• 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!

Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy

MrVicchio said:
This is an emotional issue, not a military issue, and that's the problem with it.

And if you don't think that there won't be problems, you're an idiot. It's not that they cannot server, and serve honorably, it happens, it's not that there will be a huge problems, there will be some, but not a lot...

It's just that this is COMPLETELY an emotional issue, and has very little to do with military readiness, and in fact will hurt reediness to an extent for a while. Why do that?

To feel good?

Stupid.
Click to expand...

Not to question your private life but do you go around asking people if they're gay just so that you know how to act around them? If yes. If you find out that one of them is gay do you change your attitude towards them?
 
RightOfCenter said:
You don't think blacks were treated harshly for most of the time after the services were integrated? It has changed, but it did take a long time before they were treated equally in the military.
Click to expand...

That's an argument against gay-integration? It's hard?

Why is the military America's bad ass super heros that know no fear when it comes to Iraq but apparently such ******s when it comes to some gays? Yeah, it'll be hard. So is invading countries and kicking ass all over the place, but they can do that, so I have faith in them.
 
MrVicchio said:
This is an emotional issue, not a military issue, and that's the problem with it.

And if you don't think that there won't be problems, you're an idiot. It's not that they cannot server, and serve honorably, it happens, it's not that there will be a huge problems, there will be some, but not a lot...

It's just that this is COMPLETELY an emotional issue, and has very little to do with military readiness, and in fact will hurt reediness to an extent for a while. Why do that?

To feel good?

Stupid.
Click to expand...

I never said there wouldn't be problems. But I don't think the problems would ultimatley outweigh the militarys capability or cripple it in any drastic way. I can agree with Rev, that now might not be the time for it due to the wars, but ultimatley DADT is an outdated discriminatory mechanism IMO.
 
MrVicchio said:
It's just that this is COMPLETELY an emotional issue, and has very little to do with military readiness, and in fact will hurt reediness to an extent for a while. Why do that?

To feel good?

Stupid.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was also stupid to allow those blacks in the military, that sure affected readiness for a while too didn't it? :roll:

Yes, there will be problems, but just like everything else will pass through education and tolerance. The military has always been ahead of the times on tolerance when it was allowed to, this would just give the military a chance to prove that again.
 
new coup for you said:
That's an argument against gay-integration? It's hard?

Why is the military America's bad ass super heros that know no fear when it comes to Iraq but apparently such ******s when it comes to some gays? Yeah, it'll be hard. So is invading countries and kicking ass all over the place, but they can do that, so I have faith in them.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But why add another level of difficulty to an already difficult situation. I'm for this, but I think it should be done in peace time like Rev says.
 
Well, then maybe the Republicans shouldn't have been such dicks about it in the 90s.

Republicans will always find a reason, it has to be done now while the Democrats have the strength.
 
new coup for you said:
Well, then maybe the Republicans shouldn't have been such dicks about it in the 90s.

Republicans will always find a reason, it has to be done now while the Democrats have the strength.
Click to expand...

If the wars are successful while Democrats are in power now they will certainly be in power for a long time.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
exactly the opposite. they can, the 1% though that cant may have a detrimental affect on the 99% who dont care.
Click to expand...
Care to back up your use of percentages because I am sure that the disparity is far greater.


new coup for you said:
Also all that "what about the camaraderie" stuff is bull****, because the army was successfully racially integrated.
Click to expand...
What makes you think the Army was successfully integrated?
I left the Army in 92 and to say it was successfully integrated meant you had to twist the meaning of "successfully".
Regardless of real or perceived favoritism or racial hatred, were blacks and those of other races able to work together... yep.
But off duty was a different story and most who serve/d know this.
 
Hatuey said:
Not to question your private life but do you go around asking people if they're gay just so that you know how to act around them? If yes. If you find out that one of them is gay do you change your attitude towards them?
Click to expand...

Emotional question, no bearing on the issue at all.

And no I don't really care either which way.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Fair enough. But why add another level of difficulty to an already difficult situation. I'm for this, but I think it should be done in peace time like Rev says.
Click to expand...

Actually IMO, it would be easier to implement in wartime rather than peace time.

In wartime, I don't think the priority would be "mess with the gay guy that has a weapon" and rather the important factor would be defeating the enemy.
 
TheNextEra said:
Actually IMO, it would be easier to implement in wartime rather than peace time.

In wartime, I don't think the priority would be "mess with the gay guy that has a weapon" and rather the important factor would be defeating the enemy.
Click to expand...

I think the distrust it would create would be much more dangerous during war time.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Alienation of gay soldiers. Comradery is very important in the military and if there are soldiers in a unit that are hated for no reason by other soldiers this could cause a huge problem, at least in the beginning of the program.

It's not uncommon to hear about black soldiers being mistreated after the armed forces were racially integrated.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me the military doesn't address this?

Do you expect me to believe that there are no racists, anti-semites, or other bigots in our integrated military?

If a soldier can't handle working with gays, he shouldn't be a soldier.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yeah it was also stupid to allow those blacks in the military, that sure affected readiness for a while too didn't it? :roll:

Yes, there will be problems, but just like everything else will pass through education and tolerance. The military has always been ahead of the times on tolerance when it was allowed to, this would just give the military a chance to prove that again.
Click to expand...

You're pulling heart strings. Blacks make up far more of the population then gays.

The military doesn't have anything to prove, it's YOU that needs some sort of affirmation.

I didn't respect my Lt. for banging that 3rd class, you think a gay Lt. or 1st class is gonna garner any cause he's gay? I think not.
 
RightOfCenter said:
I think the distrust it would create would be much more dangerous during war time.
Click to expand...

Why would you distrust a gay guy? Seriously have you been deployed? "Getting some" wasn't on the high priority.
 
Regardless of real or perceived favoritism or racial hatred, were blacks and those of other races able to work together... yep.
But off duty was a different story and most who serve/d know this
Click to expand...
.

I'd say the social lines off duty are drawn more based off where you were from, more than anything else. The majority of my time was spent in the company of fellow midwesterners. The least amount of time? People from the northeast and Texas.
 
new coup for you said:
So gay rights should be pegged to the success of the occupation of Iraq? :confused:
Click to expand...

No.

But I don't see Iraq going poorly under this president, which will keep Democrats in power and will make it easier to promote gay rights during peace time.
 
I hope Obama follows through on this promise, despite Clinton's earlier cowardice. As long as the military is legally allowed to discriminate against gays, there will be no hope to end the discrimination they face in other facets of society.

As for the "gasp! then soldiers will be sexr'ing in foxholes" theory of panic, it's little different than the prejudices that believed whites and minorities couldn't be assigned to the same units because they wouldn't be able to trust each other. That was bull, and so is this. White, black, male, female, gay, straight... they are all soldiers, and all they see in battle is the color of their fellow soldiers' uniform.
 
MrVicchio said:
The military doesn't have anything to prove, it's YOU that needs some sort of affirmation.
Click to expand...

LOL why do you think I need affirmation? I have no stake in this game. I've always been proud to have been part of the military and have it ahead of the times.

MrVicchio said:
I didn't respect my Lt. for banging that 3rd class, you think a gay Lt. or 1st class is gonna garner any cause he's gay? I think not.
Click to expand...

And again, just because your Lt. was an idiot, doesn't mean every Lt. is.
 
TheNextEra said:
Why would you distrust a gay guy? Seriously have you been deployed? "Getting some" wasn't on the high priority.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't distrust a gay guy. But I do know a lot of soldiers that aren't the most accepting and can see this creating problems.
 
TheNextEra said:
Why would you distrust a gay guy? Seriously have you been deployed? "Getting some" wasn't on the high priority.
Click to expand...

You've never been deployed then.

Pull into port, and the first thought is "where's the action"?

Even the ugly gals were sought after under way.

And I caught two guys getting it on in a fan room doing a maitenance inspection. Chief was with me, when we opened that door, the look on their faces was... well priceless. We locked the door and got security. And this was in port.
 
Question for you "pro-gay military" folk:

What purpose is there in openly allowing gays to serve. What does this accomplish?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Are you telling me the military doesn't address this?
Click to expand...
It does.

Do you expect me to believe that there are no racists, anti-semites, or other bigots in our integrated military?

If a soldier can't handle working with gays, he shouldn't be a soldier.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world they probably shouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom