• 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!

Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

Redress said:
Did that. Now you show something.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. Might wanna start trying.

You are wrong on pretty much everything you have said, and offered no evidence to show otherwise.
Click to expand...

Anyone that has ever served in the military, especially in a leadership position knows that the last standing regulation takes effect, when the current regulation is countermanded. Anyone that doesn't know that, didn't make it past the rank of E-3, or is lieing when they say they served in the military.
 
apdst said:
No, you didn't. Might wanna start trying.



Anyone that has ever served in the military, especially in a leadership position knows that the last standing regulation takes effect, when the current regulation is countermanded. Anyone that doesn't know that, didn't make it past the rank of E-3, or is lieing when they say they served in the military.
Click to expand...

You need to face reality, DOD is the one who is conducting the current review in progress so that they can figure out the problems that might come from allowing gays to serve openly in the military, not just the repeal of DADT. Much of the upper brass of the military is for allowing gays to serve openly. This tells me, that when it comes down to it, it is most likely that the military itself will change any rules or orders that may be necessary to ensure that gays can serve openly. It is not very likely that Congress would take it very well if they repealed all the codes/acts/whatever on their part to ensure that gays can serve openly, but then the military decides to go ahead and try to prevent that from happening. The military is still accountable to Congress, the SCOTUS, and most importantly, the President, who is the CIC.
 
Here's the problem the top guys in Washington are concerned with... if gays serve openly.

First off... motivating the enemy is a problem and we can't forget who we're fighting. Everyone knows Muslims are homophobes who would just as soon shoot a gay man as look at him. The brass are thinking the timing isn't quite right for this.... We gotta either pull out first or else kill all the muslims.

There are some other considerations aside from the current war...

#1. There will be significantly less "bubbas" joining up... and we need our bubbas because they're some bad ass mother ****ers who have no problem going into tough/hot spots where the enemy needs killing...

#2. There will be a whole lot more "ruperts" joining up. We need our ruperts too because the military can't exist without cooks, clerks, nurses... etc

So the end result could be a need for a draft.... which we all know the libs aint gonna let happen. Damn it!! They're also thinking they might need to significantly increase the payscale and give more bonuses to the combat troops... to keep them in and coming in.

These are the kinda thoughts going on in these Generals minds as they consider this issue. They're concerned there will be a major decrease in volunteers needed to fill all the more risky military occupations. The armed forces will have just a few guys joining up for the infantry and will be saturated with support forces. Now on the surface, that doesn't seem like much of a problem since less than 10% of the military actually see combat anyway... and now days we use drones, napalm...etc

However, the DOD knows the most important thing [for national security] is how our enemys perceive us as a threat. Will they come to view us as a strong tough force ready and willing to fight or some kinda patsy that they can now push around???

Another thing... the Joint Chiefs [after smoking some really good bud] worry that General Petreas is a closet gay and if he comes out in the open... the afghans will surrender their best looking taliban dudes to seduce our commander into pulling all our troops out early.

AND if that happens we'll need another war... so we'll finally invade Iran and those sumbiches would like nothing better than to kill off all our gay soldiers.

I do want to add a disclaimer to this... my wife tells me I'm suffering from dementia so I may not be thinking clearly and there might be one or two flaws to this "logic".
 
Obamanator said:
Here's the problem the top guys in Washington are concerned with... if gays serve openly.

First off... motivating the enemy is a problem and we can't forget who we're fighting. Everyone knows Muslims are homophobes who would just as soon shoot a gay man as look at him. The brass are thinking the timing isn't quite right for this.... We gotta either pull out first or else kill all the muslims.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but

WHAT!?!?!?!

Even if I were to concede your point that we'd be putting gays in harms way, Aren't all soldiers regardless of anything still in harms way?

Sorry ass excuse for an argument.

There are some other considerations aside from the current war...

#1. There will be significantly less "bubbas" joining up... and we need our bubbas because they're some bad ass mother ****ers who have no problem going into tough/hot spots where the enemy needs killing...
Click to expand...

Bubba must be flattered.

Why can't a gay man be a bad ass mother ****er. I know some gay guys that would beat up the toughest straight guys I know.

#2. There will be a whole lot more "ruperts" joining up. We need our ruperts too because the military can't exist without cooks, clerks, nurses... etc
Click to expand...

Just the fact this is what you have to say, disqualifies you from rational debate.

These are the kinda thoughts going on in these Generals minds as they consider this issue. They're concerned there will be a major decrease in volunteers needed to fill all the more risky military occupations. The armed forces will have just a few guys joining up for the infantry and will be saturated with support forces. Now on the surface, that doesn't seem like much of a problem since less than 10% of the military actually see combat anyway... and now days we use drones, napalm...etc
Click to expand...

We still use napalm? :confused

Absolute bollocks, show one piece of credible evidence that suggests that recruitment would go down if gays were allowed to serve openly (gays serve anyway)

However, the DOD knows the most important thing [for national security] is how our enemys perceive us as a threat. Will they come to view us as a strong tough force ready and willing to fight or some kinda patsy that they can now push around???
Click to expand...

What's that?

More baseless homophobic nonsense.

I do want to add a disclaimer to this... my wife tells me I'm suffering from dementia so I may not be thinking clearly and there might be one or two flaws to this "logic".
Click to expand...

I'd say she's not wrong there buddy.
 
Funny how people use whichever stereotype fits the current conversation. Against openly serving gays? Talk about them being wimpy limp-wristed types. Ignore the other stereotype of totally ripped gay dude.
 
roguenuke said:
You need to face reality, DOD is the one who is conducting the current review in progress so that they can figure out the problems that might come from allowing gays to serve openly in the military, not just the repeal of DADT. Much of the upper brass of the military is for allowing gays to serve openly. This tells me, that when it comes down to it, it is most likely that the military itself will change any rules or orders that may be necessary to ensure that gays can serve openly. It is not very likely that Congress would take it very well if they repealed all the codes/acts/whatever on their part to ensure that gays can serve openly, but then the military decides to go ahead and try to prevent that from happening. The military is still accountable to Congress, the SCOTUS, and most importantly, the President, who is the CIC.
Click to expand...

Then, how 'bout everybody chill the hell out and let them finish the review, rather than launching a crusade?

Much of the upper brass of the military is for allowing gays to serve openly.
Click to expand...

Care to show us some docs supporting that opinion?

It is not very likely that Congress would take it very well if they repealed all the codes/acts/whatever on their part to ensure that gays can serve openly, but then the military decides to go ahead and try to prevent that from happening. The military is still accountable to Congress, the SCOTUS, and most importantly, the President, who is the CIC.
Click to expand...

Neither Congress, nor the Supreme Court establish DoD regulations. Neither of them have anything to do with the UCMJ.

It seems that I'm not the one who needs to face reality.
 
Obamanator said:
Here's the problem the top guys in Washington are concerned with... if gays serve openly.

First off... motivating the enemy is a problem and we can't forget who we're fighting. Everyone knows Muslims are homophobes who would just as soon shoot a gay man as look at him. The brass are thinking the timing isn't quite right for this.... We gotta either pull out first or else kill all the muslims.

There are some other considerations aside from the current war...

#1. There will be significantly less "bubbas" joining up... and we need our bubbas because they're some bad ass mother ****ers who have no problem going into tough/hot spots where the enemy needs killing...

#2. There will be a whole lot more "ruperts" joining up. We need our ruperts too because the military can't exist without cooks, clerks, nurses... etc

So the end result could be a need for a draft.... which we all know the libs aint gonna let happen. Damn it!! They're also thinking they might need to significantly increase the payscale and give more bonuses to the combat troops... to keep them in and coming in.

These are the kinda thoughts going on in these Generals minds as they consider this issue. They're concerned there will be a major decrease in volunteers needed to fill all the more risky military occupations. The armed forces will have just a few guys joining up for the infantry and will be saturated with support forces. Now on the surface, that doesn't seem like much of a problem since less than 10% of the military actually see combat anyway... and now days we use drones, napalm...etc

However, the DOD knows the most important thing [for national security] is how our enemys perceive us as a threat. Will they come to view us as a strong tough force ready and willing to fight or some kinda patsy that they can now push around???

Another thing... the Joint Chiefs [after smoking some really good bud] worry that General Petreas is a closet gay and if he comes out in the open... the afghans will surrender their best looking taliban dudes to seduce our commander into pulling all our troops out early.

AND if that happens we'll need another war... so we'll finally invade Iran and those sumbiches would like nothing better than to kill off all our gay soldiers.

I do want to add a disclaimer to this... my wife tells me I'm suffering from dementia so I may not be thinking clearly and there might be one or two flaws to this "logic".
Click to expand...

I'm betting that if gays are allowed to serve openly, that there will be MOS restictions placed on them, just like the no combat arms restrictions that have been placed on female soldiers.

The Commandant of The Marine Corps has already suggested the need for seperate billets for gay and straight personel.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I'm sorry but

WHAT!?!?!?!

Even if I were to concede your point that we'd be putting gays in harms way, Aren't all soldiers regardless of anything still in harms way?

Sorry ass excuse for an argument.
Click to expand...

Because Muslims are homophobes. Homosexual behavior is met with the death penalty in most Muslim countries.



Bubba must be flattered.

Why can't a gay man be a bad ass mother ****er. [/b]I know some gay guys that would beat up the toughest straight guys I know.[/b]
Click to expand...

They might get a bullet to their grape, during a firefight, too.


Just the fact this is what you have to say, disqualifies you from rational debate.
Click to expand...

You don't even know who, "Rupert", is, do you?



We still use napalm? :confused
Click to expand...

We use FEW's--Fuel Air Weapons. Might as well call it napalm, because it does the same damn thing.

Absolute bollocks, show one piece of credible evidence that suggests that recruitment would go down if gays were allowed to serve openly (gays serve anyway)
Click to expand...

Show one piece of credible evidence that says recruitment would go up.



What's that?

More baseless homophobic nonsense.



I'd say she's not wrong there buddy.
Click to expand...

And, the grand finally of personal attacks. Speaking of, "rationale debate".
 
apdst said:
Because Muslims are homophobes. Homosexual behavior is met with the death penalty in most Muslim countries.
Click to expand...

Surely Jews must also be homophobes then. Their book says the same thing. How come you never mention Jews?
 
apdst said:
Because Muslims are homophobes. Homosexual behavior is met with the death penalty in most Muslim countries.
Click to expand...

You do know that several Christian country's in Africa have the death penalty for homosexuality, right?
 
apdst said:
I'm betting that if gays are allowed to serve openly, that there will be MOS restictions placed on them, just like the no combat arms restrictions that have been placed on female soldiers.

The Commandant of The Marine Corps has already suggested the need for seperate billets for gay and straight personel.
Click to expand...

Why would they have any need to place MOS restrictions on gays. Gay men are already in those MOSs. If they are proving that they can do the job, then why keep them out? Anyone who is uncomfortable with serving with guys that they know are gay are the ones with the problem. Especially if we are talking about guys that these guys have already been serving with.

There are a lot of reasons that women are not in combat MOSs, the very least of which is the potential for a relationship. Women are physically weaker than men. In our society, women are a distraction to most men. Many American men are taught from birth to respect and protect women. And many of those that aren't, don't respect women at all. Women can get pregnant. Women have a monthly period. Not one of these things applies to gay men. And the potential for a relationship, while there, is very small just because of the other rules that the military has concerning fraternization and the fact that many of these guys know that if they are in a relationship that could negatively effect morale, then they could be causing damage to their unit.

There is no reason to have separate billets and/or heads/showers for gays and straights. There really wouldn't be any way to do this completely anyway. Some gays are going to want to stay in the closet, and just because they can declare they are gay doesn't mean they will have to. But the main point is that nobody does this. It isn't done in the civilian world, nor is it done in any military that already allows gays to serve openly. Gays and straights already share spaces. There is no biological difference between gays and straights of the same sex, unlike men and women who have several biological differences.
 
roguenuke said:
Why would they have any need to place MOS restrictions on gays. Gay men are already in those MOSs. If they are proving that they can do the job, then why keep them out? Anyone who is uncomfortable with serving with guys that they know are gay are the ones with the problem. Especially if we are talking about guys that these guys have already been serving with.

There are a lot of reasons that women are not in combat MOSs, the very least of which is the potential for a relationship. Women are physically weaker than men. In our society, women are a distraction to most men. Many American men are taught from birth to respect and protect women. And many of those that aren't, don't respect women at all. Women can get pregnant. Women have a monthly period. Not one of these things applies to gay men. And the potential for a relationship, while there, is very small just because of the other rules that the military has concerning fraternization and the fact that many of these guys know that if they are in a relationship that could negatively effect morale, then they could be causing damage to their unit.
Click to expand...

The reason for resticting gays from combat arms MOS's is the same reason that females are restricted from combat arms MOS's: too much potential for a breakdown in discipline. It's more to do with discipline and unit cohesion than on a woman's ability to be an infantry soldier.

There is no reason to have separate billets and/or heads/showers for gays and straights. There really wouldn't be any way to do this completely anyway. Some gays are going to want to stay in the closet, and just because they can declare they are gay doesn't mean they will have to. But the main point is that nobody does this. It isn't done in the civilian world, nor is it done in any military that already allows gays to serve openly. Gays and straights already share spaces. There is no biological difference between gays and straights of the same sex, unlike men and women who have several biological differences.
Click to expand...

Well, it will become a neccessity, when straight soldiers refuse to billet with gay soldiers and gay soldiers refuse to billet with straight soldiers. The living quarters situation is going to cause more hassle that, in my opinion, it's worth.
 
LINK - Judge Rejects Feds’ Request to Keep Enforcing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
Judge Virginia Phillips issued a tentative ruling Monday rejecting the federal government's request to stop her injunction on "don't ask, don't tell."

Judge Phillips said, "The arguments by the government are vague" and failed to show that an injunction would harm military readiness or troop cohesion, pointing out that she ordered the military to stop kicking out gays, which doesn't prohibit them from crafting a better policy. She plans to issue her final decision about rejecting the stay early today.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
The reason for resticting gays from combat arms MOS's is the same reason that females are restricted from combat arms MOS's: too much potential for a breakdown in discipline. It's more to do with discipline and unit cohesion than on a woman's ability to be an infantry soldier.
Click to expand...

Prove this.

There are men and women that serve together in other units where they don't have issues with discipline and unit cohesion. These have become excuses and fall backs for keeping gays out of the military and off the battlefield. If you believe this, then show proof. Don't just state that it is fact without something to back it up. And you need to include how women and gay men would cause the same discipline and unit cohesion problems if you are saying that they should be treated the same as far as keeping them out of certain MOSs. As I have stated, there are plenty of reasons to keep women out of combat, and I'm sure that I can find some studies to back this up. Gay men already serve in combat units.

apdst said:
Well, it will become a neccessity, when straight soldiers refuse to billet with gay soldiers and gay soldiers refuse to billet with straight soldiers. The living quarters situation is going to cause more hassle that, in my opinion, it's worth.
Click to expand...

Prove this also.

I highly doubt that very many soldiers will refuse to billet with other soldiers due to their sexuality. A few may have problems with it. The thing is, they are doing it now. Also, if someone is refusing to share quarters with someone, isn't that their issue? Aren't there ways to deal with these things already? I'm sure there are some racist guys out there who don't want to share quarters with guys of a different race, but they still have to. Why should this be different?
 
roguenuke said:
Prove this.

There are men and women that serve together in other units where they don't have issues with discipline and unit cohesion. These have become excuses and fall backs for keeping gays out of the military and off the battlefield. If you believe this, then show proof. Don't just state that it is fact without something to back it up. And you need to include how women and gay men would cause the same discipline and unit cohesion problems if you are saying that they should be treated the same as far as keeping them out of certain MOSs. As I have stated, there are plenty of reasons to keep women out of combat, and I'm sure that I can find some studies to back this up. Gay men already serve in combat units.



Prove this also.

I highly doubt that very many soldiers will refuse to billet with other soldiers due to their sexuality. A few may have problems with it. The thing is, they are doing it now. Also, if someone is refusing to share quarters with someone, isn't that their issue? Aren't there ways to deal with these things already? I'm sure there are some racist guys out there who don't want to share quarters with guys of a different race, but they still have to. Why should this be different?
Click to expand...

apdst's argument is logical, but there is no data yet. We'll see what happens in the coming years, but from a purely analytical perspective I would have to agree with apdst.

Also, WTF would anyone want to join the military? There goes my excuse if there is ever a draft, guess I'll have to work on the "back problems" excuse ....
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
apdst's argument is logical, but there is no data yet. We'll see what happens in the coming years, but from a purely analytical perspective I would have to agree with apdst.

Also, WTF would anyone want to join the military? There goes my excuse if there is ever a draft, guess I'll have to work on the "back problems" excuse ....
Click to expand...

No offense, as I like the tone of your post a lot. But I don't think his arguemnt is that logical. I'm not sure females have been proven to be responsible for any break down in discipline and think that they're being limited has more to do with our cultural position than anything factual. And gays are not at all female. There is no reason to think gays and striaghts will be willingly having sex and do anything other than their jobs. As they have been living together all this time, nothing would really change at all.

Again, I mean no offense and to appreaciate a reasonable tone.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
apdst's argument is logical, but there is no data yet. We'll see what happens in the coming years, but from a purely analytical perspective I would have to agree with apdst.

Also, WTF would anyone want to join the military? There goes my excuse if there is ever a draft, guess I'll have to work on the "back problems" excuse ....
Click to expand...

It's not logical though, since gay men currently serve in every unit that has straight men. You would need data that showed that the reasons that most gay men got discharged was because they couldn't actually do the job and/or that their relationships were causing a problem with discipline/morale, not just because they were gay. Because a gay man is not physically the same as a woman, gay or straight. A gay man is physically a man. The only difference between a gay man and a straight man is who they are attracted to.

And I want some specific examples of how either discipline or morale are negatively affected by having women or gay men in a unit, if you guys are so sure that it happens. Especially in reference to gay men. Saying that there will be inappropriate relationships or unwanted sexual advances is not good enough, since there are already other rules in place to deal with these. And if it is just because some people may be uncomfortable or feel like someone is checking them out, then that is his problem. The person who is uncomfortable needs to have enough discipline to be more tolerant and do his job.

Also, there are many reasons why people would join the military. And I bet there are many reasons why people wouldn't join the military. I highly doubt that one of the main reasons for anyone feeling either way is that they won't/would have to work with/share living spaces with gays. If someone is that uncomfortable with homosexuality, I doubt they would join the military now and I know that I wouldn't want them in. It's not like you are required to be friends with every person in your unit, you are just required to have enough respect for them to work with them. If they aren't doing there job for whatever reason, no matter what their sexuality or even their gender is, then they should have to answer to that, not special rules that only apply to them.
 
roguenuke said:
Prove this.

There are men and women that serve together in other units where they don't have issues with discipline and unit cohesion. These have become excuses and fall backs for keeping gays out of the military and off the battlefield. If you believe this, then show proof. Don't just state that it is fact without something to back it up. And you need to include how women and gay men would cause the same discipline and unit cohesion problems if you are saying that they should be treated the same as far as keeping them out of certain MOSs. As I have stated, there are plenty of reasons to keep women out of combat, and I'm sure that I can find some studies to back this up. Gay men already serve in combat units.
Click to expand...

Females are barred from serving in combat arms units. IMO, Gay males will be prohibited from serving in combat arms units, as well.





Prove this also.

I highly doubt that very many soldiers will refuse to billet with other soldiers due to their sexuality. A few may have problems with it. The thing is, they are doing it now. Also, if someone is refusing to share quarters with someone, isn't that their issue? Aren't there ways to deal with these things already? I'm sure there are some racist guys out there who don't want to share quarters with guys of a different race, but they still have to. Why should this be different?
Click to expand...

IOW, with DoD regulations, females cannot be forced to billet with male soldiers. Why? Because they have that right. If gay soldiers are allowed to serve in the military, soldiers--regardless of sexual persuasion, or gender--will also have that right.
 
apdst said:
Females are barred from serving in combat arms units. IMO, Gay males will be prohibited from serving in combat arms units, as well.
Click to expand...

There would need to be some justification for why they should not serve in combat units, not just that you don't want them there. Even the higher ups would need some justification. It is hard enough for them to come up with enough justification to keep women out of combat units, I highly doubt there will be enough to keep gay men out, especially since gay men have the advantage of the fact that they have already been serving in combat units and can show proof that they can do the job just as well as straight men.


apdst said:
IOW, with DoD regulations, females cannot be forced to billet with male soldiers. Why? Because they have that right. If gay soldiers are allowed to serve in the military, soldiers--regardless of sexual persuasion, or gender--will also have that right.
Click to expand...

Why are women given the right to refuse to share quarters with men and vice versa, but they can't refuse to share quarters with someone of a different race or different religious practices? This is the question, not what regulations give them that right. The problem is not just the sexual attractions issue. It is not that black and white. There are many reasons why men and women do not share quarters. The fact is that straight men and gay men share quarters now. Straight women and gay women share quarters now. Do you honestly think that allowing gays to serve openly will somehow open a magical door that will cause gay men to all suddenly feel that they can openly hit on straight men? Or maybe you think that with gays being forced to lie about/hide their sexuality, it keeps straight men safer? This also goes back to the physiological differences between men and women and the cultural differences in how men and women are treated.

By trying to equate gay men to women, you are simply showing your own biases and fears, or possibly your own misunderstanding of the situation. Gay men currently serve with straight men, in the same units and the same living spaces. Women, whether straight or gay do not serve in all of the same units, and certainly don't share living spaces and never have.
 
apdst said:
I'm betting that if gays are allowed to serve openly, that there will be MOS restictions placed on them, just like the no combat arms restrictions that have been placed on female soldiers.

The Commandant of The Marine Corps has already suggested the need for seperate billets for gay and straight personel.
Click to expand...

I predicted this in the big blowup thread about women on Navy subs that Navy Pride started.
 
Why do we have to F/with the military so soon with so many questions and concerns about Gays serving openly in the military? Why not test Gays serving openly on a much smaller scale before we do this across the board, which could have potentially devastating consequences to the military. The current policy is not perfect, but it seems that it's working albeit some outlying gays that are being kicked out of the military when they are found to be gay, but does that mean we just rush in and change/repeal the policy across the board.
 
Awesome! said:
Why do we have to F/with the military so soon with so many questions and concerns about Gays serving openly in the military? Why not test Gays serving openly on a much smaller scale before we do this across the board, which could have potentially devastating consequences to the military. The current policy is not perfect, but it seems that it's working albeit some outlying gays that are being kicked out of the military when they are found to be gay, but does that mean we just rush in and change/repeal the policy across the board.
Click to expand...

DADT was supposed to be the trial period. The only thing it showed was that there are a lot of people willing to put gays out for simply admitting that they are gay, whether they are actually doing any harm to order or discipline or not. In fact, it also showed that there are a lot of people willing to sign paperwork saying they are gay to get out of the military.

And if you truly want a information from a "trial unit" just talk to many of the personnel who have worked with openly gay personnel within their own units/divisions/departments, such as myself, we can tell you that there was no problem from those that are openly gay. In fact, in my particular case, even my own chain of command fought to keep a couple of personnel from being put out under DADT, despite their personal misconduct being the reason that they were "found out". There are many undermanned jobs throughout the service where they could care less what sexuality a person is, as long as they do their job. Having more liberty for everyone is way more important than worrying about if someone is checking you out in the shower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom