• 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!

Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal

If said straight people are so worried they have mental problems and should not be in the military anyway. You though no matter how you put in or want to sugar coat it are supporting a bigoted policy as is the military. If they can't deal with gays serving openly cut them loose.

you know what - I go to a great length, and go into deep, personal history to explain to you why we approach this topic the way we do..... and this is how you respond.


you know what? **** it. you are just as big a bigot as anything you are accusing anyone else of. I'm done feeding the troll.
 
The military is an organization. Have I said one word against the individuals. No I have not.p

sure you have. you have accused us of hatred and bigotry.

I do not subscribe to the ideals of the military industrial complex that is the world. I can certainly find the idea of military repugnant

do you think of the police the same way?

I suggest you go live for a while in Saudi Arabia. You'll have a great time as a woman there. Perhaps you will come back with a brand new appreciation for those who sign up to defend your freedoms.
 
I just find it somehow oddly amusing that it is now more acceptable in the military to suck a dick than it is to smoke a cigarette.

small wonder: you get paid for doing one, you have to pay to do the other.
 
I just find it somehow oddly amusing that it is now more acceptable in the military to suck a dick than it is to smoke a cigarette.

Trading one fag for another :mrgreen:
 
sure you have. you have accused us of hatred and bigotry.



do you think of the police the same way?

I suggest you go live for a while in Saudi Arabia. You'll have a great time as a woman there. Perhaps you will come back with a brand new appreciation for those who sign up to defend your freedoms.

Part of that signing up is the ability to follow orders and maintain discipline. If a particular person is so terrified of homosexuals that they are unable to do this, then they shouldn't be serving.

We aren't Saudi Arabia. We're America. As an American I expect better of our police and military personnel. And of my fellow Americans. Saudia Arabia is not the measuring stick we should be using. America should be the measuring stick that all other nations use.
 
Anyone that answered ANY questions about the repeal of DADT beyond, "we dont know, this is what the current guidance is, more to follow" was talking out of their ass (usually where these kind of things start to lead to trouble). The current 'training' that is being trumpeted as a 'success' is nothing more than a power point presentation. All it states is that people will not be punished for being openly homosexual and people cant opt out because of the change in policy. Marriage laws remain the same. Civilian employee rules remain the same. That is all.

When it is implemented there WILL be problems. It will take a while to work itself out. Eventually there will be a level of peaceful detente and I doubt the mission will be too badly impacted.

Actually, no, because the questions didn't all ask about what would happen assuming DADT was repealed. In fact, some of the questions asked about whether a person served with anyone they knew was gay and how it affected the work environment.

I know personally of about 800 personnel who could honestly answer that question at the very least, "there was no significant affect". My department had at least a dozen openly gay personnel, men and women, during the 4 1/2 years aboard the ship. Everyone knew they were gay, no one cared. There were none of the problems that everyone is afraid of, like people getting beat up for being gay or a lot of same sex sexual harassment claims (although my berthing did get accused of being gay because the berthing under us felt "harassed" :roll: by us treating the other girls in our berthing like sisters instead of like backstabbing witches) or even issue of discrimination due to sexuality. Everyone in my department accepted that we needed everyone to stand watch and being stupid about someone being gay made a person look like a toad.

There probably will be some minor problems and it is even possible that there could be a very few major incidents, but they should not be significant and they will be caused by someone not following rules already in place, not from someone just being homosexual. The best way to minimize these and ensure the repeal goes on with as few issues as possible is to ensure the chain of command stresses to their men and women that harassment of any kind, no matter someone's sexuality is not acceptable. Everyone in the military is there to do their job and everyone should be treated fairly (in regards to policy) and with respect.
 
What's been refuted? It hasn't been refuted that those Dutch troops deserted their posts, getting Dutch soldiers killed and allowing Serb troops to slaughter 20,000 Bosnia Muslims. That's not in dispute at all.

That gays had anything to do with it.
 
I just find it somehow oddly amusing that it is now more acceptable in the military to suck a dick than it is to smoke a cigarette.

That has been the case for a very long time.
 
Part of that signing up is the ability to follow orders and maintain discipline. If a particular person is so terrified of homosexuals that they are unable to do this, then they shouldn't be serving.

so no. ya'll aren't actually reading what we are writing. and the fact that roguenuke and kal'stang "like" this indicates that they aren't either.

ya'll aren't interested in discussing this topic at all it seems; only in smearing any who disagree with you.
 
They are entirely unharmed.


except for the loss in unit cohesion and ability to function as a single unit - which results in lower combat efficiency - which results in increased casualties.


the grunts do not operate like your little boat, where all that is important is that you do your technical job.
 
Actually, no, because the questions didn't all ask about what would happen assuming DADT was repealed. In fact, some of the questions asked about whether a person served with anyone they knew was gay and how it affected the work environment.

I know personally of about 800 personnel who could honestly answer that question at the very least, "there was no significant affect". My department had at least a dozen openly gay personnel, men and women, during the 4 1/2 years aboard the ship. Everyone knew they were gay, no one cared. There were none of the problems that everyone is afraid of, like people getting beat up for being gay or a lot of same sex sexual harassment claims (although my berthing did get accused of being gay because the berthing under us felt "harassed" :roll: by us treating the other girls in our berthing like sisters instead of like backstabbing witches) or even issue of discrimination due to sexuality. Everyone in my department accepted that we needed everyone to stand watch and being stupid about someone being gay made a person look like a toad.

There probably will be some minor problems and it is even possible that there could be a very few major incidents, but they should not be significant and they will be caused by someone not following rules already in place, not from someone just being homosexual. The best way to minimize these and ensure the repeal goes on with as few issues as possible is to ensure the chain of command stresses to their men and women that harassment of any kind, no matter someone's sexuality is not acceptable. Everyone in the military is there to do their job and everyone should be treated fairly (in regards to policy) and with respect.

:( it's so sad that you hate members of the Army and Marine Corps so much that you want them killed off. We expect better than such vile bigotry from our Navy brethren.
 
:( it's so sad that you hate members of the Army and Marine Corps so much that you want them killed off. We expect better than such vile bigotry from our Navy brethren.



oh - wait - i'm sorry. did that reply not have a damn thing to do with your post, and was instead merely making an excuse to hurl a stupid accusation of bigotry that was in no way demonstrated by the facts at hand???

my bad :)
 
Actually, no, because the questions didn't all ask about what would happen assuming DADT was repealed. In fact, some of the questions asked about whether a person served with anyone they knew was gay and how it affected the work environment.

I know personally of about 800 personnel who could honestly answer that question at the very least, "there was no significant affect". My department had at least a dozen openly gay personnel, men and women, during the 4 1/2 years aboard the ship. Everyone knew they were gay, no one cared. There were none of the problems that everyone is afraid of, like people getting beat up for being gay or a lot of same sex sexual harassment claims (although my berthing did get accused of being gay because the berthing under us felt "harassed" :roll: by us treating the other girls in our berthing like sisters instead of like backstabbing witches) or even issue of discrimination due to sexuality. Everyone in my department accepted that we needed everyone to stand watch and being stupid about someone being gay made a person look like a toad.

There probably will be some minor problems and it is even possible that there could be a very few major incidents, but they should not be significant and they will be caused by someone not following rules already in place, not from someone just being homosexual. The best way to minimize these and ensure the repeal goes on with as few issues as possible is to ensure the chain of command stresses to their men and women that harassment of any kind, no matter someone's sexuality is not acceptable. Everyone in the military is there to do their job and everyone should be treated fairly (in regards to policy) and with respect.

There are 'minor' problems NOW. Anyone that thinks there wont be is either an idiot or blinded by their political bent. I dont think too many are idiots.

I have given this breifing to several people. I tell people the same thing today that I have told them for years. If/When it occurs you have one opportunity every four years to voice your disapproval. Dont like it...get out. Reenlist? Then shut up and color.
 
so no. ya'll aren't actually reading what we are writing. and the fact that roguenuke and kal'stang "like" this indicates that they aren't either.

ya'll aren't interested in discussing this topic at all it seems; only in smearing any who disagree with you.

I would much rather have a professional homosexual defending this country than someone who is willing to discriminate against others just so he can feel slightly more comfortable.

I expect the same standards of everyone. Do your job and don't let your personal life interfere with doing that job. Just being homosexual, in and of itself, does not interfere with a person doing their job. If someone feels "uncomfortable" living with a homosexual, then that is their personal beliefs interfering with the job, not the homosexual.
 
except for the loss in unit cohesion and ability to function as a single unit - which results in lower combat efficiency - which results in increased casualties.


the grunts do not operate like your little boat, where all that is important is that you do your technical job.

The loss of unit cohesion that has not happened, and that research into other countries making this change shows to be minimal at most, and that the studies done on potential problems done in this country believe will be minimal at best? Is that the unit cohesion you are talking about, with your claims based on nothing other than what you want to be true?
 
There are 'minor' problems NOW. Anyone that thinks there wont be is either an idiot or blinded by their political bent. I dont think too many are idiots.

I have given this breifing to several people. I tell people the same thing today that I have told them for years. If/When it occurs you have one opportunity every four years to voice your disapproval. Dont like it...get out. Reenlist? Then shut up and color.

If the "minor problems" already exist, then why are we arguing about this? And exactly what are those "minor problems"? I am looking for problems due just to homosexuals, not to mixed gender groups. Also, if we know there are problems, then we should be addressing exactly why those things are happening and look to minimize them. My guess is that you are talking about some discrimination against homosexuals or possibly some harassment.
 
Part of that signing up is the ability to follow orders and maintain discipline. If a particular person is so terrified of homosexuals that they are unable to do this, then they shouldn't be serving.

We aren't Saudi Arabia. We're America. As an American I expect better of our police and military personnel. And of my fellow Americans. Saudia Arabia is not the measuring stick we should be using. America should be the measuring stick that all other nations use.

If gays can't enlist and keep their private life to themselves, then they have no business serving.
 
If gays can't enlist and keep their private life to themselves, then they have no business serving.

Why is this gay only? Straits are not expected to keep their private life to themselves.
 
If gays can't enlist and keep their private life to themselves, then they have no business serving.

Except the same standard is not applied to straight enlistees, and for a reason. Because it is unreasonable for us to prevent our soldiers from having a personal life.

A soldier's personal life should not interfere with the performance of their duties, but this does not mean that they can't have a personal life nor that they should have to keep that life a "secret" to appease the feelings of others.
 
Who says? The Dutch Army? The Dutch government?

Yes, both. In fact, the only one who said the gays had anything to so with it was one US general, who claimed he had been told by one, unnamed Dutch officer. And you know this because we discussed all this when the controversy was going on after the general made an ass of himself.
 
I would much rather have a professional homosexual defending this country than someone who is willing to discriminate against others just so he can feel slightly more comfortable.

:doh

that isn't what we are arguing. given that we have explained it several times at length i find it difficult to imagine that you could possibly be unaware of what we are actually arguing.

you're a pretty good poster. but the intellectual dishonesty you seem to be demonstrating in this thread has been beneath you.

I expect the same standards of everyone. Do your job and don't let your personal life interfere with doing that job.

in the grunts there IS no "personal life".
 
Why is this gay only? Straits are not expected to keep their private life to themselves.

That's why the ban on gays should have been lifted, DADT left in placed and modified to apply to everyone.

But, of course we can't have that, because the gays soldiers have to be able to express their gay pride. Right?
 
That's why the ban on gays should have been lifted, DADT left in placed and modified to apply to everyone.

But, of course we can't have that, because the gays soldiers have to be able to express their gay pride. Right?

No, can't have that because it is stupid.
 
Back
Top Bottom