• 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

I think you're right in a sense, but the great thing about the military is that if people aren't ready, then you can force them to be ready.

I'd rather just wait til there is a good chance that it will be able to be implemented without a lot of problems. The time most likely will come eventually. But, right now, segregation by gender works fine and doesn't have noticable impacts on most personnel (there are some exceptions, and I would be completely open to the consideration of changing policies for those particular instances to make facilities coed). The policies aren't forcing people out based on the gender and don't separate people who aren't normally separated. The policy should be flexible for certain instances and situations. And it might be a good idea to start using a more flexible policy on this issue in certain cases, such as small units with limited spacing.
 
Totally agree. Starbuck is my secret girl crush!


...oh, would she not be there? Nevermind. :mrgreen:
Wasn't Starbuck a male in the original show?

Hell, I think all the pilots were male in the original show (I only watched a few of each show, original and new) - Course', it was made much earlier...
 
Then you need to explain exactly how I am wrong. Last time I looked, girls shower with girls and boys shower with boys in high school. It really doesn't matter what their sexuality is. It matters what their physical body says their gender is (although, granted, this is changing a little in some places with the more open acceptance of transgender people/kids, but that is a different issue and is not the normal).

So, tell me how exactly a boys' shower is different than a girls' shower, in terms of sexuality.

Girls showers have individual showers with curtains. Boys showers are a row of nozzles on a wall.
 
Girls showers have individual showers with curtains. Boys showers are a row of nozzles on a wall.

I picture you explaining this in a parent's "birds and bees" type of voice. Then I laughed.
 
Girls showers have individual showers with curtains. Boys showers are a row of nozzles on a wall.

Hmm....Its strange that you would know this. :lol:
 
Girls showers have individual showers with curtains. Boys showers are a row of nozzles on a wall.

And that makes any difference when talking about sexuality how? I did assume that boys' showers were like that. There are also some girls' showers that are like that (ever see Sixteen Candles?). I don't remember how the girls' showers were in HS, although I know that the showers in both the girls' and boys' locker rooms in the pool, where I spent most of my time in sports and my last high school gym class, had individual showers. I just don't see how that makes a difference in this situation. In fact, it should mean that guys should have less of a problem showering with gay men than girls do showering with gay women, since guys have been showering with gay boys since they were in HS and girls (according to you) haven't.
 
Last edited:
And that makes any difference when talking about sexuality how? I did assume that boys' showers were like that. There are also some girls' showers that are like that (ever see Sixteen Candles?). I don't remember how the girls' showers were in HS, although I know that the showers in both the girls' and boys' locker rooms in the pool, where I spent most of my time in sports and my last high school gym class. I just don't see how that makes a difference in this situation. In fact, it should mean that guys should have less of a problem showering with gay men than girls do showering with gay women, since guys have been showering with gay boys since they were in HS and girls (according to you) haven't.

There are still high schools that use public showers? I wouldn't feel comfortable being around some of my fellow classmates naked, some of them are creepers.
 
When I left in 2007, there wasn't a single section of BIAP (Baghdad International Airport) that didn't have hygienic trailers with single/walled showers (with curtains) for troops to use. As this may not be the case everywhere, "showers" are a dwindling issue. Someone being open about their sexuality doesn't automatically make you hot or worth a double-take.
 
I think this entire thread stands as a testament to the almost mind-boggling American aversion to dealing openly with sexuality. You're all intensely sexually frustrated. XD

But, really.
 
I think this entire thread stands as a testament to the almost mind-boggling American aversion to dealing openly with sexuality. You're all intensely sexually frustrated. XD

But, really.

Location: London, England..

Hey, it's you bastards' fault for sending all the puritans over here on boats. Why couldn't you have sent pagans?
 
Last edited:
A military member who is openly a member of a hate group (i.e. KKK, Black Panthers, Islamic terrorists group) is not being professional. They have claimed the beliefs/ideals of the group that they are a member of, most of which include a fight against tolerance of a specific group or many groups of people. So, either they are following those tenets that they have agreed to do, which means they are most likely discriminating or worse against someone in their unit or in the military during that time. Or they are lying about truly wanting to be a member of that group. Who joins a group like that who doesn't actually believe that they should act to get others to believe what they do and act on those beliefs? And, if someone is joining such a group while not actually believing in everything that they stand for, then why bother taking the risk of being kicked out of the military for doing so or not being allowed in in the first place?

Being openly gay doesn't require a person to espouse to any ideas or principles that are hateful or intolerant. All it requires is that someone be attracted to and want to date/be with members of their same sex. Homosexuals aren't required to become a member of any organization to be homosexual.

Why not? Because it's something you don't agree with?

Sounds to me like you're selling our service members short and saying that they're not professional enough to look past a person's personal beliefs and soldier on.
 
Why not? Because it's something you don't agree with?

Sounds to me like you're selling our service members short and saying that they're not professional enough to look past a person's personal beliefs and soldier on.

The reason a member of those groups cannot join the military is because their beliefs are not consistent with the policies and beliefs of the military and the government. The same cannot be said for homosexual behavior, officially, given the recent change.
 
The reason a member of those groups cannot join the military is because their beliefs are not consistent with the policies and beliefs of the military and the government. The same cannot be said for homosexual behavior, officially, given the recent change.

In your opinion. There are some highly experienced, highly decorated, very intelligent officers, currently serving in the military, that claim the opposite. There are even folks that don't agree with members of certain religions.

if your argument is, "our servicemen and women are professional enough to handle it", then that same argument should apply to everything. Unless, the person pushing that argument is only interested in political correctness, vice freedom, liberty and fairness. i.e hypocrisy.

I've served with more open racists than I have with open gays. Even in units that I've served in that had issues, racism wasn't it.
 
Location: London, England..

Hey, it's you bastards' fault for sending all the puritans over here on boats. Why couldn't you have sent pagans?
I thought the puritans left on their own, due to a dislike for their faiths, or some such.

Hell, my ancestors might have been some.
 
In your opinion. There are some highly experienced, highly decorated, very intelligent officers, currently serving in the military, that claim the opposite. There are even folks that don't agree with members of certain religions.

if your argument is, "our servicemen and women are professional enough to handle it", then that same argument should apply to everything. Unless, the person pushing that argument is only interested in political correctness, vice freedom, liberty and fairness. i.e hypocrisy.

I've served with more open racists than I have with open gays. Even in units that I've served in that had issues, racism wasn't it.

Well yes its about opinion, the Army and the government has defined what professionalism is, what the Army values are, what it means to be a Soldier, etc etc that in your opinion do not include homosexual acts or open homosexuality. I'm going to take my ultimate perspective and unbias approach here and say that I'm not going to try and prove that having Soldiers who belong to hate groups for example would make an unprofessional Army, I believe it would certainly make a different Army but thats just a fact.

My argument isn't that "our servicemen and women are professional enough to handle it" is a reason to remove DADT by itself, as in just because they can handle it lets do it for an arbitrary reason. No in my opinion it will make us a more professional Army, truer to the Army vales, and truer to what our Army should be, that combined with our servicemen and women are professional enough to handle the change is a reason.

I don't expect to try and convince you otherwise because I don't think its possible considering you obviously have very different views on what is professional.

But I still am curious about what you think is going to happen once its removed.
 
I thought the puritans left on their own, due to a dislike for their faiths, or some such.

Hell, my ancestors might have been some.

They came here for religious freedom, because The Church of England was the only legal religion.

And, when they got here, they oulawed Christmas and legalized abortion. Go figger!!
 
Well yes its about opinion, the Army and the government has defined what professionalism is, what the Army values are, what it means to be a Soldier, etc etc that in your opinion do not include homosexual acts or open homosexuality. I'm going to take my ultimate perspective and unbias approach here and say that I'm not going to try and prove that having Soldiers who belong to hate groups for example would make an unprofessional Army, I believe it would certainly make a different Army but thats just a fact.

My argument isn't that "our servicemen and women are professional enough to handle it" is a reason to remove DADT by itself, as in just because they can handle it lets do it for an arbitrary reason. No in my opinion it will make us a more professional Army, truer to the Army vales, and truer to what our Army should be, that combined with our servicemen and women are professional enough to handle the change is a reason.

I don't expect to try and convince you otherwise because I don't think its possible considering you obviously have very different views on what is professional.

The point I'm making--successfully--is that this has zilch to do with, "making our military better"; that's a bull**** argument, to begin with. It's all doing what's politically correct.

But I still am curious about what you think is going to happen once its removed.

1) There will be seperated billets for straight and gay soldiers.

2) The sexual harassment rate is going to rise, significantly.

3) The rape rate in going to rise.

4) There will be bans on gay soldiers serving in combat arms MOS's.

Those are some of the things that I believe will happen.
 
The point I'm making--successfully--is that this has zilch to do with, "making our military better"; that's a bull**** argument, to begin with. It's all doing what's politically correct.



1) There will be seperated billets for straight and gay soldiers.

2) The sexual harassment rate is going to rise, significantly.

3) The rape rate in going to rise.

4) There will be bans on gay soldiers serving in combat arms MOS's.

Those are some of the things that I believe will happen.

Well I believe the military has a responsibility to its Soldiers, homosexual or straight, to support them fully and not constantly tell them that what for them may be an act of love may get them dishonorably discharged. And I have no problem with taking Soldiers, in this case those with a problem with gays, and saying you will bear this additional burden because it is the right thing to do for your fellow Soldier to ensure their basic rights are protected. I have no problem with forcing change when I think its a moral change and I have a duty to force change, as an officer, when the Army says "this will be our policy." If the policy had remained DADT and I was confronted with a situation with a gay Soldier I would follow the DADT policy and begin UCMJ action against him, not because I change my personal beliefs to the Army's, but I believe that a Soldier following orders and policies is the most important thing. After all, if we have Soldiers who can't follow orders what kind of Army would we have?

Now, could you explain why you think you are more accurate in your predictions than the Army's own study. And then provide me a range of numbers, in percentages, for the areas you mentioned that will change. For example instead of saying sexual harassment will rise significantly say it'll rise between 5%-10% from the current average. That way it'll be clear what you mean and it'll be clear if you are right or wrong, because saying "significantly" could mean anything.
 
Well I believe the military has a responsibility to its Soldiers, homosexual or straight, to support them fully and not constantly tell them that what for them may be an act of love may get them dishonorably discharged. And I have no problem with taking Soldiers, in this case those with a problem with gays, and saying you will bear this additional burden because it is the right thing to do for your fellow Soldier to ensure their basic rights are protected. I have no problem with forcing change when I think its a moral change and I have a duty to force change, as an officer, when the Army says "this will be our policy." If the policy had remained DADT and I was confronted with a situation with a gay Soldier I would follow the DADT policy and begin UCMJ action against him, not because I change my personal beliefs to the Army's, but I believe that a Soldier following orders and policies is the most important thing. After all, if we have Soldiers who can't follow orders what kind of Army would we have?

The same arugment could be used to lift all the other bans on basic liberties that the military has in place. Yes?


Now, could you explain why you think you are more accurate in your predictions than the Army's own study. And then provide me a range of numbers, in percentages, for the areas you mentioned that will change.

I wasn't aware that the Pentagon's study gave any predicitons on sexual harassment rates.

For example instead of saying sexual harassment will rise significantly say it'll rise between 5%-10% from the current average. That way it'll be clear what you mean and it'll be clear if you are right or wrong, because saying "significantly" could mean anything.

I said, "significantly", because sexual harassment rates are going to quadriple at the worst and double at best. Why, you ask? Because, the first time a soldier is ordered to share billets with a soldier of an opposite sexual orientation, the next step will be for that soldier to file a sexual harassment charge. That's just for starters. There will thousands more cases filed, everytime a soldier is looked at cross-eyed by another soldier of the opposite sexual persuasion. Notice, I don't specify gay on straight, or straight on gay situations?

That's not to mention the gay on gay harassment; and let's not pretend that kind of behavior doesn't exist within the gay community.

Then, there are going to be the clowns that join the service and the first time they are made to do something they don't like, it's going to be, "because I'm gay", then there's going to be an equal oppurtunity board conviened over the affair. The EO board will explain--more than likely without any success--how it's nothing to do with his sexual orientation and that every soldier has to have a turn at doing the ****ty details and that day, it was his turn.

At the end of the day, this isn't going to result in anything other than using up time that coould otherwise be used to train soldiers how to stay alive on the battlefield.
 
The same arugment could be used to lift all the other bans on basic liberties that the military has in place. Yes?


No, I'm simply telling you how I will implement military policies not saying its an argument for anything. I could disagree with DADT, like I would disagree with allowing members of hate groups in the military, but regardless of my personal opinion it wouldnt change how I implement the policy.

I wasn't aware that the Pentagon's study gave any predicitons on sexual harassment rates.

It does I linked them to you and gave the page numbers

I said, "significantly", because sexual harassment rates are going to quadriple at the worst and double at best. Why, you ask? Because, the first time a soldier is ordered to share billets with a soldier of an opposite sexual orientation, the next step will be for that soldier to file a sexual harassment charge. That's just for starters. There will thousands more cases filed, everytime a soldier is looked at cross-eyed by another soldier of the opposite sexual persuasion. Notice, I don't specify gay on straight, or straight on gay situations?

That's not to mention the gay on gay harassment; and let's not pretend that kind of behavior doesn't exist within the gay community.

Then, there are going to be the clowns that join the service and the first time they are made to do something they don't like, it's going to be, "because I'm gay", then there's going to be an equal oppurtunity board conviened over the affair. The EO board will explain--more than likely without any success--how it's nothing to do with his sexual orientation and that every soldier has to have a turn at doing the ****ty details and that day, it was his turn.

At the end of the day, this isn't going to result in anything other than using up time that coould otherwise be used to train soldiers how to stay alive on the battlefield.

How is that any different than the situation describing the end of racial segregation? I won't deny there won't be issues but those Soldiers with issues will change, Soldiers will say they are being ordered to do something because they are gay just like there were some who claimed racism. And Soldiers will file complaints for bunking with a gay Soldier like they did for a black one, but it will go away as they change.
 
The army is as strong as ever...
 
I think our men and women in uniform can handle the passing of this historic legislation.. they have been through years and years of war for ****s sake
 
I think our men and women in uniform can handle the passing of this historic legislation.. they have been through years and years of war for ****s sake
Nope.

All the gay people in the military will now be able to reveal their true nature as rabid sex maniacs, and all the straight people will flee the military in fear of being raped by gay people.
 
Nope.

All the gay people in the military will now be able to reveal their true nature as rabid sex maniacs, and all the straight people will flee the military in fear of being raped by gay people.

I will check back with you on this tomorrow
 
Back
Top Bottom