• 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

ReverendHellh0und said:
What makes you think, that those who were kicked out for some of the reasons you state would have an easier time if DADT was repealed?
Click to expand...

Well, let's look at one example: An Air Force officer(?) was discharged because some one read his email over his shoulder and saw he was gay. Things like that would stop happening. Gays would no longer have to worry about accidentally slipping and saying the wrong thing, could bring partners to command family events and introduce them as such. The list goes on and on.
 
Conservative said:
Which heads of the Military? Remember no matter how many times or far you move the goalposts a kick between the uprights is still 3 points. You don't seem to like rules or at least certain rules.
Click to expand...

The ones who presented the finding to Congress. SecDef and Chairman JCS. The top of the military.
 
Redress said:
Well, let's look at one example: An Air Force officer(?) was discharged because some one read his email over his shoulder and saw he was gay. Things like that would stop happening. Gays would no longer have to worry about accidentally slipping and saying the wrong thing, could bring partners to command family events and introduce them as such. The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...


Why was he using government property for personal business? Anyway, who asked, and who told here?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Why was he using government property for personal business? Anyway, who asked, and who told here?
Click to expand...

No one asked, he was "outed". He was discharged. The machines where government, but people where allowed to use them for personal email. Would you have been discharged for sending a love letter to your wife under the same circumstances?
 
Redress said:
The ones who presented the finding to Congress. SecDef and Chairman JCS. The top of the military.
Click to expand...

Yet the actual Field Commanders have a different opinion so who to believe? Hmmmm........
 
Redress said:
No one asked, he was "outed". He was discharged. The machines where government, but people where allowed to use them for personal email. Would you have been discharged for sending a love letter to your wife under the same circumstances?
Click to expand...

You really don't like rules, do you? this all volunteer military has rules that if someone doesn't like them then don't enlist. DADT has been in place for 17 years and now all of a sudden this is a huge issue for you.
 
Redress said:
Well, let's look at one example: An Air Force officer(?) was discharged because some one read his email over his shoulder and saw he was gay. Things like that would stop happening. Gays would no longer have to worry about accidentally slipping and saying the wrong thing, could bring partners to command family events and introduce them as such. The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

That officer shouldn't have been, "putting in writing", his sexual orientation, while on duty. Any officer that is that stupid, is probably too stupid to be an officer.
 
Redress said:
No one asked, he was "outed". He was discharged. The machines where government, but people where allowed to use them for personal email. Would you have been discharged for sending a love letter to your wife under the same circumstances?
Click to expand...

You're right, no one asked, but he, "told".
 
Redress said:
No one asked, he was "outed". He was discharged. The machines where government, but people where allowed to use them for personal email. Would you have been discharged for sending a love letter to your wife under the same circumstances?
Click to expand...


I never used government computers for personal communication. Far too paranoid...


So no one asked, and no one told. He had to admit to it. there has to be more to the story here.
 
Conservative said:
Yet the actual Field Commanders have a different opinion so who to believe? Hmmmm........
Click to expand...

You seem confused as to how this works. The guys at the top, they make decisions, the guys below implement them. Further, it's not all field commanders, it's a couple who still oppose. I understand, as long as you can find one person opposed, you will use that person to claim that it is controversial, when really, for the most part, at this point in time, it's not.
 
apdst said:
That officer shouldn't have been, "putting in writing", his sexual orientation, while on duty. Any officer that is that stupid, is probably too stupid to be an officer.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the point. The point was that a strait soldier would not have been discharged. It's a double standard that serves no purpose, and leads to those who are gay having additional difficulties that straits do not while serving. Lastly, it was not stupid, as personal emails where allowed on the computer, and where to be considered confidential.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I never used government computers for personal communication. Far too paranoid...


So no one asked, and no one told. He had to admit to it. there has to be more to the story here.
Click to expand...

The emails where used to be considered a "tell". That is the problem, the list of things that are considered a tell. You would not accept living under those constraints, nor would I. It goes far beyond just having to never say "I am gay".
 
Redress said:
You seem confused as to how this works. The guys at the top, they make decisions, the guys below implement them. Further, it's not all field commanders, it's a couple who still oppose. I understand, as long as you can find one person opposed, you will use that person to claim that it is controversial, when really, for the most part, at this point in time, it's not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the one confused is you, this is a 17 year law that now all of a sudden has become a major issue for a very small percentage of people who make this the centerpoint in their life all the while ignoring that Obama had a filibuster proof Senate for part of his term and never brought the issue up. Looks like it is going to be repealed anyway so that 2% of the military can tout their sexuality. Sure makes me feel safer and economically stronger. Hope you feel better!
 
Conservative said:
Sorry, but the one confused is you, this is a 17 year law that now all of a sudden has become a major issue for a very small percentage of people who make this the centerpoint in their life all the while ignoring that Obama had a filibuster proof Senate for part of his term and never brought the issue up. Looks like it is going to be repealed anyway so that 2% of the military can tout their sexuality. Sure makes me feel safer and economically stronger. Hope you feel better!
Click to expand...

Every single bit of this rant has been addressed to you, except the last sentence. Rather than rehash the simple facts about waiting for a report and details like that, I will just look at the "touting their sexuality" comment, which is pure spin on something entirely different.

The issue is not "touting", it's not having to hide their sexuality in the exact same way that straits do not. A gay could mention his boyfriend/girlfriend in passing in the same way that a strait could. That is not "touting". A gay couple could walk hand in hand in the mall. That is not "touting". Gays would have the exact same rights as straits in the military, no more, no less. That is not "touting".
 
Redress said:
You seem to have missed the point. The point was that a strait soldier would not have been discharged. It's a double standard that serves no purpose, and leads to those who are gay having additional difficulties that straits do not while serving. Lastly, it was not stupid, as personal emails where allowed on the computer, and where to be considered confidential.
Click to expand...

As a Federal Judge once said in a trial I was involved in, I have seen nothing in the case presented that changes the fact that there is a law on the books that prohibits the activity under consideration and thus the claim is declined. You don't like the law get it changed but in the meantime it is was it is.
 
Redress said:
Every single bit of this rant has been addressed to you, except the last sentence. Rather than rehash the simple facts about waiting for a report and details like that, I will just look at the "touting their sexuality" comment, which is pure spin on something entirely different.

The issue is not "touting", it's not having to hide their sexuality in the exact same way that straits do not. A gay could mention his boyfriend/girlfriend in passing in the same way that a strait could. That is not "touting". A gay couple could walk hand in hand in the mall. That is not "touting". Gays would have the exact same rights as straits in the military, no more, no less. That is not "touting".
Click to expand...

They would except for the simple fact that there is a law on the books, passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by a Democrat President that prevents a gay soldier from being openly gay. When and if that law is changed, only then will you have a case. 17 years this has been law, 17 YEARS!!
 
Conservative said:
They would except for the simple fact that there is a law on the books, passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by a Democrat President that prevents a gay soldier from being openly gay. When and if that law is changed, only then will you have a case. 17 years this has been law, 17 YEARS!!
Click to expand...

I don't think the amount of time this law has been in existence or who passed it has any bearing on this discussion. If I hadn't been ten when the law was passed, I would have disagreed with it then. I disagree with it now, and that's enough for me to support it's repeal, no matter the other issues the country is facing, how long it's been a law or what party passed it.
 
Kelzie said:
I don't think the amount of time this law has been in existence or who passed it has any bearing on this discussion. If I hadn't been ten when the law was passed, I would have disagreed with it then. I disagree with it now, and that's enough for me to support it's repeal, no matter the other issues the country is facing, how long it's been a law or what party passed it.
Click to expand...

The point is it doesn't take 17 years to get things through the court system. IMO it just goes to show the real interest out there on this issue.
 
Conservative said:
As a Federal Judge once said in a trial I was involved in, I have seen nothing in the case presented that changes the fact that there is a law on the books that prohibits the activity under consideration and thus the claim is declined. You don't like the law get it changed but in the meantime it is was it is.
Click to expand...

No one is claiming(well, at least not me) that those who violate DADT should not be discharged as long as the law is on the books. What is being discussed is whether the law should be changed.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
The point is it doesn't take 17 years to get things through the court system. IMO it just goes to show the real interest out there on this issue.
Click to expand...

And I agree that people care much more about the economy than DADT. Hell, I care more about then economy and I'm about the biggest supporter of the repeal there is. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore everything until unemployment is below 6%. I can still care about the economy while supporting the repeal.
 
Conservative said:
The point is it doesn't take 17 years to get things through the court system. IMO it just goes to show the real interest out there on this issue.
Click to expand...

Actually, the court cases are starting to make it to trial. Initially there was issues with standing as I understand it, which got the first set thrown out. The standing issue has been resolved, and cases such as the Log Cabin Republicans case are being handled now.
 
Conservative said:
They would except for the simple fact that there is a law on the books, passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by a Democrat President that prevents a gay soldier from being openly gay. When and if that law is changed, only then will you have a case. 17 years this has been law, 17 YEARS!!
Click to expand...

And again, the issue is whether the law should be overturned, not whether the discharges should have happened. We went over this earlier in the thread as well.
 
Redress said:
No one is claiming(well, at least not me) that those who violate DADT should be discharged as long as the law is on the books. What is being discussed is whether the law should be changed.
Click to expand...

The proponents of changing the law had 17 years to do it including 7 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, and two years of Obama. They didn't do it and the question is why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom