• 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!

DADT cloture passes

Redress said:
Sadly there are people who are so convinced that only their viewpoint is valid they assume any one with another must do so for reasons other than simply they believe differently.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, to them thier viewpoint is the only one that matters. I mean come on...If some guy is holding a gun to my face my viewpoint would be "oh crap oh crap i'm going to die!" But the viewpoint of the person holding the gun is "give me all your money or I pull the trigger!". Which view point do you think I'm going to side with?
 
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
Military experience isn't universal in the sense that it gives you some sort of holistic knowledge that this ruling won't end well. There are a plethora of identities, cultures and personalities I've encountered in the service that I could easily use to counter your stance... and we'll arrive at a stand still.
Click to expand...

Most of those identities, cultures and personalities don't prevent unit members from living in the same billets. If they do, those personel are chaptered out of the service for, "an inability to adapt to military life".

That cohabitation is the glue that creates unit cohesion. I'm sure your military experience tells you that. Yes?
 
winston53660 said:
There are people with military experience just like you that disagree with your POV.
Click to expand...

Not only are they in the minority, but most of them haven't served in anything other than a POG unit, unless they're gay. Basically, their opinion is either uninformed, or prejucied.
 
Redress said:
It's in the DoD report. We have even had threads on it here. The military has a majority who think repeal will have a positive, no or some good some bad effects. Those who have served with gays have an even larger majority for those sentiments, even among those in combat units.
Click to expand...

Combat arms pesonel think that the repeal will have a negative effect. Should there be a ban on gays in combat arms MOS's?
 
apdst said:
Not only are they in the minority, but most of them haven't served in anything other than a POG unit, unless they're gay. Basically, their opinion is either uninformed, or prejucied.
Click to expand...

Again, the data proves you to be incorrect. Among those with experience serving with homosexuals the vast majority say it was either neutral or positive. This includes combat units. Wouldn't you take the opinion of the combat units who hve experience over the opinion of combat units who don't?

apdst said:
Combat arms pesonel think that the repeal will have a negative effect. Should there be a ban on gays in combat arms MOS's?
Click to expand...

No. See above.

Of course, this is all assuming that the opinions of the rank-and-file should be used to decide military policy... maybe they should determine deployment strategies... procurements?
 
Deuce said:
Again, the data proves you to be incorrect. Among those with experience serving with homosexuals the vast majority say it was either neutral or positive. This includes combat units. Wouldn't you take the opinion of the combat units who hve experience over the opinion of combat units who don't?
Click to expand...

Marine combat arms units--67%--and Army combat arms units--58%--say otherwise. Do you understand what a combat arms unit is?




Of course, this is all assuming that the opinions of the rank-and-file should be used to decide military policy... maybe they should determine deployment strategies... procurements?
Click to expand...

If that is the case, then there should be a ban on gays serving in combat arms units. Yes?
 
apdst said:
Marine combat arms units--67%--and Army combat arms units--58%--say otherwise. Do you understand what a combat arms unit is?
Click to expand...

I'll restate for clarification:
Among Marine combat arms units who had experience serving with homosexuals the majority said neutral or positive.
Clear?






If that is the case, then there should be a ban on gays serving in combat arms units. Yes?
Click to expand...

No. There shouldn't be a ban on gays doing anything. I would have told you that regardless of the outcome of the survey. 100% could be dead-set against it and I'd still say it.
 
Deuce said:
I'll restate for clarification:
Among Marine combat arms units who had experience serving with homosexuals the majority said neutral or positive.
Clear?
Click to expand...

Oh, it's very clear that you're cherry picking your numbers. Of those whom have had experience serving with homosexual service members; how many actually served in combat arms units. Can't wait for this one.







No. There shouldn't be a ban on gays doing anything. I would have told you that regardless of the outcome of the survey. 100% could be dead-set against it and I'd still say it.
Click to expand...

I thought were were going to use the consense of serving service members. We're not, now, since the numbers don't swing your way?
 
apdst said:
Combat arms pesonel think that the repeal will have a negative effect. Should there be a ban on gays in combat arms MOS's?
Click to expand...

AS I pointed out, among those in combat arms MOS's, those who had served with gays(ie the ones with the best experience to judge from) by a large majority thought gays would would not hurt readiness.
 
Redress said:
AS I pointed out, among those in combat arms MOS's, those who had served with gays(ie the ones with the best experience to judge from) by a large majority thought gays would would not hurt readiness.
Click to expand...

Show us the numbers, as they pertain to personel that have served in combat arms units--combat arms units are infantry, artillery, cavalry and armor.

Thanks in advance.
 
apdst said:
Show us the numbers, as they pertain to personel that have served in combat arms units--combat arms units are infantry, artillery, cavalry and armor.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Comprehensive Review Working Group: Don't Ask... | Gather

Soldiers serving in combat units appear to be less open to the idea of fighting alongside gays or lesbians. According to the survey, 48 percent of Army service members and 58 percent of Marines serving in combat units expected a negative or very negative impact on unit performance. However, these negative views did not translate over to the soldiers' actual experiences fighting alongside gays and lesbians. Among those who believed they had served alongside homosexuals, 89 percent of those in Army combat units and 84 percent of those in Marine combat units reported that their unit's performance had been "good", "very good", or "neither good nor poor."
Click to expand...
 
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Just Argue | FactCheck.org

But of Marine respondents who had served with someone they and others in their unit believed to be gay or lesbian, 90.4 percent said that their unit’s performance was very good, good or neutral; 88.1 percent said the same of unit cohesion; and 83.4 percent of unit morale. Numbers were similar for Marines who had served under a leader they thought was gay or lesbian.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Most of those identities, cultures and personalities don't prevent unit members from living in the same billets. If they do, those personel are chaptered out of the service for, "an inability to adapt to military life".

That cohabitation is the glue that creates unit cohesion. I'm sure your military experience tells you that. Yes?
Click to expand...

Of course... and that's a dismissal of the original point I made. The military isn't some hive-minded entity that creates some sort of auto-credibility status that comes with saying "I have military experience". So what? It's not a college major with a set course load... it's a diverse working group with a variety of opinions and beliefs. Diversity tends to lessen the weight behind absolute proclamations that sound something like "military experience tells me this will be bad". Your experience perhaps, but not everyones...
 
Here's a thought. How about the military personnel just do what they are ordered to do? Not to sound mean or anything but isn't that what you all are trained to do? What's that old saying..."you don't have to like it, you just have to do it". I'm sure that those in the military don't actually like killing people...yet they still do it when ordered to. Or are you trying to say that following orders to kill someone is easier than following orders to serve with a particular person who's sexual orientation has no relation in how well they fight?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Here's a thought. How about the military personnel just do what they are ordered to do? Not to sound mean or anything but isn't that what you all are trained to do? What's that old saying..."you don't have to like it, you just have to do it". I'm sure that those in the military don't actually like killing people...yet they still do it when ordered to. Or are you trying to say that following orders to kill someone is easier than following orders to serve with a particular person who's sexual orientation has no relation in how well they fight?
Click to expand...

I thanked you for this post, but I have to add something.

When someone signs up for a combat-related position, there isn't much room to suggest that they take issue with killing someone. Likewise, when someone signs up knowing DADT is in full effect (and support it) sure there are going to be people who dislike a repeal. So I don't quite think the example you used registers the same way. As for your "do what you're told" comment, I couldn't agree more.
 
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
Of course... and that's a dismissal of the original point I made. The military isn't some hive-minded entity that creates some sort of auto-credibility status that comes with saying "I have military experience". So what? It's not a college major with a set course load... it's a diverse working group with a variety of opinions and beliefs. Diversity tends to lessen the weight behind absolute proclamations that sound something like "military experience tells me this will be bad". Your experience perhaps, but not everyones...
Click to expand...


However, a working knowledge of the system allows military veterans to look at this situation from a more informed point of view. The military is a system and it works a certain way. While it's not perfect, it works as it does for a reason. Me and other folks with my experience understand why the military system is what it is. This situation if waaaaay more complex than, "gays can now serve openly in the service".

I'll use Kal'stang's post as an example,

Kal'Stang said:
Here's a thought. How about the military personnel just do what they are ordered to do? Not to sound mean or anything but isn't that what you all are trained to do? What's that old saying..."you don't have to like it, you just have to do it". I'm sure that those in the military don't actually like killing people...yet they still do it when ordered to. Or are you trying to say that following orders to kill someone is easier than following orders to serve with a particular person who's sexual orientation has no relation in how well they fight?
Click to expand...

It's not ass simple as issueing an order and that's that. That order has to a lawful order.

It's going to take years to iron all this out and in the future, I would expect local orders that, in effect, create an unofficial version of DADT that applies to everyone. There will be seperate billetting. The military isn't going to be able to force gay and straight soldiers to live together. Ask anyone that's ever been in the Army, or the Marine Corps and they'll tell you the same thing. When ground units, especially combat arms units start living seperately, unit cohesion will suffer. That's part of the reason that un-married soldiers aren't allowed to live outside of the unit billets, until they reach a certain amount of time in service. Then, there's personel accountability. It's gonna be a gaint pain in the ass for a platoon seargent, or a 1st seargent, when their soldiers are living here, there, yonder and all over the place.
 
In all honesty of course its about time this was repealed and you serve admirably or you dont and get tossed out, end of story.

Whats bothering me is his grandstanding the issue politically

sign it already, if you truly beleive in something, grandstanding that YOU did it just cheapens it.
Like donating money, or helping out at the homeless shelter..

this clown is acting like he just cured cancer
 
apdst said:
However, a working knowledge of the system allows military veterans to look at this situation from a more informed point of view. The military is a system and it works a certain way. While it's not perfect, it works as it does for a reason. Me and other folks with my experience understand why the military system is what it is. This situation if waaaaay more complex than, "gays can now serve openly in the service".

I'll use Kal'stang's post as an example,



It's not ass simple as issueing an order and that's that. That order has to a lawful order.
Click to expand...

Ordering them to live in a certain place is a lawful order. Ordering them to serve in the same platoon is also a lawful order.

apdst said:
It's going to take years to iron all this out and in the future, I would expect local orders that, in effect, create an unofficial version of DADT that applies to everyone. There will be seperate billetting. The military isn't going to be able to force gay and straight soldiers to live together. Ask anyone that's ever been in the Army, or the Marine Corps and they'll tell you the same thing. When ground units, especially combat arms units start living seperately, unit cohesion will suffer. That's part of the reason that un-married soldiers aren't allowed to live outside of the unit billets, until they reach a certain amount of time in service. Then, there's personel accountability. It's gonna be a gaint pain in the ass for a platoon seargent, or a 1st seargent, when their soldiers are living here, there, yonder and all over the place.
Click to expand...

As gays and straights have already been living together I see no reason why they cannot. Even if it wasn't openly, people still knew they served.
 
apdst said:
Most of those identities, cultures and personalities don't prevent unit members from living in the same billets. If they do, those personel are chaptered out of the service for, "an inability to adapt to military life".

That cohabitation is the glue that creates unit cohesion. I'm sure your military experience tells you that. Yes?
Click to expand...

It is only considered "an inability to adapt to military life" if a person's behaviors actually affect the unit negatively (except with DADT or a ban on gays is in place). The military forces people together all the time who normally would not be friends or even like each other, for whatever reason. The things that leadership should be concerned with are intolerance and people who are actually breaking military rules that would truly cause problems in the unit, not discriminatory rules designed to alleviate problems based possible intolerance problems or possible violations of military rules.

IOW, if a gay servicemember is hitting on or sexually assaulting his fellow unit members, then he should be put out of the military. But if there are others who can't tolerate or who discriminate against anyone based on their sexuality, then they are the ones who should be put out of the military, not the one who is facing the intolerance or discrimination.
 
apdst said:
However, a working knowledge of the system allows military veterans to look at this situation from a more informed point of view. The military is a system and it works a certain way. While it's not perfect, it works as it does for a reason. Me and other folks with my experience understand why the military system is what it is. This situation if waaaaay more complex than, "gays can now serve openly in the service".

I'll use Kal'stang's post as an example,



It's not ass simple as issueing an order and that's that. That order has to a lawful order.

It's going to take years to iron all this out and in the future, I would expect local orders that, in effect, create an unofficial version of DADT that applies to everyone. There will be seperate billetting. The military isn't going to be able to force gay and straight soldiers to live together. Ask anyone that's ever been in the Army, or the Marine Corps and they'll tell you the same thing. When ground units, especially combat arms units start living seperately, unit cohesion will suffer. That's part of the reason that un-married soldiers aren't allowed to live outside of the unit billets, until they reach a certain amount of time in service. Then, there's personel accountability. It's gonna be a gaint pain in the ass for a platoon seargent, or a 1st seargent, when their soldiers are living here, there, yonder and all over the place.
Click to expand...

There will not be seperate billeting or showers. The military has already said that.
 
Captain America said:
Well, it's a done deal.

Obama signs repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

Wow. Imagine that. A politician actually keeping a campaign promise and doing what he was elected to do. What's the world coming to?

Another thing, if Obama had cured cancer, we could count on our disruptive partisan hack republicans to filibuster it. Party first. **** what Americans want.
Click to expand...

They'd attack Obama for destroying all those Oncologist jobs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom