• 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, don't tell" cost tops $50,000 per expulsion, study finds

Your Star said:
He didn't say that. He said being gay doesn't make someone unfit for service.
Click to expand...

Naw, that's not what he said. He made a statement of fact, that, " A gay person isn't unfit for service".
 
apdst said:
Naw, that's not what he said. He made a statement of fact, that, " A gay person isn't unfit for service".
Click to expand...

The rest of us got what he meant. I'll clarify for you. His line should have most likely read "A gay person isn't unfit for service just because they are gay". Discharges under DADT were discharges based on the person's sexuality. A heterosexual was never put out of the military for just being heterosexual openly. Their actions that brought discredit upon them or the military may have gotten them a discharge, just as there are probably plenty of homosexuals whose actions brought discredit upon them or the military have been given discharges (the Wikileaker comes to mind). DADT however, discharged personnel for simply being of a particular sexuality because some people disapprove of that sexuality.
 
roguenuke said:
The rest of us got what he meant. I'll clarify for you. His line should have most likely read "A gay person isn't unfit for service just because they are gay". Discharges under DADT were discharges based on the person's sexuality. A heterosexual was never put out of the military for just being heterosexual openly. Their actions that brought discredit upon them or the military may have gotten them a discharge, just as there are probably plenty of homosexuals whose actions brought discredit upon them or the military have been given discharges (the Wikileaker comes to mind). DADT however, discharged personnel for simply being of a particular sexuality because some people disapprove of that sexuality.
Click to expand...

Good thing ya'll are here to talk for him.
 
StillBallin75 said:
If our Armed Forces are as Professional as we all think they are, then they should be just fine.
Click to expand...

Well, we have to stop and remember that we're dealing with a bunch of kids, who are just as prone to immature and irrational behavior as any other group of 17-25 y/o's in the country.
 
apdst said:
Good thing ya'll are here to talk for him.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly I'm shocked that anybody could interpret his post the way you did. Seemed pretty obvious to the rest of us.

Because your interpretation was "No gays anywhere are ever unfit for service," which is clearly just plain stupid.
 
apdst said:
He's complaining about how much it costs to discharge a soldier. Right?
Click to expand...

admitting open homosexuals reduces cohesion. reduced cohesion causes casuaties. each kia costs the military more than what - 10, 15x the amount he's complaining about?
 
cpwill said:
admitting open homosexuals reduces cohesion. reduced cohesion causes casuaties. each kia costs the military more than what - 10, 15x the amount he's complaining about?
Click to expand...

Be careful, you're gonna start some **** with that post. :rofl
 
apdst said:
Naw, that's not what he said. He made a statement of fact, that, " A gay person isn't unfit for service".
Click to expand...

Yes but I'm sure you knew what i was trying to convey. Simply being gay isn't a cause for DQ.
 
BCR said:
Glad to see the GOP and the military were more than willing to spend 50,000 grand per gay just to keep them out. Not to mention many of them were in very skilled positions.
Click to expand...

Well, the military had nothing to do with eagerly hunting down gays. Nor was it "more than willing" to spend the money. It was the law and as such the military was bound to obey what civilians decided to force upon it. DADT has been a burden upon the military and served largely as an escape clause for gays and non-gays alike. People don't seem to realize that after 9/11, the Army and the Marine Corps largely ignored the claims of troops and denied them their right to escape obligation. And once the federal judge came to a ruling, it was the Air Force and the Pentagon that jumped at the chance to move on from this policy before the same organization of civilians that created it sought the credit for abolishing it. The numbers are for all to see and the interpretation of them should be obvious.

BUT...DADT is finished so why are you still bitching about it? Gays now have the right to go and die for your rights. But if they survive can they come back to your civilian world and get married and enjoy the same rights that normal people have? Nope. Maybe civilians should move to fix their own social inequalities before they take the coward's way out and look towards a disciplined organization to do what is "right."
 
BCR said:
Yes but I'm sure you knew what i was trying to convey. Simply being gay isn't a cause for DQ.
Click to expand...

Only reading you post, not reading you mind.
 
cpwill said:
admitting open homosexuals reduces cohesion. reduced cohesion causes casuaties. each kia costs the military more than what - 10, 15x the amount he's complaining about?
Click to expand...

As always, prove the first part about admitting open homosexuals reduces cohesion. Then you have to prove that the reduction in cohesion is actually enough to cause casualties (from the reduction in cohesion, not from some stupid guy killing his a fellow soldier because they were gay).

If anyone should be put out for a reduction in cohesion due to intolerance, it should be those that being intolerant, not those who are being discriminated against.
 
roguenuke said:
As always, prove the first part about admitting open homosexuals reduces cohesion. Then you have to prove that the reduction in cohesion is actually enough to cause casualties (from the reduction in cohesion, not from some stupid guy killing his a fellow soldier because they were gay).

If anyone should be put out for a reduction in cohesion due to intolerance, it should be those that being intolerant, not those who are being discriminated against.
Click to expand...

Anyone that's actually been in the military, especially a battle hardened vet like cpwill, can confirm that a lack of unit cohesion can and will cause casualties.

Post Script: Told'ya you were gonna start some ****, Will.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Anyone that's actually been in the military, especially a battle hardened vet like cpwill, can confirm that a lack of unit cohesion can and will cause casualties.

Post Script: Told'ya you were gonna start some ****, Will.
Click to expand...

You missed the first sentence, apparently.
 
apdst said:
Anyone that's actually been in the military, especially a battle hardened vet like cpwill, can confirm that a lack of unit cohesion can and will cause casualties.

Post Script: Told'ya you were gonna start some ****, Will.
Click to expand...

And I specifically said that you need to first prove that gays serving openly will cause a lack of unit cohesion. Expanding on this, it should include why it would cause such a decline in most cases and why such cohesion is lost. Also, you would need to show why other rules in the military cannot deal with those who are causing problems before they cause issues where people may get killed.

Second, how much of an effect will it actually have on unit cohesion. I'm pretty sure that there are units out there that have unit members that the rest of the unit or most of the rest of the unit can't stand, but they are all still able to work together effectively while in a combat situation.

There will always be some people that have issues or problems with other people, even those in the same units. But what makes homosexuals so different to you guys that you believe that it will become a huge issue? Especially since, it is most likely that very few homosexuals will actually come out as gay that weren't already out in units where they feel problems might arise. Some might, and there may be some issues. These, hopefully, can be dealt with through good leadership before they cause any huge problems. But many of the problems are going to come from those guys who are uncomfortable working with a gay man. Most will not come from the openly gay person themself.
 
apdst said:
Anyone that's actually been in the military, especially a battle hardened vet like cpwill,
Click to expand...

You guys really need to get over yourselves. I might have only been in the Navy, but I also have experience working alongside openly gay men and women on the carrier who had no problems fitting in well enough with the rest of the department, including sleeping and showering with those other guys and girls in berthing. And we actually did have the room to at least move the gay men to their own berthing. But it wasn't necessary. Our chain of command and the majority of people within the ranks were able to ensure that everyone in the department understood that we were there to do a job and as long as a person did their job to the best of their ability, most could care less what the sex of the person that someone else wanted to be in a relationship was.

I believe that this is the unit cohesion that is good for any unit. If you guys would promote this type of stuff in your own units (those who are in them) and stop complaining so much about what might happen, then we would most likely see very little problems at all, especially that might get someone killed.
 
roguenuke said:
As always, prove the first part about admitting open homosexuals reduces cohesion.
Click to expand...

:shrug: absolutely they will, the same as women do now.

sexual tension in a unit = reduced cohesion. it's almost a tautology.



(apdst: :D)
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:shrug: absolutely they will, the same as women do now.

sexual tension in a unit = reduced cohesion. it's almost a tautology.



(apdst: :D)
Click to expand...

False correlation.

First, homosexuals serve in combat units now, and always have. Women do not and have not served in US combat units.

Second, the majority of men and women are heterosexual. This means that with a unit of 50 personnel, if 3 were women (say, 1 gay, 2 straight) and 2 were homosexual men and the rest were heterosexual men, the chances of an actual relationship starting between anyone is most likely to happen between one or both of the two straight women and one or more of the 45 straight men. The two straight women have a choice of 45 men (with everyone's sexuality known). The one gay woman doesn't have a choice of anyone in the unit being compatible with her sexuality. The two gay men only have a choice of each other. And the 45 straight men have a choice of 2 women.

This even covers the likelihood of sexual tension between personnel, to an extent. It is certainly possible that there could be some tension if one of the gay guys finds himself attracted to one of the straight guys, but since we already expect our servicemembers to be adults and act professionally, then it should also be expected of gay men (as it already is of straight men in mixed units) that when someone is not interested in a relationship, for whatever reason, then the person wanting the relationship should not harass the other person and find someone else.

Also, you need to actually prove that a) sexual tension causes a significant reduction in cohesion, b) the sexual tension between sexualities is comparable to that between opposite sexes in a mostly heterosexual environment with mixed genders, and c) there are not other rules/policies in place that deal with any tension that some may face that could significantly affect unit cohesion. So far, everyone has speculation, no one has proof.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: absolutely they will, the same as women do now.

sexual tension in a unit = reduced cohesion. it's almost a tautology.



(apdst: :D)
Click to expand...

cpwill, personal question have you actually served with a Marine that was openly gay? According to the survey conducted by the DoD, although the majority of combat arms Marines opposed repeal, over 80% who had actually served with a member they knew was gay supported the repeal. This suggest to me that it's fear of the unknown that's responsible for the differences in attitudes.
 
roguenuke said:
You guys really need to get over yourselves. I might have only been in the Navy, but I also have experience working alongside openly gay men and women on the carrier who had no problems fitting in well enough with the rest of the department, including sleeping and showering with those other guys and girls in berthing. And we actually did have the room to at least move the gay men to their own berthing. But it wasn't necessary. Our chain of command and the majority of people within the ranks were able to ensure that everyone in the department understood that we were there to do a job and as long as a person did their job to the best of their ability, most could care less what the sex of the person that someone else wanted to be in a relationship was.

I believe that this is the unit cohesion that is good for any unit. If you guys would promote this type of stuff in your own units (those who are in them) and stop complaining so much about what might happen, then we would most likely see very little problems at all, especially that might get someone killed.
Click to expand...

So, when you were in the field, you drank from the same canteen as the rest of your squad? Shared eating utensils with another soldier, because his MRE was the 1-in-a-100,000 that they forgot to put a little plasstic spoon in? When you went to the arctic warfare school, in Ft. Wainwright, Alaska and it was 20 below, did you share fart sacks with your squad to stay warm? When you were at the jungle warfare school, in Panama, did you wear another soldier's dirty socks, because all your's were wet? How about when you took the combat lifesaver's course and you had to start an actual IV on your buddy? You did that? Wash your ass in the same bucket of water as three other dudes, because that was all the water there was to spare for personal hygene?

Because, if you didn't, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to unit cohesion.

You need to seriously examine your comments, when people who have actually served in combat and/or combat oriented units tell you something totally opposite of what you're saying.
 
StillBallin75 said:
cpwill, personal question have you actually served with a Marine that was openly gay? According to the survey conducted by the DoD, although the majority of combat arms Marines opposed repeal, over 80% who had actually served with a member they knew was gay supported the repeal. This suggest to me that it's fear of the unknown that's responsible for the differences in attitudes.
Click to expand...

Have you served in the military at all?

99% of the Army and Marine Corps vets, plus the one, or two Air Force and Navy vets that have seen actual action, or served in some SF role tell you one thing, but ya'll constantly say we're wrong and drag out the same ole lame ass arguments and speculations. We're all just stupid, or what?
 
roguenuke said:
homosexuals serve in combat units now, and always have.
Click to expand...

yes, however, prior to this they weren't allowed to be open, which meant no relationships and no real possibility therein, which translated to the effect on the unit being as though there were none. that was the elegance of the DADT compromise which it's opponents so blithely ignored.

Women do not and have not served in US combat units.
Click to expand...

and thank goodness. because where they go, such issues inevitably arise; and the combat units don't have the time to afford for such things.

Second, the majority of men and women are heterosexual. This means that with a unit of 50 personnel, if 3 were women (say, 1 gay, 2 straight) and 2 were homosexual men and the rest were heterosexual men, the chances of an actual relationship starting between anyone is most likely to happen between one or both of the two straight women and one or more of the 45 straight men. The two straight women have a choice of 45 men (with everyone's sexuality known). The one gay woman doesn't have a choice of anyone in the unit being compatible with her sexuality. The two gay men only have a choice of each other. And the 45 straight men have a choice of 2 women.
Click to expand...

the problem isn't when there are two gay men, it's when there are three; and two of them are in a relationship... until one of them decides to cheat on his partner with a third.

and so on and so forth. the problems that come with the introduction of sexuality into a unit are legion, from jealousy, to cliqueishness, to backbiting, to distraction.

Also, you need to actually prove that a) sexual tension causes a significant reduction in cohesion
Click to expand...

really? in a world in which commanding generals have to say "oh by the way, even though we've ordered ya'll not to screw each other in country, there are too many females getting pregnant and so if you do we're gonna charge you" i have to demonstrate a reduction in cohesion?

take a bunch of mixed-gender 18-21 year olds. put them close together in a highly stressful situation. they will think with their private parts.

b) the sexual tension between sexualities is comparable to that between opposite sexes in a mostly heterosexual environment with mixed genders
Click to expand...

if we are to believe some of the statistics floating around there about the average number of partners for a homosexual male the problem is arguably worse.

c) there are not other rules/policies in place that deal with any tension that some may face that could significantly affect unit cohesion.
Click to expand...

this is sort of like arguing that you can regulate "no being human".
 
StillBallin75 said:
cpwill, personal question have you actually served with a Marine that was openly gay?
Click to expand...

openly? i don't know if you'd call it openly. everyone pretty much knew, and everyone pretty much pretended like they didn't, and the persons in question never allowed it to come out openly in such a manner that the chain couldn't help but deal with it.
 
apdst said:
Have you served in the military at all?

99% of the Army and Marine Corps vets, plus the one, or two Air Force and Navy vets that have seen actual action, or served in some SF role tell you one thing, but ya'll constantly say we're wrong and drag out the same ole lame ass arguments and speculations. We're all just stupid, or what?
Click to expand...

There is no measurement that has 99% of any branch in agreement on the issue.
Overwhelmingly, those with experience serving with someone they know to be gay found that it did not cause a problem. You're big on experience, right? This includes front-line combat units.

You're not stupid, but you're a smaller minority than you think and if you'd served with someone you know to be gay there's a statistically high chance that you would have found it to be no big deal.

But hey, good job on keeping the whole persecution complex going.
 
Last edited:
There is reason why my Corps was fought against the repeal of DADT. Open gays along females reduce cohesion and combat effectiveness. They also cause tension for units in the work place and for us the live in the Barracks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom