• 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

apdst said:
That's why I inserted, "IMO", which means, "in my opinion".
Click to expand...

And I pointed out it is an opinion based on a complete lack of facts.
 
BCR said:
you feel that a Homosexual will negatively effect a unit? If so then that's not the gay persons fault, that's just his fellow soilders intolerence's fault.
Click to expand...

You don't know that it's not the gay soldier's fault. You're only making an assumption that gays are superior to straights and that all straights are homophobes. What are you going to say when a gay soldier refuses to billet with straight soldiers, because he/she fears for his/her safety? Or, because under the DoD's sexual harassment policy they have the right to, "a safe and comfortable working and living environment"? What are you going to say if the military does designate gay only billets and a gay soldiers is raped by a bunk mate? And, let's don't pretend that gay rape doesn't occur. I think alot of you are failing to see the big picture.

Ask, Oscar, as an officer; does he really have time to deal with one his gay soldiers being raped by another gay soldier and how would that detract from the normal operations of his unit?

you feel that it will harm our integrity? What, we going to get called names on the battlefield because we all homosexuals to fight?
Click to expand...

No, but a gay soldier, who has been ridiculed by his fellow squad members, might be a little slow with suppressing fire when one or more of those soldiers needs him the most, or vice versa. Can you picture, from that one scenario, how the lack of cohesion can get people killed?

I just don't see a reason to be against, The only reason you'd be against is because you don't like Gay people. Of course you and the fellow vets won't admit that but it's obvious.
Click to expand...

A narrow mind usually sees things that way. Most combat vets and vets that have served in combat arms units, tell you you're wrong, but, in your mind, we're all just a buncha homophobes?
 
Redress said:
And this ban is where?
Click to expand...

Defense Directive 1332.14 and Article 125 of the UCMJ. You should already be familiar with this information, petty officer.


You may want to also familiarize yourself with AR 600-20, chapter 4-19 of The Army's Command Policy.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Defense Directive 1332.14 and Article 125 of the UCMJ. You should already be familiar with this information, petty officer.
Click to expand...

Defense Directive 1332.14 is DADT itself, Article 125 is sodomy, which has nothing to do with gays serving. Try again.
 
Redress said:
Defense Directive 1332.14 is DADT itself, Article 125 is sodomy, which has nothing to do with gays serving. Try again.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!!!! Reagan wrote the Defense Directive 1332.14, which stated that, "homosexuality is incompatable with military service". It was Defense Directive 1304.26, inacted by Clinton that put DADT in place.

Also, the UCMJ, signed off on by Truman, in 1950, establishes the policies for disacharging gays from the military.
 
Last edited:
Lawrence versus Texas.

Case closed.

People tend to forget that sodomy was ruled as Constitutionally protected after DADT was implemented. The old uniform codes have no standing. DADT was the only thing left.
 
CriticalThought said:
Lawrence versus Texas.

Case closed.

People tend to forget that sodomy was ruled as Constitutionally protected after DADT was implemented. The old uniform codes have no standing. DADT was the only thing left.
Click to expand...

One person's sodomy is another person's good time!
 
CriticalThought said:
Lawrence versus Texas.

Case closed.

People tend to forget that sodomy was ruled as Constitutionally protected after DADT was implemented. The old uniform codes have no standing. DADT was the only thing left.
Click to expand...

When I was growing up here in Texas we use to joke about BJs being illegal.
 
BCR said:
Are there any valid reasons to keep DADT in place?
Click to expand...

Not really. The ongoing military inquiries are more about how to do deal with its abolishment rather than whether it should be abolished.
 
MSgt said:
Not really. The ongoing military inquiries are more about how to do deal with its abolishment rather than whether it should be abolished.
Click to expand...

And, I'm thinking that the Lefties aren't going to be real happy with the conclusions they come to.
 
BCR said:
none of those reasons seem completely valid or logical to me.
Click to expand...

Consider what you are basing your opinion on. Is it based on any soldier/Marine experience? These are very logical reasons for this part of the military. It is so logical that even President Obama can appreciate that the military needed time to adapt and to make a plan for the future. We aren't talking about a few civilian co-workers in Wal-Mart who have to tolerate each other for 9 hours a day if their shifts coincide. We are talking about a 24 hour closeness and comraderie in a couple alpha male military organizations that simply do not see homosexuality as manly. It's a matter of adjusting to new traditional definitions.

BCR said:
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...

It's not a matter of "liking" it (and most do not). It's about accepting the inevitable.
 
Why is it that you can train an individual to become a professional dispenser of death and destruction in a handful of months, but figuring out the best way to deal with gay people takes years?
 
apdst said:
And, I'm thinking that the Lefties aren't going to be real happy with the conclusions they come to.
Click to expand...

Well, the Left is a fickle bunch mostly concerned with ideology and fantastical dreams of utopia. They will always find something to be unhappy about. But I'm not so sure that DADT is going to last much longer. I'd have to place two bets on this one...

1) DADT will not go away, but be redefined. I say this because part of me doesn't believe that Obama wants to risk a rift between him and the military, especially in a time of war where he needs our support. With Clinton as an example and a recentfiring of a General for being less than professional, it's seems more than possible that this issue will be left for the next President.

2) DADT will go away because the Marine Corps and Army have been accepting the inevitable as today's generation of youthful recruits are far more tolerant of what has been blasted at them. Consider what homosexuality was on television and film in the 80s versus how it is portrayed today. There's also the fact that the flamboyant "Just Jacks" of Will and Grace are only found in the Navy and Air Force. The typical gay that joins the Army or Marine Corps blends in. Of course, serving open will change a few things, but like I stated, recruits since the mid-nineties have been different than past generations.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Why is it that you can train an individual to become a professional dispenser of death and destruction in a handful of months, but figuring out the best way to deal with gay people takes years?
Click to expand...

Yep. I guess teaching someone how to dehumanize people so you can kill them is easier than making sure that you and your comrades in arms treat each other with respect and dignity.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
I say this because part of me doesn't believe that Obama wants to risk a rift between him and the military, especially in a time of war where he needs our support.
Click to expand...

The President spoke against DADT months ago.
 
MSgt said:
1) DADT will not go away, but be redefined. I say this because part of me doesn't believe that Obama wants to risk a rift between him and the military, especially in a time of war where he needs our support. With Clinton as an example and a recentfiring of a General for being less than professional, it's seems more than possible that this issue will be left for the next President.
Click to expand...

In what universe does the Commander in Chief need to appease the military in order to maintain their support in a time of war?

He doesn't need your support. He needs your obedience. Are you going to withhold your obedience while we're fighting two wars in the middle east?
 
How have other countries that do allow homosexuals to serve in their ranks dealt with the situation?

Presence of Openly Gay Soldiers in IDF Does Not Undermine Unit Social Cohesion
June 6, 2010
Danny Kaplan, Amir Rosenmann
Research Report Submitted to the Michael D. Palm Center



The study can be found in .pdf form here.

Highlights: This study examines the correlation between the presence of gay and lesbian soldiers in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and measures of unit social cohesion, following a survey of 417 combat and non-combat male soldiers conducted in 2000, seven years after IDF restrictions on gay personnel were terminated. The argument that openly gay soldiers could undermine unit cohesion rests on a particular understanding of cohesion as a social factor based on interpersonal emotions between unit members. It argues that once unit members acknowledge the presence of a homosexual soldier among them their sense of closeness and affection for each other would drop. Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) such lowered social cohesion is considered an "unacceptable risk," irrespective of its possible impact on combat effectiveness. The study tests this social dimension of the cohesion rationale by applying a measure of social cohesion based on interpersonal emotions toward unit members. As an army constantly in the thick of combat, the IDF provides an operative test case for the effect of openly gay service on social cohesion. We examined whether knowledge of gay and lesbian soldiers in combat and non-combat positions correlates with reduced measure of social cohesion.
Palm Center
Click to expand...
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Why is it that you can train an individual to become a professional dispenser of death and destruction in a handful of months, but figuring out the best way to deal with gay people takes years?
Click to expand...

It's not hard to understand. Just think about it honestly.

Training people to perform a duty is easy. Training people to change their personal views is something else. Why was it such a struggle for Americans to get through civil rights? A couple centuries of slavery and another century of racial segregation trained people of all color to think a certain way. Now apply this to homosexuality. Has it been an accepted manner of lifestyle in the American culture ever? All the senior leaders (commissioned and non-commissioned) in the military grew up understanding a certain thing about homosexuality. You didn't have to be religious to be taught to frown upon it. Any American with a television set was taught that it was a subject of ridicule. In the 80s it was associated with AIDS. By the 90s' even Will and Grace, which centered around a homnosexual theme, chose to portray them as limp wristed and girlie. Today people are actually stunned that an alpha male Army/Marine Corps can'tjust flip the switch of acceptance in a society that still frowns upon it and most prefer that they only have some rights rather than full rights.

But I've stated this all before. That's why many are seeking the military to force acceptance for the entire society once again.
 
BDBoop said:
The President spoke against DADT months ago.
Click to expand...

President Obama say's many things to appease the crowd. Then he passes off responsibility to a panel to take unofficial responsibility.
 
The Uncola said:
Yep. I guess teaching someone how to dehumanize people so you can kill them is easier than making sure that you and your comrades in arms treat each other with respect and dignity.
Click to expand...

We aren't taught how to dehumanize people. Have you ever been in a fight? Did you have to dehumanize him to punch him?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
In what universe does the Commander in Chief need to appease the military in order to maintain their support in a time of war?

He doesn't need your support. He needs your obedience. Are you going to withhold your obedience while we're fighting two wars in the middle east?
Click to expand...

Morale is as much the CIC's responsibility, as anyone else's, in the chain of command. The CIC can't afford to inact decisions that could possibly destroy morale.
 
MSgt said:
It's not hard to understand. Just think about it honestly.

Training people to perform a duty is easy. Training people to change their personal views is something else. Why was it such a struggle for Americans to get through civil rights? A couple centuries of slavery and another century of racial segregation trained people of all color to think a certain way. Now apply this to homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Okay, I've got it. You guys aren't professional enough to see past your personal prejudices with respect to homosexuality. That makes sense.

Too bad the IDF is more professional than our own military, it would've been nice to see that kind of professionalism here at home.
 
apdst said:
Morale is as much the CIC's responsibility, as anyone else's, in the chain of command. The CIC can't afford to inact decisions that could possibly destroy morale.
Click to expand...

So in other words, obedience will be withheld during the fighting of two wars over anti-gay prejudices?
 
MSgt said:
President Obama say's many things to appease the crowd. Then he passes off responsibility to a panel to take unofficial responsibility.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry. I had no clue you were one of the neocons. Off to ignore with you - you're in good company, no worries. Every neocon on the board is in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom