• 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

So the Pentagon lies!! :roll:

I dunno, you tell me. The Pentagon said that 67% of Marines in combat arms units and 58% of soldiers in combat arms units, expect that allowing gays to serve opnely will have a negative effect on the combat readiness of their units. Are they lieing?
 
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?

Lets change the hypothetical. Lets say being Jewish was not allowed in the military, with a policy like DADT. A jew wrote an email to his Rabbi, his superiors hacked said email, and kicked him out. Is that ok, or is it only for gays?
 
I dunno, you tell me. The Pentagon said that 67% of Marines in combat arms units and 58% of soldiers in combat arms units, expect that allowing gays to serve opnely will have a negative effect on the combat readiness of their units. Are they lieing?

Like roguenuke said, that is soldiers who haven't served with someone they knew was gay, and they are afraid of the unknown. Soldiers who have served with LGBT soldiers are in favor for repeal, and it is the conclusion of the study that repealing DADT won't cause military readiness to suffer.
 
Lets change the hypothetical. Lets say being Jewish was not allowed in the military, with a policy like DADT. A jew wrote an email to his Rabbi, his superiors hacked said email, and kicked him out. Is that ok, or is it only for gays?

Ok, let's. All I have to say to that, is: 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?
 
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.

The difference is that if I'm wrong, people will have a harder time adjusting to gays serving openly than I thought. This does not mean that people will die because of gays serving openly. You have no way to correlate any death of someone to a repeal of DADT. It doesn't work that way. You have to show how this would work and why the same events (i.e. the examples that you tried to give earlier in the thread) wouldn't happen with DADT in place.

If you're wrong, then we are still promoting intolerance and bigotry in the military and allowing our servicemembers to discriminate against others based on their sexuality because they are not comfortable with living with openly gay servicemembers.
 
Like roguenuke said, that is soldiers who haven't served with someone they knew was gay, and they are afraid of the unknown. Soldiers who have served with LGBT soldiers are in favor for repeal

You can prove that? With something other than anecdotal evidence?

it is the conclusion of the study that repealing DADT won't cause military readiness to suffer.

You conviently left part of the findings of that same study. Why is that?
 
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

Read my post again. Discharges under DADT are not for being gay(remember, the command cannot "ask"), but for violating DADT(that is, for telling).
 
The difference is that if I'm wrong, people will have a harder time adjusting to gays serving openly than I thought. This does not mean that people will die because of gays serving openly. You have no way to correlate any death of someone to a repeal of DADT. It doesn't work that way. You have to show how this would work and why the same events (i.e. the examples that you tried to give earlier in the thread) wouldn't happen with DADT in place.

If you're wrong, then we are still promoting intolerance and bigotry in the military and allowing our servicemembers to discriminate against others based on their sexuality because they are not comfortable with living with openly gay servicemembers.

So, I ask again, wny not leave a few safegaurds in place, for the protection of our soldiers?
 
Ok, let's. All I have to say to that, is: 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?

The reasons for regulations being in place is what needs to be looked into. If those reasons are not consistent with evidence and/or rules against discrimination, then they should be changed. You cannot simply say that every regulation is good just because it is a regulation.
 
Read my post again. Discharges under DADT are not for being gay(remember, the command cannot "ask"), but for violating DADT(that is, for telling).

Read the regulations and you'll find out that you're wrong.
 
So, I ask again, wny not leave a few safegaurds in place, for the protection of our soldiers?

There is no need for safeguards to be in place that aren't there already. There are already enough rules in place to affectively eliminate most incidents. And, as Redress has stated many times, after that it is up to the chain of command to quickly, effectively, and fairly deal with any problems than may arise. No need for extra, unnecessary regulations.
 
Read the regulations and you'll find out that you're wrong.

I am not wrong. The military does not look into people's sexuality(In theory anyway, DADT is enforced unevenly...this is the "don't ask" part), they are discharged for doing something that is considered a "tell".
 
The reasons for regulations being in place is what needs to be looked into. If those reasons are not consistent with evidence and/or rules against discrimination, then they should be changed. You cannot simply say that every regulation is good just because it is a regulation.

I'm not saying that regulations are necessarily good, or bad; only that they are regulations and as long as they are such, they are to be adhered to. It's not the place of a line soldier to ignore regulations that he doesn't agree with. One day, a soldier may think that the regulation forbidding the use of alcohol while on duty is unfair and stupid and decide to have a few beers while he's out in the field and it just so happens that he's the driver of a 65 ton pound main battle tank.

It's like helmet laws in the civilian world. You may not like it, but it's the law and there's a penalty for breaking the law.
 
I am not wrong. The military does not look into people's sexuality(In theory anyway, DADT is enforced unevenly...this is the "don't ask" part), they are discharged for doing something that is considered a "tell".

read the regulations and show where it says that soldiers are discharged for telling. You're a stickler for proof, start by providing you own. Good luck with that.
 
There is no need for safeguards to be in place that aren't there already. There are already enough rules in place to affectively eliminate most incidents. And, as Redress has stated many times, after that it is up to the chain of command to quickly, effectively, and fairly deal with any problems than may arise. No need for extra, unnecessary regulations.

Care to post those regulations for us?
 
Actual history! Countries that have allowed openly gay people to serve have had minimal issues.

Obviously, that isn't the case, as I showed earlier.

Got those regs for us, yet?
 
Ok, let's. All I have to say to that, is: 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?

So you are saying that it is acceptable to hack someones email, it doesn't count as asking, to figure out if they are Jewish/Gay?
 
read the regulations and show where it says that soldiers are discharged for telling. You're a stickler for proof, start by providing you own. Good luck with that.

http://www.sldn.org/page/-/Website/The%20Law/The%20Law%20-%20Statute.pdf

(b) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed
forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the
following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such
regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited
another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings,
made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations,
that the member has demonstrated that --
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and
customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion,
or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s
continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of
the armed forces in proper discipline, _ good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in
homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual,
or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in
accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has
demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in,
has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to
be of the same biological sex.

Sorry for the crappy formatting, it's a pdf and I am not going back over the whole thing and removing line breaks. Note number 2 and 3. 2 is the one that almost all DADT discharges come from, since 1 is hard to prove and 3 is rare.
 
So you are saying that it is acceptable to hack someones email, it doesn't count as asking, to figure out if they are Jewish/Gay?

What the hell are you even talking about, cuz?
 
Obviously, that isn't the case, as I showed earlier.

Got those regs for us, yet?

Actually, you seem to have failed to notice that I showed your first example was not what you claimed, and your second was completely false.
 
Back
Top Bottom