• 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!

'Don't ask' repeal fails in Senate

...you know there is no ban on gays serving in the military, right?


If there wasn't, then gays wouldn't get discharged for being gay. It's called Defense Directive 1332, which bans gays from serving in the armed forces.
 
...you know there is no ban on gays serving in the military, right?

It is in the regulations. DADT repeal has to remove that section. I forget the number, apdst I think knows the number off the top of the head.
 
If there wasn't, then gays wouldn't get discharged for being gay. It's called Defense Directive 1332, which bans gays from serving in the armed forces.

Under DADT, they do not get discharged for being gay, they get discharged for violating DADT, ie telling.
 
It's a whole different story when it's not your ass on the line and not one of your comrades. The whole, "band of brothers", thing and all. Ya know?

Really? It's my butt on the line, as you put it, if they send me IA in the reserves. It is my husband's butt on the line, seeing as how he is active duty. I am completely willing to take the chance that I nor he will be killed because DADT was repealed. In fact, if he or I get sent IA, I promise that I will still support the repeal, whether it has happened by then or not.
 
No. Because the military should not be promoting any type of intolerance or discrimination. And, your earlier suggestion that troops simply be ordered to not be allowed to talk about their sexuality/significant others/relationships will not work.

Hence the neccissity for DADT to remain in place and do away with the ban on gays.

You can try to get it through all you want, but it won't happen.

It'll happen unofficially. Like it or not, local commanders will institute their own watered down version of DADT, in the attempt to prevent discrimination. It'll be issued as a standing order, by the division commander and violation of that order will make a soldier subject to Article 192 of the UCMJ.
 
Really? It's my butt on the line, as you put it, if they send me IA in the reserves. It is my husband's butt on the line, seeing as how he is active duty. I am completely willing to take the chance that I nor he will be killed because DADT was repealed. In fact, if he or I get sent IA, I promise that I will still support the repeal, whether it has happened by then or not.

Good for you. Which infantry unit are you in, BTW?
 
Hence the neccissity for DADT to remain in place and do away with the ban on gays.



It'll happen unofficially. Like it or not, local commanders will institute their own watered down version of DADT, in the attempt to prevent discrimination. It'll be issued as a standing order, by the division commander and violation of that order will make a soldier subject to Article 192 of the UCMJ.

Not likely. Such orders would be deemed unlawful orders. There is no way that those military CO would be able to legally forbid their unit members from talking about their husbands/girlfriends/wives/boyfriends/whatever while those soldiers are off duty. It would be an unlawful order. They could order that no one talks about their private lives while on duty, but not off duty. They would essentially also have to ban their unit members from going out together and/or to houses of anyone who had a wife/girlfriend/significant other. It wouldn't fly, no matter how much you want it to.
 
Not likely. Such orders would be deemed unlawful orders. There is no way that those military CO would be able to legally forbid their unit members from talking about their husbands/girlfriends/wives/boyfriends/whatever while those soldiers are off duty. It would be an unlawful order. They could order that no one talks about their private lives while on duty, but not off duty. They would essentially also have to ban their unit members from going out together and/or to houses of anyone who had a wife/girlfriend/significant other. It wouldn't fly, no matter how much you want it to.


Actually, I'm curious what apdst would think an appropriate punishment would be for violating DADT under his compromise plan.
 
Good for you. Which infantry unit are you in, BTW?

Hey apdst! You know what would be nice? If you answer my question. If there was a rule that there couldn't be Jews in the military, would you support because "rules are rules, and you can't pick and chose" and if someone was protesting in uniform, would you say they should be kicked out? Or is that only for gays?
 
Good for you. Which infantry unit are you in, BTW?

It doesn't matter. You have no proof that gays serving openly will negatively affect combat units any more than it would affect any other unit in the military. Gays have been serving in combat units for a long time and will always serve in combat units, just like support units.

Also, my husband has seen combat. He doesn't agree that it will cost any lives, although he is uncomfortable with the idea of gays serving openly. We have talked about this issue, more than he would ever like.
 
Under DADT, they do not get discharged for being gay, they get discharged for violating DADT, ie telling.

OMG!!! You people really are unaware of what the regulations really say!

If there's no ban on gays, why do the regulations explicitly ban homosexual conduct?

AR 600-20 states,

(b) A basis for discharge exists if—
1. The Soldier has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.

Homosexual activity is forbidden under DOD Directive 1332.14
 
Hey apdst! You know what would be nice? If you answer my question. If there was a rule that there couldn't be Jews in the military, would you support because "rules are rules, and you can't pick and chose" and if someone was protesting in uniform, would you say they should be kicked out? Or is that only for gays?

I'll answer it for him cause I agree. They should be punished in accordance with military law. I don't know if the current punishment is a discharge, but whatever it is, I'm okay with it. Our military should never be involved in politics. That's how coups start.
 
OMG!!! You people really are unaware of what the regulations really say!

If there's no ban on gays, why do the regulations explicitly ban homosexual conduct?

AR 600-20 states,



Homosexual activity is forbidden under DOD Directive 1332.14

This is ridiculous. Answer the question.
 
It doesn't matter. You have no proof that gays serving openly will negatively affect combat units any more than it would affect any other unit in the military. Gays have been serving in combat units for a long time and will always serve in combat units, just like support units.

Also, my husband has seen combat. He doesn't agree that it will cost any lives, although he is uncomfortable with the idea of gays serving openly. We have talked about this issue, more than he would ever like.

And, you have no proof that it won't. The difference being, that if I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, people die.
 
And, you have no proof that it won't. The difference being, that if I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, people die.

So the Pentagon lies!! :roll:
 
I just did.

I think he meant this one:

Hey apdst! You know what would be nice? If you answer my question. If there was a rule that there couldn't be Jews in the military, would you support because "rules are rules, and you can't pick and chose" and if someone was protesting in uniform, would you say they should be kicked out? Or is that only for gays?

You can just agree with me though, it's cool. Hey though, while you're answering questions, do mine too:

Actually, I'm curious what apdst would think an appropriate punishment would be for violating DADT under his compromise plan.
 
And, you have no proof that it won't. The difference being, that if I'm wrong, nothing happens. If you're wrong, people die.

Except that patriotic people who want to serve in the military will be kicked out for being biologically different. And I didn't catch your answer. What post was it in?
 
Hey apdst! You know what would be nice? If you answer my question. If there was a rule that there couldn't be Jews in the military, would you support because "rules are rules, and you can't pick and chose" and if someone was protesting in uniform, would you say they should be kicked out? Or is that only for gays?


It is for everyone who violates the regulations. the regulations are in place for a reason and you do not get to pick and chose which ones to follow and which ones to ignore.

The logic being, if I can't expect you to be disciplined enough to do something simple, like not wear your uniform to a political rally, how am I supposed to expect you to be disciplined enough to do something hard, like lay your life on the line for your comrades?
 
Except that patriotic people who want to serve in the military will be kicked out for being biologically different. And I didn't catch your answer. What post was it in?

You need to learn how to use the quote feature, dude.
 
Back
Top Bottom