• 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

Redress said:
I believe that those against DADT repeal do so because they are worried that when they are around gays they will be overwhelmed with the desire to have gay sex. See how easy it is to believe stupid ****?
Click to expand...

And, I think that's a stereotype, big time. I thought Liberals were opposed to stereotyping? Or, just against stereotyping some people?


By the way, liberal vets outnumber conservative vets in both the house and senate.
Click to expand...

Well, they used to...:rofl

I think this, "all, or none; my way, or the highway mentality", that Liberals have is part of the reason.



The part in bold is why DADT repeal needs to happen. Right now gays can serve, but with a fear of discharge if any one should find out.
Click to expand...

If the ban on gays were lifted, then there would be no fear of discharge. I'm trying real hard why ya'll can't figure that part out.
 
Kelzie said:
I think "riot" is kind of a strong word...but no, if that's what it takes, that's what it takes. I doubt you'd find many people today that would agree that blacks should still be segregated because the military had some growing pains over it.
Click to expand...


But, I bet you would find a ****load of people that would agree that if there had been a way to avoid the rioting and the breakdown in discipline, that it should have been done. Yes?

Here, we have a way to avoid all that crap, but most Liberals seem to want to just kick that idea to the curb and go for broke. I also think there are alotta folks that would agree that we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past.
 
apdst said:
And, I think that's a stereotype, big time. I thought Liberals were opposed to stereotyping? Or, just against stereotyping some people?
Click to expand...

What stereotyping?




Well, they used to...:rofl
Click to expand...

Still do. I looked it up for another thread and the difference was huge.

[quoe]I think this, "all, or none; my way, or the highway mentality", that Liberals have is part of the reason.[/quote]

This is so different from conservatives.

Yes, that was sarcasm.

If the ban on gays were lifted, then there would be no fear of discharge. I'm trying real hard why ya'll can't figure that part out.
Click to expand...

So it would no longer be DADT. It would just be DA.
 
Redress said:
So DADT would become "gays will not be discriminated against" and not "gays will be kicked out if they admit they are gay or get caught doing something so horrible as hold hands"? Wouldn't that kinda make it something entirely different than what it is and therefore need a new name since it would be an entirely different regulation?
Click to expand...

It took you this long to catch on to all that? Really?!?

Actually, I think the language should be more like, "service members won't be discriminated against, because of their sexual orientation", since the regulation would be redefined so as to protect gay and straight soldiers from discrimination.
 
apdst said:
But, I bet you would find a ****load of people that would agree that if there had been a way to avoid the rioting and the breakdown in discipline, that it should have been done. Yes?

Here, we have a way to avoid all that crap, but most Liberals seem to want to just kick that idea to the curb and go for broke. I also think there are alotta folks that would agree that we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past.
Click to expand...

You mean like spend 9 months looking into how to do it? Now where did I hear about DoD spending 9 months looking into DADT repeal....
 
apdst said:
But, I bet you would find a ****load of people that would agree that if there had been a way to avoid the rioting and the breakdown in discipline, that it should have been done. Yes?

Here, we have a way to avoid all that crap, but most Liberals seem to want to just kick that idea to the curb and go for broke. I also think there are alotta folks that would agree that we shouldn't repeat the mistakes of the past.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how you would have avoided the issues the military had with segregation.

Regardless, your idea, while it does have some merit, is not practical. You're not going to get straight men to stop talking about women, whether it's their wives, girlfriends, or just girls they want to bang. What you would do is put officers and NCOs in the extremely awkward position of having to disciplines their troops for 50 conversations they overhear every day.
 
Kelzie said:
I'm curious as to how you would have avoided the issues the military had with segregation.

Regardless, your idea, while it does have some merit, is not practical. You're not going to get straight men to stop talking about women, whether it's their wives, girlfriends, or just girls they want to bang. What you would do is put officers and NCOs in the extremely awkward position of having to disciplines their troops for 50 conversations they overhear every day.
Click to expand...

Msgt has something better to do?
 
Redress said:
What stereotyping?
Click to expand...

Basically, that everyone who supports DADT are homophobes. That stereotyping.






Still do. I looked it up for another thread and the difference was huge.
Click to expand...

Not after 20 Jan, they won't.





So it would no longer be DADT. It would just be DA.
Click to expand...

No, it would still be DADT; with extra emphasis on the don't ask part. Having a soldier's meeting about each other's sexual persuits would become a violation of DoD regulations. It would be so, while on duty, anyway.
 
Kelzie said:
I'm curious as to how you would have avoided the issues the military had with segregation.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I never looked into it that deep. But, if there was a way, it should have been put into place.

Regardless, your idea, while it does have some merit, is not practical. You're not going to get straight men to stop talking about women, whether it's their wives, girlfriends, or just girls they want to bang. What you would do is put officers and NCOs in the extremely awkward position of having to disciplines their troops for 50 conversations they overhear every day.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth a shot. With gays serving, "openly", we're putting our officers and NCO's into the position of having to deal with no telling how many EO and sexual harassment complaints, which I think would far outnumber the on the spot corrections for having an illegal conversation.
 
If solders are so inconvenienced by having openly gay people among them then why does the U.S. cooperate with the U.N. Most of those countries allow Gays to openly serve. Just goes to show how ass backward this country can get things sometimes.
 
apdst said:
I dunno. I never looked into it that deep. But, if there was a way, it should have been put into place.


I think it's worth a shot. With gays serving, "openly", we're putting our officers and NCO's into the position of having to deal with no telling how many EO and sexual harassment complaints, which I think would far outnumber the on the spot corrections for having an illegal conversation.
Click to expand...

I think you're drastically overestimating the number of gay service members who will come out. While there might be slightly higher numbers in the more tolerant branches, I'd be shocked if anyone came out in the Marines/Army. There's no need to. It takes quite a bit of trust for gays not in the military to come out to people they don't know. For gays in the military, they'd be even more cautious.
 
apdst said:
Basically, that everyone who supports DADT are homophobes. That stereotyping.
Click to expand...

And I am doing that where?



Not after 20 Jan, they won't.
Click to expand...

Yes, after Jan. 20.

No, it would still be DADT; with extra emphasis on the don't ask part. Having a soldier's meeting about each other's sexual persuits would become a violation of DoD regulations. It would be so, while on duty, anyway.
Click to expand...

Not workable. Telling military people they cannot talk about their spouses, girlfriend/boyfriend and such is just not going to work.
 
Kelzie said:
I think you're drastically overestimating the number of gay service members who will come out. While there might be slightly higher numbers in the more tolerant branches, I'd be shocked if anyone came out in the Marines/Army. There's no need to. It takes quite a bit of trust for gays not in the military to come out to people they don't know. For gays in the military, they'd be even more cautious.
Click to expand...

There would be some, but not alot, even in the army/marines. It would not be the opening conversational gambit day one in a unit(well, there will be a couple, but they won't do well in the military and will be gone quickly), but once you get to know those around you and get comfortable and feeling safe, yeah, some will.
 
BCR said:
If solders are so inconvenienced by having openly gay people among them then why does the U.S. cooperate with the U.N. Most of those countries allow Gays to openly serve. Just goes to show how ass backward this country can get things sometimes.
Click to expand...

Because UN troops and American troops don't serve in mixed units together, nor do they share billets.
 
Kelzie said:
I think you're drastically overestimating the number of gay service members who will come out. While there might be slightly higher numbers in the more tolerant branches, I'd be shocked if anyone came out in the Marines/Army. There's no need to. It takes quite a bit of trust for gays not in the military to come out to people they don't know. For gays in the military, they'd be even more cautious.
Click to expand...

But, it all boils down to one thing: what if you're wrong?
 
Redress said:
Not workable. Telling military people they cannot talk about their spouses, girlfriend/boyfriend and such is just not going to work.
Click to expand...

So, let's don't even try. Right?

I love your positive attitude.
 
apdst said:
So, let's don't even try. Right?

I love your positive attitude.
Click to expand...

Not trying things that are obviously not workable is a good thing. Hell, part of being in the military is having that support group around you in your (as we called them) shipmates. If some one is having trouble with their spouse, it's a good thing to be able to vent to those you serve with. When you are deployed and get a Dear John type letter, it's good to be able to talk about it to those around you.
 
apdst said:
But, it all boils down to one thing: what if you're wrong?
Click to expand...

Well, military leaders with more experience than you and I have combined have decided I'm not.
 
Redress said:
Not trying things that are obviously not workable is a good thing. Hell, part of being in the military is having that support group around you in your (as we called them) shipmates. If some one is having trouble with their spouse, it's a good thing to be able to vent to those you serve with. When you are deployed and get a Dear John type letter, it's good to be able to talk about it to those around you.
Click to expand...

And, you know it won't work, how? There re already restrictions on free speach in the military. I've served in units that didn't allow political conversations, sexual conversations.
 
Kelzie said:
Well, military leaders with more experience than you and I have combined have decided I'm not.
Click to expand...

The Army Chief of Staff and the Commandant of the Marine Corps haven't decided that you're wrong. The Commandant suggested seperate billets for gay and straight soldiers--which I think will be a part of our military's future.
 
apdst said:
But, it all boils down to one thing: what if you're wrong?
Click to expand...

No, it boils down to protecting innocent people over bigots. This same argument failed with blacks and women. Give it up. There are no spooky people whose mere presence will cause the armed forces to fall apart.
 
apdst said:
So, let's don't even try. Right?

I love your positive attitude.
Click to expand...

No, it's a ridiculous suggestion. It shows you don't give a damn about morale. Family and loved ones are what keep our troops going.
 
Paschendale said:
No, it boils down to protecting innocent people over bigots. This same argument failed with blacks and women. Give it up. There are no spooky people whose mere presence will cause the armed forces to fall apart.
Click to expand...

What about protecting straight soldiers from discrimination by gay officers and NCO's? Screw'em, because they're all just a buncha homophobes and bigots, anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom