• 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

Good now DADT is gone, what will the libs to bitch about next?
 
American said:
Gays wanting to share in the misery of marriage makes them morons.
Click to expand...

The benefits of legal marriage are balanced out by the pains of a private marriage, for most couples anyway. And gay couples can already be in a private marriage without legal same sex marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
The benefits of legal marriage are balanced out by the pains of a private marriage, for most couples anyway. And gay couples can already be in a private marriage without legal same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

It was kind of a joke. :roll:
 
American said:
It was kind of a joke. :roll:
Click to expand...

I figured, but I really haven't ever gotten that joke. I view my marriage (private and legal) as being better than just living in a relationship with my current husband or going from relationship to relationship. There certainly are problems, but marriage ensures that neither of us will easily give up when things do get hard.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, there are lot's of variables involved. Females soldiers can't be forced to billet with male soldiers. Such an order would be unlawful. A female soldier is within her rights to refuse such an order, the same way that a gay soldier would be within his/her rights to refuse to billet with straight soldiers and vice versa.



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.
Click to expand...

But, now they're serving openly and that is a definite game changer. I know you think I don't know jack **** about it, so you'll just have to wait and see.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's all fine-n-good, but there are still going to be housing issues. A gay soldier refusing to billet with a straight soldier isn't discrimination. It's well within those soldiers's rights.
 
CriticalThought said:
Gay = Happy.

We don't do misery. We couldn't have made that anymore clear when we named ourselves gay.
Click to expand...

Just for historical accuracy homosexuals were not the first ones to call themselves gay. It started being used by heterosexuals as a derogatory term. Homosexuals just turned it around on them. ;)
 
apdst said:
Well, there are lot's of variables involved. Females soldiers can't be forced to billet with male soldiers. Such an order would be unlawful. A female soldier is within her rights to refuse such an order, the same way that a gay soldier would be within his/her rights to refuse to billet with straight soldiers and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Not the same. The genders will still be the same.

apdst said:
But, now they're serving openly and that is a definite game changer. I know you think I don't know jack **** about it, so you'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

If its that big of a game changer then those that are offended by gays to let it affect thier professionalism don't deserve to be in the military. For the simple fact that if they can't stand something different then they are not going to be the greatest when it comes to relations with those that are different.

And please, don't attribute something to me until I have said it straight out. Just because I disagree with you it doesn't mean that I think you don't know jack about it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not the same. The genders will still be the same.
Click to expand...

But, their sexuality isn't. Therein lies the difference.



If its that big of a game changer then those that are offended by gays to let it affect thier professionalism don't deserve to be in the military. For the simple fact that if they can't stand something different then they are not going to be the greatest when it comes to relations with those that are different.
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with being, "offended". For the simple fact that the regulations clearly state that a soldier has the right to, "live and work in a safe comfortable environment".

And please, don't attribute something to me until I have said it straight out. Just because I disagree with you it doesn't mean that I think you don't know jack about it.
Click to expand...

What unit did you serve in and what was your MOS and rank?
 
apdst said:
But, their sexuality isn't. Therein lies the difference.
Click to expand...

Not that big a difference. We've had gays serving in the military for a long time now and I don't recall hearing about any of them leering at the guys in the shower. Surely there would have been at least one that did if gays were not able to control themselves as so many seem to imply/suggest.

apdst said:
It's nothing to do with being, "offended". For the simple fact that the regulations clearly state that a soldier has the right to, "live and work in a safe comfortable environment".
Click to expand...

Ok I would find such a regulation idiotic to have in such an organization as the military....Since when is living on the front lines considered "a safe, comfortable environment"? I would dearly love to see it, could you provide it?

apdst said:
What unit did you serve in and what was your MOS and rank?
Click to expand...

Did not serve. What's your point? Can I not disagree with someone in a specialized position? If I was a cop that made the judgment call to shoot someone because I thought for sure they were pulling a gun on me would your opinion of "you should have waited and made sure" be any less valid when it turned out that he/she never had a gun? Point is that even someone in specialized positions, with the advantage of being in that position can still be wrong while the guy/gal from the outside can be right.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not that big a difference. We've had gays serving in the military for a long time now and I don't recall hearing about any of them leering at the guys in the shower. Surely there would have been at least one that did if gays were not able to control themselves as so many seem to imply/suggest.
Click to expand...

They weren't serving openly. Why does it seem that people can't see how that makes things different? "Staring", is defined as sexual harassment. Now that gay soldiers are serving, "openly", there are going to be sexual harassment cases between gay and straight soldiers and it won't just be straight soldiers filing the complaints.


Ok I would find such a regulation idiotic to have in such an organization as the military
Click to expand...

Not so idiotic, when you consider that we have coed units in our military and rules had to be put in place to protect female soldiers from sexual harassment.


....Since when is living on the front lines considered "a safe, comfortable environment"? I would dearly love to see it, could you provide it?
Click to expand...

A safe, comfortable environment from your fellow soldiers. It's understood that the enemy isn't going to provide a safe, comfortable environment.



Did not serve. What's your point? Can I not disagree with someone in a specialized position? If I was a cop that made the judgment call to shoot someone because I thought for sure they were pulling a gun on me would your opinion of "you should have waited and made sure" be any less valid when it turned out that he/she never had a gun? Point is that even someone in specialized positions, with the advantage of being in that position can still be wrong while the guy/gal from the outside can be right.
Click to expand...

This isn't a judgment call. I'm explaining to you how the system works.
 
This is an opportunity. Gotta hand it to Obama, and also to Bill Clinton, for getting the ball, or maybe two of them, rolling on this issue. And the military now has big plans. :mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
They weren't serving openly. Why does it seem that people can't see how that makes things different? "Staring", is defined as sexual harassment. Now that gay soldiers are serving, "openly", there are going to be sexual harassment cases between gay and straight soldiers and it won't just be straight soldiers filing the complaints.
Click to expand...

Because the difference is only in the minds of the paranoid. No offense is meant there but it is true. There are lots of people in the military that don't care if they serve with homosexuals. They already know that they do and have even known some friends within thier own platoon that they figured out was gay. If it doesn't bother them then that shows that it is just in a persons mind.

As far as "staring" being considered sexual harrassment? Please show me where this is? Does it determine how long you look at someone for it to be considered a stare? I know I've stared at someone without realizeing it also. (My mind was on other things besides what was in front of me) Does it take that into account?

apdst said:
Not so idiotic, when you consider that we have coed units in our military and rules had to be put in place to protect female soldiers from sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

Was this why "staring" is considered sexual harrasment? *shakes head* If so then you've got a few gals that are feminist idiots.


apdst said:
A safe, comfortable environment from your fellow soldiers. It's understood that the enemy isn't going to provide a safe, comfortable environment.
Click to expand...

Wow...if you need an exclusively, specific safe, comfortable environment from the people that you are suppose to trust to guard your back then I would have to say that there are more problems going on in the military that I ever imagined.
 
apdst said:
It's nothing to do with being, "offended". For the simple fact that the regulations clearly state that a soldier has the right to, "live and work in a safe comfortable environment".
Click to expand...

And you really don't get how being forced to keep a secret about something so basic as a person's sexuality was not a "safe" and "comfortable environment"?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Because the difference is only in the minds of the paranoid. No offense is meant there but it is true. There are lots of people in the military that don't care if they serve with homosexuals. They already know that they do and have even known some friends within thier own platoon that they figured out was gay. If it doesn't bother them then that shows that it is just in a persons mind.
Click to expand...

There may be alot of service members that mind serving with gays, but the majority don't want to live with gays, as reflected in the Pentagon Study--the #1 piece of evidence used to support the repeal--says that there are going to be cohabitation issues.

From the Pentagon study it is clear that implementing DADT repeal overall will be far from trivial, and for Marines, implementation is likely to involve particular difficulty. Members of all service branches focused on the same underlying issue (volume 1, p. 141, volume 1, p. 135 and volume 2, p. 64):

Privacy concerns were the most frequently commented upon issue, regardless of a respondent’s Service.

… respondents appeared to be most concerned about the possibility of showering or rooming with someone who was known to the respondent to be gay or lesbian.

“If my roommate turns out to be homosexual, I feel like I am part of his target audience. It is a violation of a social norm; for example you wouldn’t have me room with a female.”

DADT Study Data Argues Against One-Size-Fits-All Approach | Secure Nation
Click to expand...

As far as "staring" being considered sexual harrassment? Please show me where this is? Does it determine how long you look at someone for it to be considered a stare? I know I've stared at someone without realizeing it also. (My mind was on other things besides what was in front of me) Does it take that into account?
Click to expand...


No problem,

b. Nonverbal. Examples of nonverbal sexual harassment may include staring at someone (i.e. “ undressing someone
with one’s eyes”), blowing kisses, winking, or licking one’s lips in a suggestive manner. Nonverbal sexual harassment
also includes printed material. Examples may include displaying sexually oriented pictures, cartoons or using sexually
oriented screen savers on one’s computer. Further examples include sending sexually oriented notes, letters, faxes, or email.

Chapter 7, Section 7-5, Paragraph b, page 52 of Army Regulation 600-20

http://www.sexualassault.army.mil/files/r600_20_chapter7.pdf
Click to expand...



Was this why "staring" is considered sexual harrasment? *shakes head* If so then you've got a few gals that are feminist idiots.
Click to expand...

Because it's the military and they always blow things our of proportion, because we have so many civilian politicos breathing down the necks of our commanding generals. Ever hear of a, "Congressional military inquiry"? It's a fate worse than death to an officer. A congressional inquiry can be launched by any member of congress, with the slightest evidence. Usually, that evidence is a letter from a soldier who happens to be that congress critter's constituent.


Wow...if you need an exclusively, specific safe, comfortable environment from the people that you are suppose to trust to guard your back then I would have to say that there are more problems going on in the military that I ever imagined.
Click to expand...

That's right, because if they can't be trusted to gaurd your back, then they need to be dealt with. Would you want to be in the service, while another soldier makes your life a living hell, with no regulation designed to help you file a grevience and then, have to depend on that soldiers to cover your ass in a firefight? I wouldn't.
 
Paschendale said:
And you really don't get how being forced to keep a secret about something so basic as a person's sexuality was not a "safe" and "comfortable environment"?
Click to expand...

The United States armed forces were born in 1775 and since then, it has been the finest fighting force the world has ever known. Looks to me like it worked extremely well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom