• 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!

Since people here say DADT is discriminatory

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
15,254
Reaction score
3,209
Location
Beirut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I tend to believe that sexuality really has no place in the military, other than for medical purposes where it asks if your male or female. Since more than once have people said gay people have been "targeted" by DADT policy, instead of repealing it...why don't we just broaden DADT policy to everyone? Heterosexuals, trisexuals, wtfsexuals, everything and everyone. Because quite frankly, when your outside the base and in civilian clothes...you are what you are, but in uniform, you are what the military says you are.

doing this would kill all arguments against it, as far as I'm concerned. and the only thing people can say is "it's stupid".

and coming from a guy who is soon to be in the navy right after this semester is over, and not coming from some homophobe who wants to target otherwise good people, I'd support this.
 
I tend to believe that sexuality really has no place in the military, other than for medical purposes where it asks if your male or female. Since more than once have people said gay people have been "targeted" by DADT policy, instead of repealing it...why don't we just broaden DADT policy to everyone? Heterosexuals, trisexuals, wtfsexuals, everything and everyone. Because quite frankly, when your outside the base and in civilian clothes...you are what you are, but in uniform, you are what the military says you are.

doing this would kill all arguments against it, as far as I'm concerned. and the only thing people can say is "it's stupid".

and coming from a guy who is soon to be in the navy right after this semester is over, and not coming from some homophobe who wants to target otherwise good people, I'd support this.


***** Substantial degree of ignorance here.
 
I tend to believe that sexuality really has no place in the military, other than for medical purposes where it asks if your male or female. Since more than once have people said gay people have been "targeted" by DADT policy, instead of repealing it...why don't we just broaden DADT policy to everyone? Heterosexuals, trisexuals, wtfsexuals, everything and everyone. Because quite frankly, when your outside the base and in civilian clothes...you are what you are, but in uniform, you are what the military says you are.

doing this would kill all arguments against it, as far as I'm concerned. and the only thing people can say is "it's stupid".

and coming from a guy who is soon to be in the navy right after this semester is over, and not coming from some homophobe who wants to target otherwise good people, I'd support this.

This sounds reasonable and is akin to the argument that instead of legalizing GM, take the government completely out of the marriage business. Good argument.
 
I tend to believe that sexuality really has no place in the military, other than for medical purposes where it asks if your male or female. Since more than once have people said gay people have been "targeted" by DADT policy, instead of repealing it...why don't we just broaden DADT policy to everyone? Heterosexuals, trisexuals, wtfsexuals, everything and everyone. Because quite frankly, when your outside the base and in civilian clothes...you are what you are, but in uniform, you are what the military says you are.

doing this would kill all arguments against it, as far as I'm concerned. and the only thing people can say is "it's stupid".

and coming from a guy who is soon to be in the navy right after this semester is over, and not coming from some homophobe who wants to target otherwise good people, I'd support this.

I think expanding it would virtually have the same effect as repealing it. It would just cost more because it would have to be enforced, which probably would be a bit impractical. But ideally, it would be a fair solution.
 
Broadening the DADT policy would not be a good idea. You can't demand that soldiers - or any other group of employees - keep their sexuality secret. In their time off duty the soldiers will talk to each other and one of the most common type of things to talk about is family and significant others. It would be awfully awkward if soldiers were not allowed to tell each other that they are missing their wives, having trouble with their boyfriends etc.

Furthermore sexuality is present in the military in another way. Soldiers are known to keep pin ups and porn magazines. It is understandable that they want access to this kind of material since they are far away from any real chances of getting their sexual desires fulfilled. With DADT the heterosexual soldier is allowed to keep a magazine with hot women while the gay soldier is not allowed to keep a magazine with hot guys. Expanding DADT would just make conditions for heterosexuals worse.

The DADT policy should be repealed instead. Virtually all other NATO countries allow gays to serve openly in the military and experience no problems. For other countries gays in the military are not an issue at all - why then get so wound up about this issue?
 
Wouldn't work the way you imagine, OP. Right now a homosexual discovered off-duty and off-base with a same-sex partner can be discharged. If you bothered to enforce it, you'd end up discharghing any servicemen in any sort of relationship. Hell, servicemen who had children would have to be discharged automatically because there's official record proving they've had sex!

No, how about we take the more sensible option and repeal DADT :)
 
So you want to kick anyone who is married and/or has kids out of the military? I don't think you really thought this one through.
 
Broadening the DADT policy would not be a good idea. You can't demand that soldiers - or any other group of employees - keep their sexuality secret. In their time off duty the soldiers will talk to each other and one of the most common type of things to talk about is family and significant others. It would be awfully awkward if soldiers were not allowed to tell each other that they are missing their wives, having trouble with their boyfriends etc.

Furthermore sexuality is present in the military in another way. Soldiers are known to keep pin ups and porn magazines. It is understandable that they want access to this kind of material since they are far away from any real chances of getting their sexual desires fulfilled. With DADT the heterosexual soldier is allowed to keep a magazine with hot women while the gay soldier is not allowed to keep a magazine with hot guys. Expanding DADT would just make conditions for heterosexuals worse.

The DADT policy should be repealed instead. Virtually all other NATO countries allow gays to serve openly in the military and experience no problems. For other countries gays in the military are not an issue at all - why then get so wound up about this issue?

Yeah, I don't think that expanding DADT is a practical, or desirable solution.
 
Please explain.

Regicollis explains it quite effectively.
DADT has been used to discharge service members not to retain them. Broadening the scope of DADT would effectively make EVERYONE fair game for discharge and would leave no one left to protect our nation.
It's not thought through well when someone says "oh just broaden it to encompass everyone." That person only shows their ignorance of the law/policy and what it actually entails.
 
Regicollis explains it quite effectively.
DADT has been used to discharge service members not to retain them. Broadening the scope of DADT would effectively make EVERYONE fair game for discharge and would leave no one left to protect our nation.
It's not thought through well when someone says "oh just broaden it to encompass everyone." That person only shows their ignorance of the law/policy and what it actually entails.
Im sorry but...are you saying that members have been discharged due to actions related to DADT that happen off-base and out of uniform? Isn't that not just questionable...but BLATANTLY and in-your-face unconstitutional? I call BS, Im pretty sure DADT just relates to sexuality on military premises. If this is the case, then I don't see how broadening it would do anything other than keep member's sexuality in check.
 
Last edited:
Im sorry but...are you saying that members have been discharged due to actions related to DADT that happen off-base and out of uniform? Isn't that not just questionable...but BLATANTLY and in-your-face unconstitutional? I call BS, Im pretty sure DADT just relates to sexuality on military premises. If this is the case, then I don't see how broadening it would do anything other than keep member's sexuality in check.

More than 13,500 service members have been fired under the law since 1994.
Nowhere in the policy does it state that is intended nor practiced while a service member is on base only. In fact because service members are under contracted 24/7 all actions, regardless of where they take place, as long as the service member is under such contract can and will be enforced.

Although we have not and will not ask you about your sexual Orientation, you should be
aware that homosexual conduct is grounds for discharge from the Armed Forces. This
means that if you do one of the following, you could be involuntarily separated before
your term of service ends:
(1) Homosexual acts. You engage in, attempt to engage in, or solicit another to
engage in a homosexual act or acts. A “homosexual act” means touching a person of your
same sex or allowing such a person to touch you for the purpose of satisfying sexual
desires. (For example, hand-holding or kissing, or other physical contact of a sexual
nature.)
(2) Homosexual statements. You make a statement that demonstrates a propensity
or intent to engage in homosexual acts. This may include language or behavior that a
reasonable person would believe intends to convey the statement that you are a
homosexual or bisexual.
(3) Homosexual marriage. You marry or attempt to marry a person of your same
sex.
You may not be discharged if you do or say these things solely to end your military
service.
The Armed Forces do nor tolerate harassment or violence against any servicemember, for
any reason.
RESTRICTIONS ON PERSONAL CONDUCT IN THE ARMED FORCES
(For use of this form, see USMEPCOM Reg. 601-23)
1. Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life. The military has its own
laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal
behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society. These are necessary because
military units and personnel must maintain the high standards of morale, good order and
discipline, and unit cohesion that arc essential for combat effectiveness.
2. The Armed Forces must be ready at all times for world-wide deployment. Military law
and regulations, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to
servicemembers at all times, both on base or off base, from the time the member enters
the Service until the member is discharged or otherwise separated from the Armed
Forces.
3. Members of the Armed Forces may he involuntarily separated before their term of
service ends for various reasons established by law and military regulations, such as:
a. A member may be separated for a pattern of disciplinary infractions, a pattern
of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, or civilian conviction
b. A member who has been referred to a rehabilitation program for personal drug
and alcohol abuse may be separated for failure through inability or refusal to participate
in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.
c. A member may be discharged by reason of parenthood, if it is determined the
member because of parental responsibilities, is unable to perform his or her duties
satisfactorily or is unavailable for worldwide assignment or deployment
d. A member may be separated for violation of laws or regulations regarding
sexual conduct of members of the Armed Forces, for example, engaging or attempting to
engage in a homosexual act or soliciting another to engage in such an act; for stating that
he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect; or for marrying or
attempting to marry an individual of the same sex.
e. A member may be separated for failure to meet Service weight control
standards.
f. A member may be separated for harassment or violence against any
servicemember.
http://www.sldn.org/page/-/Website/The%20Law/The%20Law%20-%20Accession.pdf
 
I tend to believe that sexuality really has no place in the military, other than for medical purposes where it asks if your male or female. Since more than once have people said gay people have been "targeted" by DADT policy, instead of repealing it...why don't we just broaden DADT policy to everyone? Heterosexuals, trisexuals, wtfsexuals, everything and everyone. Because quite frankly, when your outside the base and in civilian clothes...you are what you are, but in uniform, you are what the military says you are.

doing this would kill all arguments against it, as far as I'm concerned. and the only thing people can say is "it's stupid".

and coming from a guy who is soon to be in the navy right after this semester is over, and not coming from some homophobe who wants to target otherwise good people, I'd support this.

I like your sentiment, but that's somewhat impractical. It would mean that if you showed someone a picture of your girlfriend, you'd be thrown out.

It's not about the sex - because sexual harassment and sexual misconduct would still be illegal.

If a gay soldier in Iraq says I love you to his partner back in the states under DADT, he would be discharged.

All you're saying with your proposal is that YOU could be discharged for saying I love you to your wife or girlfriend and so would anyone else.

So, I like your sentiment and your sense of equality. I just think the proposal is impractical.
 
Stupid. The proposal is stupid.
 
Virtually all other NATO countries allow gays to serve openly in the military and experience no problems. For other countries gays in the military are not an issue at all - why then get so wound up about this issue?

but not in the combat arms. if we made this distinction, we would still have many problems with implementation of the new policy, but we would have eliminated one of the bigger ones.
 
How about we leave DADT in place, since the military works just fine the way it is...
 
How about we leave DADT in place, since the military works just fine the way it is...

So we have a military without women, blacks or an airforce? Maintaining the status-quo just because it worked before is a very good way to get your ass handed to you in the next war. See France 1940 for details.
 
Im sorry but...are you saying that members have been discharged due to actions related to DADT that happen off-base and out of uniform? Isn't that not just questionable...but BLATANTLY and in-your-face unconstitutional? I call BS, Im pretty sure DADT just relates to sexuality on military premises. If this is the case, then I don't see how broadening it would do anything other than keep member's sexuality in check.

Alert to LGBT Service Members: Know Risks of Social Networking | Latest News | Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Based on an increase in the number of DADT investigations stemming from social networking sites, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) reminds LGBT service members that any admission of sexual orientation on sites like Facebook and MySpace may result in their discharge under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.
 
I tend to believe that sexuality really has no place in the military, other than for medical purposes where it asks if your male or female. Since more than once have people said gay people have been "targeted" by DADT policy, instead of repealing it...why don't we just broaden DADT policy to everyone? Heterosexuals, trisexuals, wtfsexuals, everything and everyone. Because quite frankly, when your outside the base and in civilian clothes...you are what you are, but in uniform, you are what the military says you are.

doing this would kill all arguments against it, as far as I'm concerned. and the only thing people can say is "it's stupid".

and coming from a guy who is soon to be in the navy right after this semester is over, and not coming from some homophobe who wants to target otherwise good people, I'd support this.

On the job, soldiers shouldn't be sexual beings, they have a job to do. This is true with any job, unless you work in a sexual industry, like playboy or something.

Off the job, they should be free to do what they want with their personal time, like any job.

The only thing that I would change (and it will change as gay marriage becomes more popular) is that gay marriage should be recognized in the military since it does affect deployments and benefits.
 
So we have a military without women, blacks or an airforce? Maintaining the status-quo just because it worked before is a very good way to get your ass handed to you in the next war. See France 1940 for details.

And changing the status quo in the midst of two wars when nothing is broken is an even better way to get your ass handed to you.
 
And changing the status quo in the midst of two wars when nothing is broken is an even better way to get your ass handed to you.

Clearly if gays serve openly al-qaeda will win!

Do you fall down a lot?
 
For those of you who can read Spanish, you might find this interesting...
Primera boda gay en el Ejército - 20minutos.es

Briefly, two gay men serving in the Spanish air force marry and attending the ceremony were their base commander and representatives of both the ruling Socialist Party (PSOE) and the opposition PP (Conservative) Party. To be honest, this story wasn't front page news, it was covered by regional TV, not national. I think that most people here don't think it's that big a deal. Nor do I.
 
And changing the status quo in the midst of two wars when nothing is broken is an even better way to get your ass handed to you.

You don't consider loosing thousands of trained and capable soldiers to be a problem, especially when some of them possess vital skills? When we are stretched thin and having recruiting problems, its foolish to throw away the soldiers we already have. We have lost nearly as many soldiers to DADT than actual combat.
 
You don't consider loosing thousands of trained and capable soldiers to be a problem, especially when some of them possess vital skills? When we are stretched thin and having recruiting problems, its foolish to throw away the soldiers we already have. We have lost nearly as many soldiers to DADT than actual combat.

That's just not true. Most of the military has been meeting and exceeding its recruitment quotas. Our combat units are doing just fine, despite your ignorant insistence to the contrary.
 
That's just not true. Most of the military has been meeting and exceeding its recruitment quotas. Our combat units are doing just fine, despite your ignorant insistence to the contrary.

How about the massive waste of money it is to discharge a trained soldier? Especially a veteran fighter pilot, literally millions of dollars went to train one guy, and we discharge him because of his sexual preference!?
 
Back
Top Bottom