• 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!

Dont ask Dont tell Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

TacticalEvilDan said:
Whatever. I'm angry because I expect better of you guys, not because I hate the military.
Click to expand...

Well of course you expect better, because we are supposed to be perfect and we are supposed to not reflect exactly what the American society delivers to recruit depots. You are angry because you lack perspective. I imagine plenty were angry when women dared to voice that they were equal. And I imagine much anger was developed when blacks dared to demand equality. But these are social struggles that we got past because we Americans have a way of declaring things quite boldly. This is no different other than the aspect of it. You can pretendthat gays are accepted inthe American society all you want, but they are not. They are viewd as second class citizens with less rights than heterosexuals. Many gravitate towards certain localesof employment to avoid harrassment and many find it easier to keep sexual orientation a secret. Once again, you seek the military to enforce what is "right" for an American society. And eventually, we will.

TacticalEvilDan said:
Can you just admit that it's a professionalism issue, without all the secondary and tertiary justifications?
Click to expand...

Like I stated, professionalism is following policy. And what is the ****ing policy?

What you are suggesting is that the military should decide on its own to defy the policies set by the Clinton White House and you wish to label this activity "professionalism."
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If it isn't homophobia or prejudice and a lack of professionalism, tell me what, exactly, about gays serving openly would cause problems in the military.
Click to expand...

Administrative problems.....
 
reefedjib said:
Perhaps. They were very enthusiastic with non-judicial, non-Article 15, off-the-books motivational in-house punishment. The big ****ing E-5 Samoan was a big problem. He used to jump us and put us in sleeper holds on the line. They gang-raped a squad mate with a broom.
Click to expand...

Army training, Sir. The greatest difficulties with these social leaps within the military have always been in the Army and the Marine Corps. But it has always been the Army where mass troubles with adaptation came from.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Yeah, I spent 12 years in an infantry unit. Served in Panama, Desert Storm, Korea and Kosovo. What could I possibly know about the subject...:rofl

Every combat arms vet on this forum is telling you how you're wrong, but we just hate gays? Is that it?

You need to enlist. Go help change the system.
Click to expand...

I don't recollect having given you permission to speak for me. I think you're dead wrong. I am a combat arms vet. And yes, I believe you exhibit all of the classic symptoms of homophobia.
 
apdst said:
Obviously, he misunderstood what I said, too.

Let me say it again, the IDF hasn't been in a pitched battle, since the gay ban was lifted in 1993. Certainly nothing like the '67 war, The Yom Kippur War, or the War in Lebanon during the 80's.
Click to expand...

You didn't say pitched battle, you said:

apdst said:
they haven't been in a prolonged fight, since they lifted the ban in 1993
Click to expand...

Please do not lie or move the goal posts. Please be honest enough to admit that you were wrong.
 
Apocalypse said:
I agree that a massive war such as the 67' or the 73' wars were not seen in the area, but the first Lebanon war (that started in the early 80's) has ended 7 years after the ban was lifted, and it was the most prolonged war in Israel's history, way more than the six days of the six-day war, for example.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Now, apdst, this is where you admit you were wrong.
 
Redress said:
Do you think the US should allow gays to serve openly, and do you think it will effect unit cohesion and morale for us here? You are kinda a voice of experience.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem with the current IDF standards, I don't think there would be one with an American military that allows gay individuals to openly serve in it.

Also....why did I think you where much older?
Click to expand...

That's beyond my thinking capabilities.
 
Apocalypse said:
I agree that a massive war such as the 67' or the 73' wars were not seen in the area, but the first Lebanon war (that started in the early 80's) has ended 7 years after the ban was lifted, and it was the most prolonged war in Israel's history, way more than the six days of the six-day war, for example.
Click to expand...

That gave me a good chuckle. Thank you.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
So then why isn't the issue "you can be gay, but you can't do your colleagues," rather than "you can't serve and be openly gay" or "you can't serve if you're gay?"
Click to expand...

That is the issue....thus they are looking into the matter. We all know that gays are going to be able to openly serve in the near future. The big whigs want to be able to have a solid procedure in place for dealing with male/male female/female sexual harassment, how to handle inter-unit relationships in regards to combat units who sleep, eat, work, train, fight, and pretty much live with each other all the time. (not this individual barracks room bull**** in non-combat units where you only have to work with your co-workers). Its these types of issues that they need to work on figuring out.
 
Caine said:
That is the issue....thus they are looking into the matter. We all know that gays are going to be able to openly serve in the near future. The big whigs want to be able to have a solid procedure in place for dealing with male/male female/female sexual harassment, how to handle inter-unit relationships in regards to combat units who sleep, eat, work, train, fight, and pretty much live with each other all the time. (not this individual barracks room bull**** in non-combat units where you only have to work with your co-workers). Its these types of issues that they need to work on figuring out.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much correct. What the DoD and Pentagon are doing right now is designing the procedures and training that will happen, and laying out how exactly they would want the regulations to read.
 
Redress said:
The prejudice is also very much reduced from what it has been. It is much much less of a problem than it has been even 10 years ago, let alone from when I served.
Click to expand...

Hell, yeah it has. This is why the banning of DADT won't be the issue some believe it will be. I came in in 1992, having been raised in the Marine Corps (father retired in 2000.) Homosexuality has always been described as disgusting and without masculinity in these circles. Today, after being bombarded with "gay pride" and so on, it's merely a dismissing topic. Most of us don't see it as something that has to be allowed. We simply donot care.

The military is merely preparing for the inevitable. The problem willnot be the gays. It will be the hardcore traditionalists throughout the rank structure who continue to hold strong anti-gay opinions. The same thing happened with the issues of women and blacks.
 
MSgt said:
Like I stated, professionalism is following policy.
Click to expand...

Professionalism also means being able to shelve your personal feelings in order to get a job done. He who is unable to do so is unable to call himself a professional.

MSgt said:
What you are suggesting is that the military should decide on its own to defy the policies set by the Clinton White House and you wish to label this activity "professionalism."
Click to expand...

No, what I am suggesting is that the President and Congress should decide to rescind those policies, or that a judge should decide that they're unlawful, and that you guys should have to live with that. No more studies (they've already been done), no more debates (they've already been had), no more mealy-mouthed bull**** about unit cohesion (prohibit disruptive relationships, no matter the gender or orientation involved).
 
MSgt said:
Hell, yeah it has. This is why the banning of DADT won't be the issue some believe it will be. I came in in 1992, having been raised in the Marine Corps (father retired in 2000.) Homosexuality has always been described as disgusting and without masculinity in these circles. Today, after being bombarded with "gay pride" and so on, it's merely a dismissing topic. Most of us don't see it as something that has to be allowed. We simply donot care.

The military is merely preparing for the inevitable. The problem willnot be the gays. It will be the hardcore traditionalists throughout the rank structure who continue to hold strong anti-gay opinions. The same thing happened with the issues of women and blacks.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making me feel old...I got out a year after you went in...
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Professionalism also means being able to shelve your personal feelings in order to get a job done. He who is unable to do so is unable to call himself a professional.
Click to expand...

You know, you are absolutely rediculous. In one post you scream that the military is to be dragged about at the whim of civilian masters and here you seek to define professionalism as defying orders and policies set forth by those civilians at our whim.

Let's get something clear. Our "job" is to train fighters and leaders so that they can fight wars and follow orders to the best of their abilities. This is what makes us professional.

TacticalEvilDan said:
No, what I am suggesting is that the President and Congress should decide to rescind those policies, or that a judge should decide that they're unlawful, and that you guys should have to live with that. No more studies (they've already been done), no more debates (they've already been had), no more mealy-mouthed bull**** about unit cohesion (prohibit disruptive relationships, no matter the gender or orientation involved).
Click to expand...

And this is exactly what got you butt hurt earlier when I stated that civilians are clueless and form too many baseless opinions. Here is the fact: The military has never conducted a study to see and prepare for life post DADT. The fact that you don't know this tells me exactly howuseful your opinions are to this subject. None of you have any idea of true comraderie or what unit cohesion even means since youy are able to dimiss it so easily. You expect our military to perform as it always has, but deny us what we insist is imperative. Yet you vomit your garbage all over us and expect perfection at every turn to satisfy your social whims of utopia in a society that hasn't even come to terms with it.

Like I stated over and ****ing over and ****ing over to you and the rest.....DADT is a civilian sin. The numbers forced out rose dramatically when civilians forced us to look at the gays in the military with certain outcome. Until DADT, the military was naturally beginning to simply look the other way. It was looked down upon and expected to fly under the radar until the Clinton administration forced gays into the spotlight throughout the military and forced administrative action. We simply followed your policies...."boss."
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
I agree that a massive war such as the 67' or the 73' wars were not seen in the area, but the first Lebanon war (that started in the early 80's) has ended 7 years after the ban was lifted, and it was the most prolonged war in Israel's history, way more than the six days of the six-day war, for example.
Click to expand...

The Yom Kippur War saw the second largest tank battle in history. Had a battle that big, sense?

Mostly a large collection of firefights, spread out over 15 odd years. It's like comparing Desert Storm to WW2.
 
MSgt said:
Here is the fact: The military has never conducted a study to see and prepare for life post DADT.
Click to expand...

Aheemmm they have been studying the issue of gays in the millitary for some time:

1.In 1957, the secretary of the navy appointed a panel to investigate its homosexual exclusion policy. The outcome, known as the Crittenden report, stated that “the number of cases of blackmail as a result of past investigations of homosexuals in negligible” and “no factual data exist to support the contention that homosexuals are a greater risk than heterosexuals.”i

What Does the Empirical Research Say about the Impact of Openly Gay Service on the Military? | Palm Center
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, what I am suggesting is that the President and Congress should decide to rescind those policies, or that a judge should decide that they're unlawful, and that you guys should have to live with that. No more studies (they've already been done), no more debates (they've already been had), no more mealy-mouthed bull**** about unit cohesion (prohibit disruptive relationships, no matter the gender or orientation involved).
Click to expand...

That's abolutely, the worst approach.
 
Israel has a very liberal attitude towards different sexual lifestyles.

As for the IDF, the policy here can best be described as... You can tell, but we really don't care.
 
winston53660 said:
Aheemmm they have been studying the issue of gays in the millitary for some time:

1.In 1957, the secretary of the navy appointed a panel to investigate its homosexual exclusion policy. The outcome, known as the Crittenden report, stated that “the number of cases of blackmail as a result of past investigations of homosexuals in negligible” and “no factual data exist to support the contention that homosexuals are a greater risk than heterosexuals.”i

What Does the Empirical Research Say about the Impact of Openly Gay Service on the Military? | Palm Center
Click to expand...

Oh..."aheemmm"...allow me to quote exactly what I stated....."The military has never conducted a study to see and prepare for life post DADT." Here, I will do it again...."The military has never conducted a study to see and prepare for life post DADT."

With your quote, that's three times in one post. What I stated was clear and I addressed the post-DADT world. DADT changed everything and encouraged a zeal to make sure gays no longer existed within the military. Never has the military done an extensive study to determine a post DADT military. This current study (which most civilians seem clueless of) is about implimenting that world, not whether or not it can happen.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom