposed it. While Democrats support at the very LEAST gay civil unions with the same recognition as marriage, Republicans have stood in its way. While Democrats support gays adopting children, Republicans oppose it. It is a very general rule of thumb. But that is how it work. If you're a Democrat and in politics, chances are you don't have to look too hard for the gay vote.
Click to expand...

Just goes to show how people will sell out their country over the smallest issues.
 
Navy Pride said:
Its easy for a bunch of "feel good Liberals"to say hey let them serve openly.....They are not in the military...No skin off their ass........They don't have to live in close quarters with men and women who are physically attracted to them........Sleep in bunks aboard ship that are about a foot apart..........Shower with them........

In my 20 years in the Navy I have seen violations over and over again...I actually don't blame the gay guys or women.......I equate it to a straight male being put on a ship with only beautiful women...Undressing with them, living in very close quarters, showering with them......I know I could not control myself under those conditions.........I truly doubt if any man could.......


If this thing is approved there will be a mass exodus of straight senior petty officers and Chiefs.......You can't force this experimentation down peoples throats.....
Click to expand...

They already do Navy....or are you naive enough to believe that gay people don't already serve in the military.

The only difference is whether they can be honest about it.


As a straight man, I would think that I would prefer to know who was gay and who wasn't gay if I were overly concerned with someone seeing me naked. At least that way....I could take whatever actions I deemed necessary not to expose myself.

I guess you would prefer that people lie and would prefer exposing yourself to everyone. Right?
 
Navy Pride said:
......I know I could not control myself under those conditions .....
Click to expand...

Then you seriously have a VERY VERY VERY big problem.

If you wouldn't be able to control yourself being around a beautiful woman and would immediately engage in sexual assault and/or rape because of your inability to control yourself....you need to see a psychologist.

Gay men and women have been serving in the military for a long long time without immediately raping everyone that they are attracted to.

I guess you just proved one thing Navy. Gay men and women have much more control over themselves and their behaviors than you do.

Now which person do you think would be a better person for the military?

A person who can control themselves? Or a person who can't?
 
disneydude said:
Then you seriously have a VERY VERY VERY big problem.

If you wouldn't be able to control yourself being around a beautiful woman and would immediately engage in sexual assault and/or rape because of your inability to control yourself....you need to see a psychologist.

Gay men and women have been serving in the military for a long long time without immediately raping everyone that they are attracted to.

I guess you just proved one thing Navy. Gay men and women have much more control over themselves and their behaviors than you do.

Now which person do you think would be a better person for the military?

A person who can control themselves? Or a person who can't?
Click to expand...



You are clueless my left wing friend when it comes to life aboard a Navy ship....You may be a hot shot in the court room but you know nothing about that......
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
They already do Navy....or are you naive enough to believe that gay people don't already serve in the military.The only difference is whether they can be honest about it.


As a straight man, I would think that I would prefer to know who was gay and who wasn't gay if I were overly concerned with someone seeing me naked. At least that way....I could take whatever actions I deemed necessary not to expose myself.

I guess you would prefer that people lie and would prefer exposing yourself to everyone. Right?
Click to expand...

You don't have to state the obvious....The key word is serve openly and they don't do that in the Navy.............
 
Navy Pride said:
You are clueless my left wing friend when it comes to life aboard a Navy ship....You may be a hot shot in the court room but you know nothing about that......
Click to expand...

You are the one who said that you wouldn't be able to control yourself Navy.

Let me give you a clue. Most Americans are able to control themselves.
They don't immediately get a hard-on and sexually assault people they are attracted to at the drop of a hat.

Seriously Navy. If you cannot control your behaviors, you need to seek professional help. Its a crime to sexually assault another person. And its not a defense to say that you simply couldn't control yourself.
 
disneydude said:
You are the one who said that you wouldn't be able to control yourself Navy.

Let me give you a clue. Most Americans are able to control themselves.
They don't immediately get a hard-on and sexually assault people they are attracted to at the drop of a hat.

Seriously Navy. If you cannot control your behaviors, you need to seek professional help. Its a crime to sexually assault another person. And its not a defense to say that you simply couldn't control yourself.
Click to expand...

Try and read what I said DD.....You are on a ship with and all crew of beautiful girls.......You sleep along side them, you undress and shower with them.....Your at sea for up to 90 days..Now can you honestly tell me you wouldn't make a move on a woman in that situation........If you would not then all I can assume you are impotent, sexless or gay yourself.......

No straight male could do it...That is why there are separate sleeping and berthing spaces for men and women aboard ship.....
 
Navy Pride said:
Try and read what I said DD.....Uou are on a ship with and all crew of beautiful girls.......You sleep along side them, you undress and shower with them.....Your at sea for up to 90 days..Now can you honestly tell me you wouldn't make a move on a woman in that situation........If you would not then all I can assume you are impotent, sexless or gay yourself.......

No straight male could do it...That is why there are separate sleeping and berthing spaces for men and women aboard ship.....
Click to expand...

Sorry Navy....most straight men CAN and DO control their hormones.

The fact that you think that you wouldn't be able to control your dick just shows that you need some serious help.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry Navy....most straight men CAN and DO control their hormones.

The fact that you think that you wouldn't be able to control your dick just shows that you need some serious help.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right, read the above post...........
 
disneydude said:
Sorry Navy....most straight men CAN and DO control their hormones.

The fact that you think that you wouldn't be able to control your dick just shows that you need some serious help.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom