Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 235

Thread: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

  1. #181
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    78,182

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No they don't. A commander cannot ask a soldier, for instance, if the soldier has ever had sex outside of marriage just during a meeting or private conversation. The soldier is completely within their rights to tell the commander, respectfully, that it isn't their business and/or that the question was not appropriate. Any flak for not answering such a question could easily be reported to the Equal Opportunities officer or a formal report submitted beyond the CO.
    A redefined DADT policy, would be the way to go, especially in the Army and Marine Corps and most definitely in combat arms units. If you want this to succeed, that's the way to go about it.

    While it may be ilegal for a commander/leader to formally ask a soldier if he/she is gay/straight, there are informal situations where those kinds of questions could be asked and wouldn't be in violation of any article, or regulation. A type of DADT policy should be in place to prevent those situations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #182
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    78,182

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    A commander does not have the right to question a soldier about his sex life.
    Well, a commander does have that right, if he thinks that that soldier's sex life is a risk to the, "discipline and good order", of the unit. Also, there's no regulation that says a soldier of equal rank can't ask those questions. There's no regulation that prevents an officer from asking a soldier his opinion of certain policies. What's going to happen when a gay officer asks a straight soldier what he thinks of DADT and goes all Hilton Perez on that soldier? Let us not pretend that it can't happen.

    What's so wrong with enforcing regulations that order soldiers to keep their sex lives under wraps? The objective is create a safe environment for gays to serve in the military, without fear of reprisal from command, or fellow soldiers. Or, is this just a gay pride parade, dressed up to look like something else?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #183
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,200

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    While it may be ilegal for a commander/leader to formally ask a soldier if he/she is gay/straight, there are informal situations where those kinds of questions could be asked and wouldn't be in violation of any article, or regulation. A type of DADT policy should be in place to prevent those situations.
    I can't think of a way that such a policy could be crafted that it wouldn't be discriminatory. You are basically telling gays that they have to stay in the closet regarding any information of their spouse or significant other and under no circumstances are superiors to ask about it. You pretty much would have to have a full ban on talking about family and a ban on any military gathering that included family.

  4. #184
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    78,182

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I can't think of a way that such a policy could be crafted that it wouldn't be discriminatory.
    Of course you don't, because you don't have the first clue about how things work in the military.

    You are basically telling gays that they have to stay in the closet regarding any information of their spouse or significant other and under no circumstances are superiors to ask about it. You pretty much would have to have a full ban on talking about family and a ban on any military gathering that included family.
    No, I'm saying that a system needs to be created that protects all soldiers, regardless of sexual orientation, from discrimination.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #185
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,200

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    No, I'm saying that a system needs to be created that protects all soldiers, regardless of sexual orientation, from discrimination.
    I think such a system would be counterproductive. The military has to discriminate. For example, soldiers who are too weak minded, fat, short, unstable, stupid, etc. are discriminated against. Furthermore, just because gays are allowed to serve openly does not mean that their superiors should have their hands tied if they start flouting their sexuality in such a way that it begins to cause problems. Gays can be smart and simply choose not to tell people about their sexuality unless they know they are going to be cool with it.

  6. #186
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    78,182

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I think such a system would be counterproductive. The military has to discriminate. For example, soldiers who are too weak minded, fat, short, unstable, stupid, etc. are discriminated against. Furthermore, just because gays are allowed to serve openly does not mean that their superiors should have their hands tied if they start flouting their sexuality in such a way that it begins to cause problems. Gays can be smart and simply choose not to tell people about their sexuality unless they know they are going to be cool with it.
    That's not discrimination. Soldiers who don't possess the ability to perform there duties, are discharged.

    Furthermore, just because gays are allowed to serve openly does not mean that their superiors should have their hands tied if they start flouting their sexuality in such a way that it begins to cause problems.
    Hence, a redefined version of DADT. It would also provide protection for straight soldiers from gay commanders, who hate straight people. It would prevent a gay commander from intimidating his troops, because of his sexuality. i.e. there wouldn't be any platoon leaders, or company commander addressing his troops and say, "I'm your new commander and I'm gay. Anyone have a problem with that?!?". That would automatically become a risk to, "good order and discipline", within the unit.

    People are people; all human beings that, if given the chance, will do something stupid. I'm only proposing that we create a system that--as much as possible--doesn't give them that chance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #187
    User KeeKee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    123

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    As to the raised hands at the town hall meetings way up thread...

    If you were a gay sitting in one of those meetings or even someone that don't have a problem with gays in the military and you knew superiors and maybe some gay hater peers in the room were against it would you step up and say no problem with me or would you raise your hand to remain unknown and not draw the ire of others?

    I prefer private vote as proof not raise your hand in front of everyone cause I think you will see more of the real truth privately.

    Peer pressure and protect yourself human nature exist everywhere.
    May all beings give and receive compassion, Live free from fear, And dwell in peace. - author unknown

  8. #188
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,682
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Well, a commander does have that right, if he thinks that that soldier's sex life is a risk to the, "discipline and good order", of the unit. Also, there's no regulation that says a soldier of equal rank can't ask those questions. There's no regulation that prevents an officer from asking a soldier his opinion of certain policies. What's going to happen when a gay officer asks a straight soldier what he thinks of DADT and goes all Hilton Perez on that soldier? Let us not pretend that it can't happen.

    What's so wrong with enforcing regulations that order soldiers to keep their sex lives under wraps? The objective is create a safe environment for gays to serve in the military, without fear of reprisal from command, or fellow soldiers. Or, is this just a gay pride parade, dressed up to look like something else?
    Actually, unless there was a direct reason, no commanding officer could in fact question a soldiers sex life. Being gay would not be a direct reason.

    Further, while some one of the same rank could ask about a soldiers personal life, they could do as I pointed out, which is say it's none of their business.

    Sorry, but you are entirely wrong in what you think.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham
    Iíve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham

  9. #189
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,200

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Hence, a redefined version of DADT. It would also provide protection for straight soldiers from gay commanders, who hate straight people. It would prevent a gay commander from intimidating his troops, because of his sexuality. i.e. there wouldn't be any platoon leaders, or company commander addressing his troops and say, "I'm your new commander and I'm gay. Anyone have a problem with that?!?". That would automatically become a risk to, "good order and discipline", within the unit.

    People are people; all human beings that, if given the chance, will do something stupid. I'm only proposing that we create a system that--as much as possible--doesn't give them that chance.
    Why do other countries that have openly gay soldiers not need a version of DADT to function without problems?

  10. #190
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    78,182

    Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Actually, unless there was a direct reason, no commanding officer could in fact question a soldiers sex life. Being gay would not be a direct reason.

    Further, while some one of the same rank could ask about a soldiers personal life, they could do as I pointed out, which is say it's none of their business.

    Sorry, but you are entirely wrong in what you think.
    Care to show us that exact regulation?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •