• 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

disneydude said:
Considering that Navy Pride is on record here on this site bragging about committing adultry with a married woman while her husband was off serving our country, it is kind of ironic listening to him lecture others about being promiscuous.
Click to expand...

Please don't go there. It's petty and vindictive to keep bringing this up. Let it go, it's not needed to counter NP's arguments.
 
Redress said:
What the **** does that mindless rant have to do with what I said or Navy said? If Navy is right, can you document that gays are the most promiscuous people in the world?
Click to expand...

The post was a direct response to the thread topic and discussion. You again ran from the tough questions, as usual.
 
Boo Radley said:
I also think they are worth fairness. The military includes homosexuals who serve.
Click to expand...

Fairness is exactly what I'm talking about. What I've been suggesting all this time is a way for gays to serve, without fear of being discharged and to make this transition as comfortable as possible.

I actually believe it will be far less tramatic than you think.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right; from the bottom of my heart, I hope so. But, what if you're wrong? And people die? Or, our combat strength is weakened?

I agree with allowing gays to serve (which wasn't always my position. I've turned around a little on that issue.) But, the, "I'm gay and in yer face and if you don't like it tuff ****", approach isn't worth someone's life, nor damage to our armed forces. Do you think it's worth it?
 
Conservative said:
The post was a direct response to the thread topic and discussion. You again ran from the tough questions, as usual.
Click to expand...

The post you quoted was a direct question of one of Navy's comments. It was quite specific.
 
roguenuke said:
Your suggestion is not practical. It would involve complete changes in the way the military does business, including a change to traditions such as military birthday balls and predeployment functions, in which unit personnel are encouraged and even expected to bring significant others. It would also mean a restriction on one of the most important things to servicemembers' morale, support by family and friends for both parts of their lives, private and professional. A restriction on not being able to talk about relationships would most likely lead to more people in trouble. Heck, such a restriction could have led to my husband actually flying home (going UA) to deal with a bad personal problem at home. Because of the support of his Marine buddies, he was convinced of what a bad idea it really was. You cannot force people to lock their feelings away, this will lead to a lot bigger issues than a few people being uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

What's the argument been all this time? "Our soldiers are mature, intelligent and very proffessional, they can handle it"? Isn't that what we've heard?

Also, I'm not talking about leaving DADT in place, permanently. But, at least for the time being leave it where it is, with modifications, ease into the transition and slowly lift the DADT restrictions until the policy is no longer needed. I think it's going to be a barrel of monkies, otherwise.

Is it practical to have gays and straights billeting seperately? Part of what binds a unit together is the fact that they live together. I'm telling you, that's going to happen. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has already said that it's going to be necessary.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
The post you quoted was a direct question of one of Navy's comments. It was quite specific.
Click to expand...

Navy has made many comments on the thread topic and I stand by mine. You live in a real dream world where everything is perfect and you have all the answers. What happens if you are wrong? We know how the law has worked for the past 17 years so why change it?
 
Redress said:
Please don't go there. It's petty and vindictive to keep bringing this up. Let it go, it's not needed to counter NP's arguments.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Redress...but when someone as self-righteous as NP comes on here and starts lecturing other's about morality and promiscuity, its hard not to point out the blatant hypocrisy. However....I get your point.
 
Conservative said:
Navy has made many comments on the thread topic and I stand by mine. You live in a real dream world where everything is perfect and you have all the answers. What happens if you are wrong? We know how the law has worked for the past 17 years so why change it?
Click to expand...

And I specifically quoted one and referenced it in the post you quoted.
 
apdst said:
What's the argument been all this time? "Our soldiers are mature, intelligent and very proffessional, they can handle it"? Isn't that what we've heard?

Also, I'm not talking about leaving DADT in place, permanently. But, at least for the time being leave it where it is, with modifications, ease into the transition and slowly lift the DADT restrictions until the policy is no longer needed. I think it's going to be a barrel of monkies, otherwise.

Is it practical to have gays and straights billeting seperately? Part of what binds a unit together is the fact that they live together. I'm telling you, that's going to happen. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has already said that it's going to be necessary.
Click to expand...

The policy is not needed now and changing everything as a transition period is not practical. You, nor the Marine Corps Cmdt, have any proof to back up your beliefs. There is evidence, from both what happened when other countries allowed gays to serve openly and from the real stories of people who have actually worked with openly gay people, that this transition (from DADT to allowing gays to serve openly) will not have any significant affect on the military.
 
roguenuke said:
The policy is not needed now and changing everything as a transition period is not practical. You, nor the Marine Corps Cmdt, have any proof to back up your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Our military commanders aren't going to wait for proof. Just like they didn't billet males and females together, until it turned out to be a bad idea. They went ahead and gave them seperate billets, from the gitgo and that's my prediciton in this case, as well.

There is evidence, from both what happened when other countries allowed gays to serve openly and from the real stories of people who have actually worked with openly gay people, that this transition (from DADT to allowing gays to serve openly) will not have any significant affect on the military.
Click to expand...

That evidence is both annecdotal and in the minority.

I can't ask this enough: what if you're wrong?
 
Conservative said:
Navy has made many comments on the thread topic and I stand by mine. You live in a real dream world where everything is perfect and you have all the answers. What happens if you are wrong? We know how the law has worked for the past 17 years so why change it?
Click to expand...

Who has it worked for?
 
apdst said:
Our military commanders aren't going to wait for proof. Just like they didn't billet males and females together, until it turned out to be a bad idea. They went ahead and gave them seperate billets, from the gitgo and that's my prediciton in this case, as well.



That evidence is both annecdotal and in the minority.

I can't ask this enough: what if you're wrong?
Click to expand...

What is the worst case scenario, specifically, if I'm wrong? What exactly do you think will happen? And why wouldn't any of the things that you believe might happen be able to be adequately dealt with by actually using other rules already in place?
 
roguenuke said:
What is the worst case scenario, specifically, if I'm wrong? What exactly do you think will happen?
Click to expand...

Someone could die?

And why wouldn't any of the things that you believe might happen be able to be adequately dealt with by actually using other rules already in place?
Click to expand...

That's the point I've been making. A gay soldier is going to show up, all gay-n-proud and someone is going to refuse to billet with him/her. The rules in place dictate that a soldier has that right.

Allow me to quote the Commandant. I know he'll be called a bigot, because you don't dig what he has to say. If he did, he would be, "brilliant and enlightened".

“Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines lives, that’s the currency of this fight.

“I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction. I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”…
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Someone could die?
Click to expand...

How exactly? I don't want a general "someone could die. That doesn't explain how exactly that death was caused just because someone is openly gay. You have no evidence whatsoever that it could happen, let alone that it will happen.

apdst said:
That's the point I've been making. A gay soldier is going to show up, all gay-n-proud and someone is going to refuse to billet with him/her. The rules in place dictate that a soldier has that right.

Allow me to quote the Commandant. I know he'll be called a bigot, because you don't dig what he has to say. If he did, he would be, "brilliant and enlightened".
Click to expand...

Okay, but they don't have a right to not billet with the openly gay person. The unit can choose to allow them the privilege of not billeting with that person, but it isn't a right, anymore than it would be a right to refuse to billet with someone who is a complete slob or smells or who is of a different religion. A unit can try to make billeting changes to make people more comfortable, if it is practical. But they don't have to. Sometimes soldiers/marines/sailors are just forced to suck it up. We had a very big girl in my department who slept completely naked. She was not attractive at all. And she refused to wear clothes to bed. We couldn't get transferred out of that berthing, nor could we have her transferred out. So we all just dealt with it.

And, I don't think the Marine Corps Cmdt is necessarily a bigot. I do think that he is paranoid and not aware of how scientific polls are actually done and why they are done the way they are.
 
apdst said:
The United States armed forces are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. That's proof that it worked.
Click to expand...

It isn't working for all those who have been put out because of DADT, nor all those who still have to hide their sexuality from those they work with for no other reason than others may be uncomfortable with their relationships.

And you have zero evidence that the US Armed Forces would cease to be the finest fighting force if gays are allowed to serve openly tomorrow.
 
apdst said:
The United States armed forces are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. That's proof that it worked.
Click to expand...

I'd say the IDF is just as fine if not finer. We don't border our enemies. We have working models to go by. They work. You can't provide a case why it won't work here without insulting our troops.
 
apdst said:
The United States armed forces are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. That's proof that it worked.
Click to expand...

Actually no, that is not proof it worked. As fine as our military is, and it is very fine, it can improve, and this might very well improve it.
 
roguenuke said:
How exactly? I don't want a general "someone could die. That doesn't explain how exactly that death was caused just because someone is openly gay. You have no evidence whatsoever that it could happen, let alone that it will happen.
Click to expand...

A break down in discipline and unit cohesion. A soldier doesn't provide covering fire for a gay soldier that is advancing against the enemy and that gay soldier is hosed down by the bad guys.

A straight soldier is seperated from his unit and one of his gay commrades just leaves him, because he's been picked on for being gay and the lost soldier dies.

The scenarios are virtually infinite.



Okay, but they don't have a right to not billet with the openly gay person. The unit can choose to allow them the privilege of not billeting with that person, but it isn't a right, anymore than it would be a right to refuse to billet with someone who is a complete slob or smells or who is of a different religion. A unit can try to make billeting changes to make people more comfortable, if it is practical. But they don't have to. Sometimes soldiers/marines/sailors are just forced to suck it up. We had a very big girl in my department who slept completely naked. She was not attractive at all. And she refused to wear clothes to bed. We couldn't get transferred out of that berthing, nor could we have her transferred out. So we all just dealt with it.
Click to expand...

There's where you're wrong. It is a right for a soldier to refuse to billet with other soldiers, for numerous reasons. It's covered in Ar 600-20, The Army's Command policy, "Every soldier has the right to work and live in a safe and comfortable environment, free from harassment". So, it's not just about straight soldiers refusing to billet with gay soldiers, it's also about gay soldiers refusing to billet with straight soldiers, because they have the right to, "...live in a safe and comfortable environment, free from harassment".

What are you going to say when gay soldiers refuse to billet with straight soldiers? That's soldier is a bigot? A hetero-phobe? Send him to the stockade for refusing to obey orders.

I think that alot of you, that oppose DADT, are having trouble from looking at this from more than one demension.

And, I don't think the Marine Corps Cmdt is necessarily a bigot. I do think that he is paranoid and not aware of how scientific polls are actually done and why they are done the way they are.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the Commandant understands that those scientific polls are worth jack, when the **** hits the fan. You can't even close a sucking chest wound with it.
 
apdst said:
Well, I think the Commandant understands that those scientific polls are worth jack, when the **** hits the fan. You can't even close a sucking chest wound with it.
Click to expand...

I can't believe that the Commandant doesn't understand that sexual orientation is worth jack, when the **** hits the fan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom