• 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

I made that comment because some people like to equate the problems caused in mixed gender units (units with men and women) to the problems that might arise from units having gays in them. There are no mixed gender combat units in the US military. There are gay men in our combat units. But there is a big difference between women and gay men and how men treat women as compared to how men treat other men, even gay men.

you are overestimating that difference because you are discounting the continued presence of sexual tension. since you have never been part of an all-male unit, you don't recognize the distinction between its' presence, and it's lack.
 
you are overestimating that difference because you are discounting the continued presence of sexual tension. since you have never been part of an all-male unit, you don't recognize the distinction between its' presence, and it's lack.

So you are going to be all turned on by the gay guys in your unit?
 
And I have never said that there would be no problems. I am a realist too and realize that there is little chance that the repeal will happen without any hitches. What I don't believe is that there will be any significant problems. It is possible, but I would bet that any serious issue would be due to a person not being happy with having to work with gays, not from the gay person themself.

And individuals should be treated as individuals. Even if there are cases of sexual harassment from gays, those should not determine how all gays are treated, because I am certain the vast majority of gays are not going to sexually harass anyone, just like the vast majority of straights do not sexually harass anyone else.

I made that comment because some people like to equate the problems caused in mixed gender units (units with men and women) to the problems that might arise from units having gays in them. There are no mixed gender combat units in the US military. There are gay men in our combat units. But there is a big difference between women and gay men and how men treat women as compared to how men treat other men, even gay men.

I believe the VAST majority are already known and do their jobs well. Ive known straight soldiers to get a brain duster over overt comments made about another soldier that was gay but a hellasoldier. Thats the drill and I dont expect that will change. There WILL however be problems and those problems MAY impact the mission and readiness. I dont care too much about the problems when it occurs at Bragg or Carson. I DO care TREMENDOUSLY when it occurs at an FOL and peoples lives depend on unit cohesion.
 
So you are going to be all turned on by the gay guys in your unit?

no. but the intimacy with which I can interact with them is decreased by the presence of sexual tension. A barrier has been thrown up where previously there was none.
 
I believe the VAST majority are already known and do their jobs well. Ive known straight soldiers to get a brain duster over overt comments made about another soldier that was gay but a hellasoldier. Thats the drill and I dont expect that will change. There WILL however be problems and those problems MAY impact the mission and readiness. I dont care too much about the problems when it occurs at Bragg or Carson. I DO care TREMENDOUSLY when it occurs at an FOL and peoples lives depend on unit cohesion.

pretty much this.
 
no. but the intimacy with which I can interact with them is decreased by the presence of sexual tension. A barrier has been thrown up where previously there was none.

So all the gay guys are going to be turned on by you then? And you can't handle stuff that most civilians can handle?
 
you are overestimating that difference because you are discounting the continued presence of sexual tension. since you have never been part of an all-male unit, you don't recognize the distinction between its' presence, and it's lack.

No I haven't.

But I have known men who were apart of combat units who had zero issues with serving with gay men in their units, including my husband. Many of the guys in my brother's unit knew he was a crossdresser in his offtime, no one who knew cared.

What I know is that there should not be such a huge issue of sexual tension because the numbers alone say that there won't be nearly as much chance of mutual attraction as there is in mixed gender units. Once those who afraid of being hit on by the gays understand that the vast majority of gays will not hit on them, then most of the sexual tension will dissipate because they will realize that it is unlikely to happen and even if it does happen, there are rules in place to deal with it appropriately. There might be some issues. But those issues, in all likelihood, are not going to be anything significant, especially not likely to cause death.
 
So all the gay guys are going to be turned on by you then? And you can't handle stuff that most civilians can handle?

Which is precisely why they should put men and women in the same quarters. I mean...come on...its not like all the men are going to be turned on by all the women. Or does sexual attraction and proclivities ONLY apply when we are trying to minimize concerns over openly gay soldiers quartering with other men?

Such stupid rhetoric...geezus...
 
I believe the VAST majority are already known and do their jobs well. Ive known straight soldiers to get a brain duster over overt comments made about another soldier that was gay but a hellasoldier. Thats the drill and I dont expect that will change. There WILL however be problems and those problems MAY impact the mission and readiness. I dont care too much about the problems when it occurs at Bragg or Carson. I DO care TREMENDOUSLY when it occurs at an FOL and peoples lives depend on unit cohesion.

And if something happens because a person could not control himself long enough to do his job, then I blame that person, whether he is gay or straight. It has nothing to do with this policy or the repeal, and everything to do with a soldier's own inability to act professionally and do his job, no matter what his personal feelings are.
 
And if something happens because a person could not control himself long enough to do his job, then I blame that person, whether he is gay or straight. It has nothing to do with this policy or the repeal, and everything to do with a soldier's own inability to act professionally and do his job, no matter what his personal feelings are.

And when DADT is finally repealed they will be. Hopefully no one will die because of it.
 
Which is precisely why they should put men and women in the same quarters. I mean...come on...its not like all the men are going to be turned on by all the women. Or does sexual attraction and proclivities ONLY apply when we are trying to minimize concerns over openly gay soldiers quartering with other men?

Such stupid rhetoric...geezus...

Gay men are not women. Gay women are not men.
 
And when DADT is finally repealed they will be. Hopefully no one will die because of it.

If someone does die, again it will be because of someone's personal lack of professionalism, not because the repeal of a discriminatory policy. I hope no one does die either, but I at least realize that it is at least almost as likely to happen now as it is when the repeal is finalized. If a person is willing to jeopardize the mission or lives because a person admits to being gay and there isn't anything the person can do about it through the COC, then I don't see how that is different from the guy finding out or suspecting someone is gay, without proof, and still not being able to do anything through the COC.

Not only that, I do not hold people responsible for the discrimination, unprofessionalism, and/or hatred of others because of the group they are in. And most people would not be accepting of this either if it were another group. For instance, we do not expect Muslim servicemembers to hide the fact that they are Muslims from the rest of their units. I would say that there would be at least as many, if not more, problems from having someone who is Muslim in combat units as there are from the sexual tension that gays might cause.
 
Didn't see this posted anywhere. Seems things are going as expected regarding the new policy. I think most of us knew our military wouldn't fall apart over this.
WASHINGTON – More than a million U.S. troops — roughly half the armed forces — have been trained on the new law allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and so far there has been none of the turmoil or dire consequences predicted by opponents of what had been expected to be a wrenching change in military culture.
There's been no widespread resistance, no mad rush for the door by enlisted members opposed to the policy and no drop in recruiting.
"So far this seems to be a non-event," Gen. Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff for the Army, told reporters recently.

Officials: Half of force trained on gay ban repeal - Yahoo! News

That's not a good sign. Our culture is turning to crap.
 
If someone does die, again it will be because of someone's personal lack of professionalism, not because the repeal of a discriminatory policy. I hope no one does die either, but I at least realize that it is at least almost as likely to happen now as it is when the repeal is finalized. If a person is willing to jeopardize the mission or lives because a person admits to being gay and there isn't anything the person can do about it through the COC, then I don't see how that is different from the guy finding out or suspecting someone is gay, without proof, and still not being able to do anything through the COC.

Not only that, I do not hold people responsible for the discrimination, unprofessionalism, and/or hatred of others because of the group they are in. And most people would not be accepting of this either if it were another group. For instance, we do not expect Muslim servicemembers to hide the fact that they are Muslims from the rest of their units. I would say that there would be at least as many, if not more, problems from having someone who is Muslim in combat units as there are from the sexual tension that gays might cause.

If someone dies, it will be because of a breakdown in discipline and unit cohesion. As we saw with the Dutch Army in Serbia.

So far, there isn't a good track record for any army with an open gay policy.
 
If someone dies, it will be because of a breakdown in discipline and unit cohesion. As we saw with the Dutch Army in Serbia.

So far, there isn't a good track record for any army with an open gay policy.


What about the IDF?
 
We cannot discuss the IDF (or its record of discipline or cohesion) outside of ME and under ML. Just delete the post so you don't cause a response.



.02
 
Last edited:
What about the IDF?

Their combat record isn't what it was in the Yom Kippur War, nor have they gotten into a fight on that scale, since; nor have they tangled with an enemy as strong and organized as those it faced in '73 and '67. The Dutch Army in Serbia was attacked by such and enemy and totally fell apart.

During the '09 War, there were several IDF units that didn't perform very well.

When they get into another tank battle like The Golan Heights and kick ass on the same scale, come see me.
 
Last edited:
Their combat record isn't what it was in the Yom Kippur War, nor have they gotten into a fight on that scale, since; nor have they tangled with an enemy as strong and organized as those it faced in '73 and '67. The Dutch Army in Serbia was attacked by such and enemy and totally fell apart.

During the '09 War, there were several IDF units that didn't perform very well.

When they get into another tank battle like The Golan Heights and kick ass on the same scale, come see me.

Do you think that change relates to their viewpoint on gays? Or are we just going off topic now?
 
We cannot discuss the IDF (or its record of discipline or cohesion) outside of ME and under ML. Just delete the post so you don't cause a response.



.02


Why should I delete it? The IDF lets gays serve openly since like 1980 or something like that.
 
When people are willing to fly planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent people there is a need for decisive brutal violent action.

Would it not perhaps be a good idea to find out why they want to do that? Maybe if there was more talk and less rattling of sabers that would not happen. It could be that the amount of interference in the business of other nations has caused a bit of animosity which has pissed people off to the point where they do want to fly planes into buildings.
 
:) mis type.



not here. and not internationally, either. the British Royal Navy ended much of the African slave trade, and they did it by hunting down and killing slavers.


so my question stands. if you are against all military action irrespective - does this mean that you would have been willing to leave blacks in slavery, the Chinese being exterminated, jews in concentration camps.... all because you would have considered those to be superior alternatives to military action?

It does not require the use of force to solve all problems. If you examine the causes of the tragedy's you mention there may well have been other solutions. But because you are unable to defend your position on bigotry you are now focusing on another issue totally unrelated to the topic at hand.
 
I would put it about on par with those accusing others of bigotry.
You don't like being called a bigot. Maybe that would not happen if you didn't support bigoted positions. There would be no confusion that way.
 
Do you think that change relates to their viewpoint on gays? Or are we just going off topic now?

Allowing gays to serve openly may have had a negative impact on their combat readiness.

We hear about how about allowing gays to serve openly has been tried and it suceeded, but in reality those armies that have open gay policies have yet to be tested in combat. One that has been tested--The Dutch--failed miserably and 20,000 people died, because of that failure.
 
Back
Top Bottom