• 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!

Army discharges don't ask critic who told

Gipper said:
It is equal. They don't ask heteros for orientation either.

You just probably don't hear about heterosexuals being in trouble for acting like bravado-stricken alpha males because that's dog-bites-man. News has to shock you or it's not news.

I support leaving sexuality out of military affairs, no matter which gender you like. That's pretty neutral to me. Once you get a furlough or shore leave, chase all the ass you want. On the clock, you do your job and you leave your pecker's desires at home.
Click to expand...

So you would support discharging any military member, straight or gay, if they talk about a girlfriend, make comments about how they are attracted to women, etc.
Afterall...that would be a violation of DADT under your suggestion.
 
Telling a buddy in private that you're gay would, I highly doubt, cause a discharge. Now if you showed up on base wearing a fishnet shirt, assless chaps and yelling with a lisp, then sure.

People get fired from the private sector for a whole lot less. What makes the military so damned special?
 
Gipper said:
Telling a buddy in private that you're gay would, I highly doubt, cause a discharge. Now if you showed up on base wearing a fishnet shirt, assless chaps and yelling with a lisp, then sure.

People get fired from the private sector for a whole lot less. What makes the military so damned special?
Click to expand...

There have actually been many documented cases where people have been discharged for as little as that.

Going back, however, I'm curious if you would support discharge of hetero soldiers under your suggestion, who mention a girlfriend back home or make general non-explicit sexual comments about their attraction towards women...both of which would cause gay soldiers to be discharged under DADT.
 
texmaster said:
Because that is your personal opinion on the law. Hardly justification for changing it.



Again your personal opinion of gays isn't justification for breaking the rule.
Click to expand...

This rule discriminates and that is not opinion, I thought discrimination was BAD. Just because some people actually think Gays don't deserve the same rights and oppurtunities because some 2,000 year old book has a verse here and there doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated equally.
 
Gipper said:
Telling a buddy in private that you're gay would, I highly doubt, cause a discharge. Now if you showed up on base wearing a fishnet shirt, assless chaps and yelling with a lisp, then sure.

People get fired from the private sector for a whole lot less. What makes the military so damned special?
Click to expand...

There was a story in the news a couple months ago, Lady in the Air Force was lesbian. She kept it hidden but one day the police came into in her house to investigate a burgalry or something and found her marriage license showing she was married to another woman. The police handed this over to her commander and she was discharged.
 
There have actually been many documented cases where people have been discharged for as little as that.
Click to expand...

Then that would be wrong, since if it really was private it would be strictly a "he said, she said" affair. If it's as easy as telling your CO "sir, Private Pyle over there told me he likes to suck dick" without any legitimate proof, I think the dismissal rate would be a little higher. Men can be juvenile, especially since the military doesn't exactly attract the brightest minds. Why do you think the south has a disproportionate amount who serve?

I wouldn't want DADT revoked, but tweaked to make it more equal, and something akin to what you could expect at an office. I don't tell everyone I work with which secretary I'd screw. That's for certain ears only. And if my boss heard me say that Linda has nice tits, I'd expect to be reprimanded as well.
 
Gipper said:
I wouldn't want DADT revoked, but tweaked to make it more equal, and something akin to what you could expect at an office. I don't tell everyone I work with which secretary I'd screw. That's for certain ears only. And if my boss heard me say that Linda has nice tits, I'd expect to be reprimanded as well.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I understand your position. You would tweak DADT so that a gay soldier could announce that he is gay, as long as we doesn't sit around and talk about who's dick he wants to suck or which men he'd like to boink....is that correct?
 
Gipper said:
It is equal. They don't ask heteros for orientation either.

You just probably don't hear about heterosexuals being in trouble for acting like bravado-stricken alpha males because that's dog-bites-man. News has to shock you or it's not news.

I support leaving sexuality out of military affairs, no matter which gender you like. That's pretty neutral to me. Once you get a furlough or shore leave, chase all the ass you want. On the clock, you do your job and you leave your pecker's desires at home.
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY how I feel about the DADT issue with one slight exception: currently, under DADT, if they're on furlough then they can still get discharged for it despite keeping it private if it's found out. I think that's messed up.
 
jallman said:
This is EXACTLY how I feel about the DADT issue with one slight exception: currently, under DADT, if they're on furlough then they can still get discharged for it despite keeping it private if it's found out. I think that's messed up.
Click to expand...

So Jall...would you support discharging a gay man or woman for simply saying that they were gay?
 
disneydude said:
Let me see if I understand your position. You would tweak DADT so that a gay soldier could announce that he is gay, as long as we doesn't sit around and talk about who's dick he wants to suck or which men he'd like to boink....is that correct?
Click to expand...

No.

Your boss doesn't ask if you like dick. Your boss also doesn't ask if you like *****. Ironically, in the private sector they don't ask these questions either.

You get in trouble if you make your homosexual prowess public. You get in trouble if you make your heterosexual prowess public. Ironically, both these are punishable in the private sector too.

Gay people do their job with no input on sexuality. Straight people do their job with no input on sexuality. Ironically, this is how the private sector works too.

End "witch-hunts" or detective work that may incidentally show someone is gay. Discard any proof or evidence that someone is straight. Ironically, neither happens in the private sector.

I'd say that's pretty even enough.

Jallman said:
This is EXACTLY how I feel about the DADT issue with one slight exception: currently, under DADT, if they're on furlough then they can still get discharged for it despite keeping it private if it's found out. I think that's messed up.
Click to expand...

It is messed up. And if you're caught ripping off your sailor bell-bottoms and going balls deep on a stripper in the champagne room of a titty bar, you gotta face the firing squad as well.
 
Gipper said:
No.

Your boss doesn't ask if you like dick. Your boss also doesn't ask if you like *****. Ironically, in the private sector they don't ask these questions either.

You get in trouble if you make your homosexual prowess public. You get in trouble if you make your heterosexual prowess public. Ironically, both these are punishable in the private sector too.

Gay people do their job with no input on sexuality. Straight people do their job with no input on sexuality. Ironically, this is how the private sector works too.

End "witch-hunts" or detective work that may incidentally show someone is gay. Discard any proof or evidence that someone is straight. Ironically, neither happens in the private sector.

I'd say that's pretty even enough.



It is messed up. And if you're caught ripping off your sailor bell-bottoms and going balls deep on a stripper in the champagne room of a titty bar, you gotta face the firing squad as well.
Click to expand...

I'm still confused on your position. Assume that a gay person does not get into explicit details but is honest with those around him that he is gay. For instance, a straight soldier asks "Do you have a girlfriend back home" and he says, "No, I'm gay". Would you support discharging the soldier under that scenario.

What about this scenario: Straight soldiers sitting around in a group discussing which female celebrities are hot. Gay soldier announces he doesn't think any of them are hot, he's gay. Would you support discharge?

And if you would support discharge under either scenario...would you support discharge for the heterosexual soldier(s) as well?
 
Last edited:
I do think it should be treated like it is treated under the private sector. No one asks you, and if you do anything that could be considered harassment you should be punished. But if it comes out that someone is gay it shouldn't be grounds for a discharge. If someone in the private sector was fired because they were gay it would be shot down in any court. Just protect people from harassment, and allow people to express their sexuality in an appropriate manner. Examples would be taking their significant other to military functions where it is allowed, and living with their significant other on base.
 
I was going to say the same things Disney, as gipper's positions interesting.

If a soldier has a picture of Angelina Jolie in a bakini on his Bunk, should he be discharged?
If a soldier has a picture of Brad Pitt shirtless on his bunk, should he be discharged?

If a soldier, in reference to being asked "where are you going", says "To make a call to my girlfriend" should he be discharged?
If a soldier, in reference to being asked "where are you going", says "To make a call to my boyfriend" should he be discharged?

If after work a soldier visits an off base bar with a female friend that he's being very affectionate with, and other soldiers are there off duty, should he be discharged?
If after work a soldier visits an off base bar with a male friend that he's being very affectionate with, and other soldiers are there off duty, should he be discharged?

If a soldier has a picture of him and his girlfriend in an embrace on his desk, should he be discharged?
If a soldier has a picture of her and her girlfriend in an embrace on her desk, should she be discharged?

Save for the first example I've seen examples of this happen in just about every professional work place I've ever been in and I imagine are not that out of the ordinary. Do you think in each situation, hypothetically, the people should get different treatment with regards to discharges?

And, if they currently would get different treatment in reality, how could you possibly say the law is "equal"?
 
disneydude said:
Army Discharges Lt. Dan Choi, 'Don't Ask' Critic Who Told
Click to expand...

It "Strengthens" the military for the same reason the pushing out of McChrystal "strengthened" it in many peoples mind...the belief that the Military functions on a set of standards and rules that are universal and must be followed for an orderly military to be possible, and an orderly military is the best. Allow rules to be violated and you invite disorder, discord, and discontent.

That said, the better question would be how does this RULE strengthen the military when it causes individuals like this to be pushed out, not simply asking how does this particular case strengthen it or not.
 
American said:
So dude, how does breaking the rules strengthen the military?
Click to expand...

Breaking the rules doesn't specifically, but not discharging a highly decorated, arabic speaking proven soldier weaken the military by eliminating a good soldier.

So...how does discharging this man stengthen the military?
 
If something is that subtle, I can't see it being a punishable offense - especially if it's in a non-threatening or hostile manner.

I really don't have the time to sit there and go case-by-case with infinite scenarios made up. I've given the basics. Let common sense determine the rest.
 
disneydude said:
So Jall...would you support discharging a gay man or woman for simply saying that they were gay?
Click to expand...

For simply stating they were gay? No. However, just like I would support punative measures for a straight guy talking on the job about all poony he gets, I would support punative measures against a gay guy who talked about the sausage fest he had with his BF the night before.

Your sex life stays out of the work place. Period.
 
Gipper said:
If something is that subtle, I can't see it being a punishable offense - especially if it's in a non-threatening or hostile manner.

I really don't have the time to sit there and go case-by-case with infinite scenarios made up. I've given the basics. Let common sense determine the rest.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have...you are being extremely vague. Fine...don't answer case by case, answer this simply question: If a soldier makes a statement that he is gay, nothing more, nothing less. Should he/she be discharged? If a soldier makes a statement that he is straight? Should he/she be discharged?
 
jallman said:
For simply stating they were gay? No. However, just like I would support punative measures for a straight guy talking on the job about all poony he gets, I would support punative measures against a gay guy who talked about the sausage fest he had with his BF the night before.

Your sex life stays out of the work place. Period.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought your position was....I don't think Gipper is being as clear.
 
disneydude said:
Army Discharges Lt. Dan Choi, 'Don't Ask' Critic Who Told

I challenge anyone who is against repealing the DADT policy to watch the video in the attached link and make an argument why it strengthen the military to discharge this West Point graduate.

As he says in the end of the video, there have been nothing but positive ramifications among his infantry in the 17 months since he came out..."Honesty is the foundation of building teamwork and troop cohension". How can anyone possibly disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Because he's spending more time being a gay rights activist than he is being an army officer. Obviously, his priorities are screwed up.
 
apdst said:
Because he's spending more time being a gay rights activist than he is being an army officer. Obviously, his priorities are screwed up.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Care to back up that statement or is it just typical Apstd hotair?
 
disneydude said:
Not at all. Care to back up that statement or is it just typical Apstd hotair?
Click to expand...

I don't need to. All we've heard about Dan Choi, is that he's a gay rights activist. I've yet to hear anyone here, or anywhere else, brag about his exploits on the battlefield.

Here is a photo of Dan Choi, at a political rally, in uniform.

Lt_-Choi-at-NatlEqualityMarch.jpg


Army Regulation 670-1 prohibits wear of the uniform in any of the following circumstances:

•In connection with the furtherance of any political or commercial interest, or when engaged in off duty civilian employment.
•When participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.
•When attending any meeting or event that is a function of, or is sponsored by, an extremist organization.
•When wearing the uniform would bring discredit upon the Army.
•When specifically prohibited by Army regulations.
Click to expand...

Dan Choi obviously violated Army Regulations. He is a discredit to his unit, his service and sets a piss poor example for his men.

Any leader that doesn't live by the same standards that he expects from his men, is a piece of **** and doesn't deserve to wear the uniform.
 
apdst said:
I don't need to. All we've heard about Dan Choi, is that he's a gay rights activist. I've yet to hear anyone here, or anywhere else, brag about his exploits on the battlefield.

Here is a photo of Dan Choi, at a political rally, in uniform.

Lt_-Choi-at-NatlEqualityMarch.jpg




Army Regulation 670-1 prohibits wear of the uniform in any of the following circumstances:



Dan Choi obviously violated Army Regulations. He is a discredit to his unit, his service and sets a piss poor example for his men.

Any leader that doesn't live by the same standards that he expects from his men, is a piece of **** and doesn't deserve to wear the uniform.
Click to expand...

Doesn't support your statement that he spent more time being an activist than a soldier now does it?

Care to retract that statement or would you like to try again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom