• 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

Although there is quite a bit of difference between race and sexual orientation especially when it comes to the military.

You wouldn't think so if you read some of the comments from polls conducted back then. They're eerily similar. Disgust is disgust. And it's really just an attitude. I've been in plenty of locker rooms with lesbians. It's never bothered me. For that matter, women regularily get pap smears from straight male doctors. If you think you'd be uncomfortable showering with someone who might be attracted to you, imagine that level of intrusion for a minute. And yet women do it without complaint. The uncomfortableness that men feel will fade, just like their uncomfortableness with blacks did.
 
The problem with your scenario is the people that are already serving did not sign up to serve with gays openly...They knew they would serve with blacks........If DADT is repealed then any stright guy signing up would know it would be with gays serving openly.......That is a huge difference.......

And when their contract is up, they are welcome to not re-enlist. Military leaders have already said that. The flight from military service didn't happen when blacks were integrated, despite predictions and it won't happen now.
 
And when their contract is up, they are welcome to not re-enlist. Military leaders have already said that. The flight from military service didn't happen when blacks were integrated, despite predictions and it won't happen now.

I believe that any man who enlisted prior to DADT should be compensated financially if the law is repealed and he decides to leave the service because the govenrment is changing the contract he signed in the middle of the stream....I think compensation should be based on length of service starting at $50,000 dollars for people getting out during the first enlistment and $50,000 for every 4 year enlistment added on with a maximum of $250,000 for a man on his final enlistment (year 16 to 20 of service)........Anyone who enlisted prior to the repeal od DADT would know they would have to serve with gays openly and would not have that option.......

The guys getting out instead of retiring would still be getting screwed because they would make a hell of a lot more then $250K..........
 
Last edited:
I believe that any man who enlisted prior to DADT should be compensated financially if the law is repealed and he decides to leave the service because the govenrment is changing the contract he signed in the middle of the stream....I think compensation should be based on length of service starting at $50,000 dollars for people gettin out during the first enlistment and $50,000 for every 4 year enlistment added on with a maximum of $250,000 for a man on his final enlistment (year 16 to 20 of service)........Anyone who enlisted prior to the repeal od DADT would know they would have to serve with gays openly and would not have that option.......

Please. They're in the military, not a fortune 500 company. Nowhere in their contract does it say they won't have to serve with gay people. The military can change their laws anytime they want. In fact, just recently the Marine Corps Commandant decided Marines can't wear their uniforms in public except for an emergency. Nobody gets to leave because they don't like new rules. And they certainly don't get compensation.
 
Please. They're in the military, not a fortune 500 company. Nowhere in their contract does it say they won't have to serve with gay people. The military can change their laws anytime they want. In fact, just recently the Marine Corps Commandant decided Marines can't wear their uniforms in public except for an emergency. Nobody gets to leave because they don't like new rules. And they certainly don't get compensation.



Why did they do that?
 
And when their contract is up, they are welcome to not re-enlist. Military leaders have already said that. The flight from military service didn't happen when blacks were integrated, despite predictions and it won't happen now.

When you sign a contract both partys have to live up to it not just the enlistee......The government if breaking their contract with the enlistee........
 
Please. They're in the military, not a fortune 500 company. Nowhere in their contract does it say they won't have to serve with gay people. The military can change their laws anytime they want. In fact, just recently the Marine Corps Commandant decided Marines can't wear their uniforms in public except for an emergency. Nobody gets to leave because they don't like new rules. And they certainly don't get compensation.

Your making a drastic change to the contract they sign........There are a lot of people on this country who are religeous and God fearing and they should be be requirerd to see this debauchery.........
 
I don't think gays should be able to serve openly because my religious views put me on a higher pedestal then them..I will make stuff up about unit cohesion, then when a survey comes out showing otherwise I will create a new excuse that doesn't make very much sense. I will tell you I am not bigoted but I, more than likely, am.
 
Please. They're in the military, not a fortune 500 company. Nowhere in their contract does it say they won't have to serve with gay people. The military can change their laws anytime they want. In fact, just recently the Marine Corps Commandant decided Marines can't wear their uniforms in public except for an emergency. Nobody gets to leave because they don't like new rules. And they certainly don't get compensation.

So your saying the Gov can do anything they want to a member regardless how repugnant it might be to them...Where do you draw the line?
 
Your making a drastic change to the contract they sign........There are a lot of people on this country who are religeous and God fearing and they should be be requirerd to see this debauchery.........

There is no change being made. Homosexuality isn't even mentioned in their contract. Changing the number of years they have to serve would be a change. Changing the government they have to serve would be a change. The military can and does change their rules all the time. If I hire a construction crew to build an addition to my house, I can't back out of the contract because they hired gay men to do the work if it's not in the contract that they can only hire straight.
 
Bottom line the Gov signs a contract with you when you enlist and both parties should be required to live up to it..............
 
So your saying the Gov can do anything they want to a member regardless how repugnant it might be to them...Where do you draw the line?

You draw the line with an elected government. This isn't some twisted universe. The governments not going to pass a law forcing them to eat boogers or something.
 
Bottom line the Gov signs a contract with you when you enlist and both parties should be required to live up to it..............

Again, what part of their contract is the government not living up to? Have you seen an enlistment contract recently? Nowhere on it does it guarantee that the service member won't have to serve with gays.
 
There is no change being made. Homosexuality isn't even mentioned in their contract. Changing the number of years they have to serve would be a change. Changing the government they have to serve would be a change. The military can and does change their rules all the time. If I hire a construction crew to build an addition to my house, I can't back out of the contract because they hired gay men to do the work if it's not in the contract that they can only hire straight.



What are you talking about???? There is a law in effect called DADT....People sign up knowing that...........If you cancel that law that is a huge change...........
 
You draw the line with an elected government. This isn't some twisted universe. The governments not going to pass a law forcing them to eat boogers or something.

Elected gov does not sleep, dress, shower and spend up to 90 days at a time with people who are openly gay..............90% of the people in congress have never served and are clueless as to what it is like,,,,,,,,,
 
What are you talking about???? There is a law in effect called DADT....People sign up knowing that...........If you cancel that law that is a huge change...........

There are hundreds of laws in the military that are in effect. They change all the time. The specific laws aren't in the contracts military members sign for that very reason. Because the military changes them when they feel like it.
 
Again, what part of their contract is the government not living up to? Have you seen an enlistment contract recently? Nowhere on it does it guarantee that the service member won't have to serve with gays.

There is a law in effect that says they don't have to serve with openly gays...........
 
Elected gov does not sleep, dress, shower and spend up to 90 days at a time with people who are openly gay..............90% of the people in congress have never served and are clueless as to what it is like,,,,,,,,,

And? So Congress doesn't get any say over how the military operates. More than a little impractical.

Besides, the ones that count, you know, the people actually in the military, are okay with it.
 
There is a law in effect that says they don't have to serve with openly gays...........

Not for much longer! :2wave:

Again, changes. This is just one the many laws that the military will change. And like the other laws before it, it doesn't mean the military is breaking any contract because the law isn't in the contract!
 
There are hundreds of laws in the military that are in effect. They change all the time. The specific laws aren't in the contracts military members sign for that very reason. Because the military changes them when they feel like it.

I can speak for myself and I can honestly say if Gays could serve openly when I enlisted I would not have done it..........Sure you can change laws but when they directly affect people serving as is the case here the changes should be made I suggested.............
 
Not for much longer! :2wave:

Again, changes. This is just one the many laws that the military will change. And like the other laws before it, it doesn't mean the military is breaking any contract because the law isn't in the contract!

Fine if that is the case then give the guys who signed up prior the option of resigning and compensate them accordingly for the length of service................No Problem
 
I can speak for myself and I can honestly say if Gays could serve openly when I enlisted I would not have done it..........Sure you can change laws but when they directly affect people serving as is the case here the changes should be made I suggested.............

Navy, you served a long, long time ago.
 
Please. They're in the military, not a fortune 500 company. Nowhere in their contract does it say they won't have to serve with gay people. The military can change their laws anytime they want. In fact, just recently the Marine Corps Commandant decided Marines can't wear their uniforms in public except for an emergency. Nobody gets to leave because they don't like new rules. And they certainly don't get compensation.

Wait...any uniform, or just work uniforms?
 
Fine if that is the case then give the guys who signed up prior the option of resigning and compensate them accordingly for the length of service................No Problem

No, they don't get to break their contract, just like the government can't.
 
Back
Top Bottom