• 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!

Gays in the Military

Should the law be changed so that gays can serve openly in the military.

  • Yes, do it now

    Votes: 65 67.7%

  • Yes, but after the Pentagon completes it study on the issue

    Votes: 9 9.4%

  • No, do not change the law

    Votes: 12 12.5%

  • No, DADT should be repealed and gays not allowed to serve at all

    Votes: 3 3.1%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 7 7.3%
  • Total voters
    96
Your Star said:
Allowing LGBT people to serve openly in the military isn't government sanctioned sexual harassment. Like I said, pulling crap out your ass.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood. Repealing DADT won't suddenly make everyone ok with homosexuality.
 
Redress said:
E3 and below can move off base with command permission, which I never saw turned down. First question I was asked when I got to my squadron was if I was going to be moving off base right away.

The whole "own room" thing is retarded. Straits room with gays now in the military. There is zero reason to believe this will some how change. It's just an excuse, it's not a real issue.
Click to expand...



Actually it depends on the capacity rates of the base. For example when I was at hurlburt the capacity was close to 100%, I lived off base.

When I was at kirtland, I lived off base then was moved back on base as an E5....


It all depends but they fill the housing and barracks billeting 1st.
 
mac said:
This one get's my bet.
Click to expand...




you know what's funny about this is that people who never served think we are all a bunch of homophobic girly men. When I was in, we knew who was gay and really didn't care. As long as you didn't make your service about your genitalia no one gave a ****, perhaps we didn't frequent the same bars, but just like when DADT was implemented by that draft dodging idiot, nothing, really changed. :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
you know what's funny about this is that people who never served think we are all a bunch of homophobic girly men. When I was in, we knew who was gay and really didn't care. As long as you didn't make your service about your genitalia no one gave a ****, perhaps we didn't frequent the same bars, but just like when DADT was implemented by that draft dodging idiot, nothing, really changed. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You, Sir, are exactly right.
 
On another thought alien to the mortal....


We always policed ourselves... If we were a bunch of homophobic girlymen, what would changing the policy REALLY do?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
On another thought alien to the mortal....


We always policed ourselves... If we were a bunch of homophobic girlymen, what would changing the policy REALLY do?
Click to expand...

Exactly the point. Thank you. The only thing it will change will be to allow homosexual or bisexual men and women not be forced to hide for fear of being kicked out. It will change nothing with regard to the people who are NOT homosexual or bisexual since, as you've already statted, you guys know who is and who isn't and deal with it accordingly. And according to you, were "okay" with it.
 
rivrrat said:
Exactly the point. Thank you. The only thing it will change will be to allow homosexual or bisexual men and women not be forced to hide for fear of being kicked out. It will change nothing with regard to the people who are NOT homosexual or bisexual since, as you've already statted, you guys know who is and who isn't and deal with it accordingly. And according to you, were "okay" with it.
Click to expand...




Like I said, What I cared about shooting, wasn't the thing between ones legs. :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Like I said, What I cared about shooting, wasn't the thing between ones legs. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I certainly would hope that's the case. I'd hate to think that much of the civilian population is able to deal with such knowledge, but the military personnel aren't. In general, most people hold the military to a higher standard. But to hear some people tell it in this thread, perhaps we shouldn't since, according to some, they are actually less capable than much of the civilian population.

Good to know that at some in the military are focused on their tasks at hand, instead of each others dicks.
 
rivrrat said:
I certainly would hope that's the case. I'd hate to think that much of the civilian population is able to deal with such knowledge, but the military personnel aren't. In general, most people hold the military to a higher standard. But to hear some people tell it in this thread, perhaps we shouldn't since, according to some, they are actually less capable than much of the civilian population.

Good to know that at some in the military are focused on their tasks at hand, instead of each others dicks.
Click to expand...




Most are. I would guess most of those in this thread are as well. It's the machismo factor and down time stuff like this all comes out. I have been accused of same. :shrug: When you are in the **** you have little time to worry about who's checking you out. :shrug:
 
mac said:
Have you known anyone during your time in the military that thought they had been sexually harassed, or even been privy to any sexual harassment cases?

Choosing to reside with males offbase is an entirely different subject. I'm sure you didn't just pick some random guys and go get an apartment. Choosing to live with people, male, female, straight, or gay, that you know and trust is far different to being assigned to live with them.
Click to expand...

The only cases I knew of sexual harassment claims (besides the one I described earlier involving my entire berthing) happened outside of berthing. Truthfully, the only one that I can remember at the moment involved one of our male sailors and a female shipyard worker. He brought charges against her for backing him up to a bulkhead and kissing him because he was very conservative and married.

And no, actually I didn't know two of the three male roommates that I shared an apartment with before we went apartment hunting. The one I did know, who was a good friend from the division, suggested them as roommates. We were all E-4s and were informed that we would be stuck living on the barge during a shipyard period because they didn't have enough barracks rooms for everyone, and they were giving those to E-3s and below first. We were also told however, that we would not be authorized BAH til we reached E-5, so we needed as many roommates as we could get to cut down on expenses.

Saying all this though, still doesn't mean much when it comes to being straight or gay and living together. As I posted earlier, male and female heterosexuals and homosexuals know now that they most likely will be living with someone of a different sexuality than they are. The only difference after homosexuals are allowed to serve openly will be that some of those homosexuals who were still hiding their homosexuality may choose to share that they are gay with their unit (although I will argue that very few will actually do this, just due to the military environment and mindset in general). I still think it is important to stop discharging personnel for being gay as soon as possible, but I can see the difference between being "out" on paper and "out" to a person's unit/division.

Do you think that you knew every personal detail of everyone you have ever worked with? What kind of girls all the guys you worked with liked to date? What diseases/disorders they may have had?
 
Hard to believe this is still being argued. Gays can pull the trigger just as well I would imagine. There was an ancient society.. I think it was the Spartans who would team up homosexual partners. Apparently when they saw their loved one fall they were particularly fierce fighters. I don't know the validity of the claim of course it was out of an extreme right wing book somehow trying to discredit homosexuality ironically.
 
The funny thing about this is I'm not even opposed to repealing DADT. I, and most, think it was a ridiculous plan with no impact. The only reason it exists is so Clinton can claim he did something for Homosexuals.

I'm simply stating that a pragmatic approach to repealing it should be followed. Apparently the bleeders, who know very little about military culture, don't know the difference between opposition and caution.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'll add a little something that most on the farther left won't see as relevant to this discussion.I add it to show that life in the military is a bit different than life outside it:

McChrystal relieved of command, Petraeus chosen to take over - CNN.com

Gen. McChrystal has been relieved of command for comments made about the President, by his aides. A proud and successful career showing dedication to the nation comes to an end over the perception of insubordination. Gen McChrystal didn't even say anything about the President himself. A lot of careers of good people are going to come to an end over the DADT issue if it's not done in a methodical and pragmatic way.
 
I can not begin to comprehend the reasoning behind all the people who answered "no, and gays shouldn't be allowed to serve at all".

Can you give a single reason backed with evidence that homosexual soldiers are any less effective or cohesive in their unit to straight soldiers?

Come on, the US should get out of the 19th century by now.
 
Le Marteau said:
I can not begin to comprehend the reasoning behind all the people who answered "no, and gays shouldn't be allowed to serve at all".

Can you give a single reason backed with evidence that homosexual soldiers are any less effective or cohesive in their unit to straight soldiers?

Come on, the US should get out of the 19th century by now.
Click to expand...
It's probably includes something along the lines of "non-gay soldiers don't want to serve with gay soldiers", which IMO is total MBE (Male Bovine Excrement). Hey, look, a new acronym.
 
The Mark said:
It's probably includes something along the lines of "non-gay soldiers don't want to serve with gay soldiers", which IMO is total MBE (Male Bovine Excrement). Hey, look, a new acronym.
Click to expand...

Male Bovine Excrement indeed, mon ami.

What's even more shocking about the entire episode is that I'm fairly sure that most American soldiers themselves don't care one way or the other (I served with the French Foreign Legion, and afterwards the Royal Marines, and I came into contact several times with American soldiers), it's just the partisan pundits who are trying to make it a D-R sticking point.
 
Le Marteau said:
Male Bovine Excrement indeed, mon ami.

What's even more shocking about the entire episode is that I'm fairly sure that most American soldiers themselves don't care one way or the other (I served with the French Foreign Legion, and afterwards the Royal Marines, and I came into contact several times with American soldiers), it's just the partisan pundits who are trying to make it a D-R sticking point.
Click to expand...


In our culture it is an act of the desperate to hold on to power and used as a wedge issue. And sometimes it works although it is getting less and less effective.
 
winston53660 said:
In our culture it is an act of the desperate to hold on to power and used as a wedge issue. And sometimes it works although it is getting less and less effective.
Click to expand...

I think DADT is a dead issue -- it will be repealed within a few years (I severely hope, for the sake of America's social progress. Maybe you'll enter the 20th century sometime soon XD), so why are they still fighting over it?
 
Le Marteau said:
I think DADT is a dead issue -- it will be repealed within a few years (I severely hope, for the sake of America's social progress. Maybe you'll enter the 20th century sometime soon XD), so why are they still fighting over it?
Click to expand...


They are fighting over in a last despite attempt. And I do think gays will be getting married all over this nation with federal recognition within 5 to 7 years including military personnel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom