• 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

VanceMack said:
Really? 75% of the country wants that? When most every state that has gay marriage put to a ballot has elected to ban gay marriage?

Oh the things we do to appease 2% of the country.
Click to expand...

Damn constitution!

Damn bill of rights!

Damn judicial branch!


We should get back to the way our Christian founding fathers wanted things to be!!

There's no checks or balances in the Bible and there's only one judge!

Well, actually 3. If St Peter won't let you in, you can appeal to Jesus, then petition God. But He only hears cases based on old Testament law.
 
I can't believe I am going to post this. But after examining the issue I can't say that I support DADT anymore. I do think it's wrong to force people to keep their sexuality secret and ban their partners from military functions. DADT should be removed.
 
digsbe said:
I can't believe I am going to post this. But after examining the issue I can't say that I support DADT anymore. I do think it's wrong to force people to keep their sexuality secret and ban their partners from military functions. DADT should be removed.
Click to expand...

Yikes some one call 911;)
 
Are there any valid reasons to keep DADT in place?
 
BCR said:
Are there any valid reasons to keep DADT in place?
Click to expand...

The typical list...

1. Letting gays serve openly could harm unit cohesion.
2. Letting gays serve openly could harm retention and recruitment.
3. We haven't heard from the soldiers about how they feel. (The Pentagon study is due to be released in December after the elections)
4. We will have to segregate gays from the rest of the population with special facilities.
5. It harms the integrity of the military.
6. The military might have to provide benefits to the spouses of enlisted gay men and women.
7. Most military commanders don't like the idea of having gays serving openly in the military.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
The typical list...

1. Letting gays serve openly could harm unit cohesion.
2. Letting gays serve openly could harm retention and recruitment.
3. We haven't heard from the soldiers about how they feel. (The Pentagon study is due to be released in December after the elections)
4. We will have to segregate gays from the rest of the population with special facilities.
5. It harms the integrity of the military.
6. The military might have to provide benefits to the spouses of enlisted gay men and women.
7. Most military commanders don't like the idea of having gays serving openly in the military.
Click to expand...

none of those reasons seem completely valid or logical to me.
I doubt their is any evidence to suggest that Gay people negatively effect a unit's cohesion.
Recruits will have to work with gay people once they get out into civilian world so that makes no sense.
How the soldiers feel about it is largely irrelevant because this is a minority equal rights issuie.
I don't understand why gays would need special facillities, I mean aren't military showers basically in and out? (I imagine scheduling different shower times wouldn't be an icebreaker anyways)
To think allowing gay people to serve harms the integrity of our military is pretty pathetic.
Of course they would have to provide the same benefits as a straight couple would recieve, only fair.
I highly doubt most commanders would not like the idea of Gays serving openly, from what I have heard many actually would like to see it repealed.
 
MSgt said:
There are abbreviations. None of which reduces the rank to a former rank. A Sergeant is a Sergeant. No matter how many stripes, soldiers are always simply "Sergeant."

And "Sergeant First Class" may be why soldiers reduce it to "Sergeant." It is far more practical to call some one Sergeant and then Staff Sergeant and then Gunnery Sergeant (or Gunz) and then Master Sergeant (or Top) and then Master Guns.
Click to expand...

Its a part of Army Regulation that E-5 through E-7 be called "Sergeant".... anyone above that is Master Sergeant, First Sergeant, or Sergeant Major (We don't call Command Sergeant Majors their full rank either).
 
Does anyone of these detractors want to address the fact that thousands of gay servicemen exist and it hasnt harmed the military? You can argue unit cohesion but there are plenty of differences between soldiers that they ignore already: race, religion, gender, pay, background, social status, political opinions, personal opinions, etc etc etc. They are all points which soldiers may disagree and harm unit cohesion, but somehow they still function because we are ADULTS.
 
CriticalThought said:
How dare this activist judge does what 75% of the country wants! How dare she stand up for free speech! This is an atrocity and will have severe repercussions! It will be massive sodomy throughout the ranks!
Click to expand...

75% of the country isn't in the military. This is a decision for the military to make. Only the military can make a sound decision on this issue, plus they are the ones that have to deal with the consequences of any decision on DADT. Not some radical judge in Cali, trying to score PC brownie point with her Libbo pals.
 
apdst said:
75% of the country isn't in the military. This is a decision for the military to make. Only the military can make a sound decision on this issue, plus they are the ones that have to deal with the consequences of any decision on DADT. Not some radical judge in Cali, trying to score PC brownie point with her Libbo pals.
Click to expand...

Funny how public opinion only matters when it's convenient for some people...
 
BCR said:
none of those reasons seem completely valid or logical to me.
I doubt their is any evidence to suggest that Gay people negatively effect a unit's cohesion.
Recruits will have to work with gay people once they get out into civilian world so that makes no sense.
How the soldiers feel about it is largely irrelevant because this is a minority equal rights issuie.
I don't understand why gays would need special facillities, I mean aren't military showers basically in and out? (I imagine scheduling different shower times wouldn't be an icebreaker anyways)
To think allowing gay people to serve harms the integrity of our military is pretty pathetic.
Of course they would have to provide the same benefits as a straight couple would recieve, only fair.
I highly doubt most commanders would not like the idea of Gays serving openly, from what I have heard many actually would like to see it repealed.
Click to expand...

Yet, most vets on this board, along with the JCS, say they are valid reasons. We're all wrong?!?
 
apdst said:
75% of the country isn't in the military. This is a decision for the military to make. Only the military can make a sound decision on this issue, plus they are the ones that have to deal with the consequences of any decision on DADT. Not some radical judge in Cali, trying to score PC brownie point with her Libbo pals.
Click to expand...

It's not the type of decision historically made by the military, nor should it be.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Funny how public opinion only matters when it's convenient for some people...
Click to expand...

I've never factored in public opinion, when it comes to decisions being made about our military. There less referendum on our military, than any other aspect of our country.
 
Redress said:
It's not the type of decision historically made by the military, nor should it be.
Click to expand...

It very well should be. What shouldn't happen, is some PC nazi judge shouldn't be able to dictate military regulations. A court of appeals has zero jurisdiction over the US military, that is why the military has courts martials, the UCMJ and the articles of war.
 
apdst said:
75% of the country isn't in the military. This is a decision for the military to make. Only the military can make a sound decision on this issue, plus they are the ones that have to deal with the consequences of any decision on DADT. Not some radical judge in Cali, trying to score PC brownie point with her Libbo pals.
Click to expand...

Well, this is what you get for living in a society of law -- sometimes, somebody you never met is going to tell you what to do, and they're going to have the authority to do so.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yep.

It's crazy how having other people agree with you when you're wrong doesn't make you right, isn't it?
Click to expand...

So, if 7 out 10 mechnics say the same thing is wrong with your car, you're going to assume they wrong? How much sense does that make?
 
Jetboogieman said:
Funny how public opinion only matters when it's convenient for some people...
Click to expand...

yeah funny how public opinion (like the voters of CA opinion on gay marriage) only matters when it's convenient for some people. :lol:

note, I don't give a rat's ass either way about gay marriage. I just find it ironic that some people who use "public opinion" as an arguement to end DADT are some of the same people that argue against the voter's of CA because they voted against gay marriage.
 
OscarB63 said:
yeah funny how public opinion (like the voters of CA opinion on gay marriage) only matters when it's convenient for some people. :lol:

note, I don't give a rat's ass either way about gay marriage. I just find it ironic that some people who use "public opinion" as an arguement to end DADT are some of the same people that argue against the voter's of CA because they voted against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Precisely, which is why I discount polls and surveys for any argument in the subjects.

I was just pointing out the hypocracy you were :)
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Well, this is what you get for living in a society of law -- sometimes, somebody you never met is going to tell you what to do, and they're going to have the authority to do so.
Click to expand...

Except, this isn't one of those times.

I think everyone should just accept that DADT is going to be around for a while. If this stunt would have worked, they would have done it a long time ago. This is nothing but a ploy to put DADT back in the headlines, since it was obviously dropped from view.
 
apdst said:
It very well should be. What shouldn't happen, is some PC nazi judge shouldn't be able to dictate military regulations. A court of appeals has zero jurisdiction over the US military, that is why the military has courts martials, the UCMJ and the articles of war.
Click to expand...

The court of appeals has every jurisdiction over US laws, and that is what is at issue, a US law. You are entirely, 100 % factually incorrect.
 
apdst said:
It very well should be. What shouldn't happen, is some PC nazi judge shouldn't be able to dictate military regulations. A court of appeals has zero jurisdiction over the US military, that is why the military has courts martials, the UCMJ and the articles of war.
Click to expand...

There is not a single person within the jurisdiction of the United States who is not subject to the law, and the Constitution is pretty clear about which is the highest code of law in the land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom