• 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

Voluntary military isn't it?

Not for those already in. For example, if the policy was changed next month there would still be personnel in the military with a long time to serve left. Suddenly the guy they'd been training with, bunking with, showering with turns out to be gay. I don't think the average dumb private will take that very well.
 
Rampant sex does. I served on a mix company surface ship, plenty of that going on. Fraternization IS a problem, whether you want to accept that or not.

And how has the rampant sex effected our military's ability to do it's job?
 
exactly the opposite. they can, the 1% though that cant may have a detrimental affect on the 99% who dont care.

Please explain how this detrimental affect would manifest itself.

I bet I know more gays that served in the military than you, honorably..... just sayin... I am also saying that if you change a policy like this in the middle of a war you are gonna get someone killed. not one life is worth a social experiment/change for ones political agenda.

:rofl I know more people in Illinois than you. :roll:

How would this get someone killed? Please support this claim.

You want to take this leap, fine, do it in peacetime, don't mess with potentially morale busting social changes in the middle of a war.

I'm not convinced it's a leap.
 
And how has the rampant sex effected our military's ability to do it's job?

I think the rampant sex I had in the service helped me. At least I wasn't focusing on lack of nookie issues which allowed me to concentrate on the mission at hand (no pun intended). :mrgreen:
 
The problem with fratenization is about the disparity in the ranks, not the act of sex itself. It would be just as wrong for a gay Lt and private to have sex, than it would be for a straight Lt and a female private to have sex. People get busted down in rank or discharged for it all the time, as they should. Its not as if, in the earlier example put forth by Mr. Vicchio, that would be acceptable in either instance.
 
Not for those already in. For example, if the policy was changed next month there would still be personnel in the military with a long time to serve left. Suddenly the guy they'd been training with, bunking with, showering with turns out to be gay. I don't think the average dumb private will take that very well.

They already train with, bunk with, and shower with gays.
 
Please explain how this detrimental affect would manifest itself.


:rofl I know more people in Illinois than you. :roll:

How would this get someone killed? Please support this claim.



I'm not convinced it's a leap.

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.
 
The problem with fratenization is about the disparity in the ranks, not the act of sex itself. It would be just as wrong for a gay Lt and private to have sex, than it would be for a straight Lt and a female private to have sex. People get busted down in rank or discharged for it all the time, as they should. Its not as if, in the earlier example put forth by Mr. Vicchio, that would be acceptable in either instance.

Segregate all the gay soldiers.

That'll cut down on the sex.

...
 
Please explain how this detrimental affect would manifest itself.


Look at this thread, the fact that we are not unified on this issue should be a clue to you.,


:rofl I know more people in Illinois than you. :roll:

How would this get someone killed? Please support this claim.


Really?


simple. you take one guy who has an irrational fear of being assaulted by another's blood engorged member, now given this he may not be focusing on the mission. now rational or not you introduced this fear with your social engineering in the middle of a war, now instead of scanning and panning with his 50-cal for haji, he is thinking about that "damn fag" riding shotgun in the hmmwv.... his focus is lost. that potentially kills three-four people right there.



I'm not convinced it's a leap.


It may not be. but would you not air on the side of caution in the middle of 2 wars?
 
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.



another good reason.
 
Segregate all the gay soldiers.

That'll cut down on the sex.

...

Well, maybe you can get a jump on everything, and design some kind of uniform patch that designates those who are gay. :2razz:
 
Isn't the entire purpose of the military to force people to do things they don't want to do? Are straight men in this country seriously more frightened of gay men then rockets?
 
Isn't the entire purpose of the military to force people to do things they don't want to do? Are straight men in this country seriously more frightened of gay men then rockets?

Dude, this is America.

Gays don't even have the right to vote... :2wave:
 
Isn't the entire purpose of the military to force people to do things they don't want to do? Are straight men in this country seriously more frightened of gay men then rockets?

I don't know. I don't think so. The military is pretty homoerotic, especially the less females you have around. Its basically dudes ****ing around with each other all the time, without actually ****ing. If an openly gay person is "introduced" into that equation, I don't think there is too much problem. I think I told you all about this one Marine in my unit who was pretty obvious that he was gay. Nobody ever really clowned around with him like we did each other, but nobody beat his ass for it either.
 
Isn't the entire purpose of the military to force people to do things they don't want to do?
The people that sign up for the dangerous jobs do want to do that stuff.

Are straight men in this country seriously more frightened of gay men then rockets?

Some probably are.

Edit:
It also probably has a lot to do with the fact that they dislike things that are different.
 
Also all that "what about the camaraderie" stuff is bull****, because the army was successfully racially integrated.

Unless you want to argue that contemporary straight men hate gays more then white men hated blacks in the 50s...
 
Oddly enough, one of the google ads on this thread is for "gay military dating."
 
Well there goes all the underlying hotness that came along with being gay in the military. Dammit.
 
Also all that "what about the camaraderie" stuff is bull****, because the army was successfully racially integrated.

Unless you want to argue that contemporary straight men hate gays more then white men hated blacks in the 50s...

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.
 
And how has the rampant sex effected our military's ability to do it's job?

Hmm....

Let's see, the gals that get knocked up underway, the 3rd class having sex with my Lt. in the balloon room, he eventually divorced his wife for her when she got out.

There are many ways.

The problem with the females.. you have 10 people in a "shop" on board, 3 of them are female, 2 get pregnant before a cruise, now you are down 20% man power, happens all the damned time.
 
Hmm....

Let's see, the gals that get knocked up underway, the 3rd class having sex with my Lt. in the balloon room, he eventually divorced his wife for her when she got out.

There are many ways.

The problem with the females.. you have 10 people in a "shop" on board, 3 of them are female, 2 get pregnant before a cruise, now you are down 20% man power, happens all the damned time.

That wouldn't be a problem for gays, would it?
 
Actually I think it is great. When I was in the Navy in the early 70's the two big scams for getting out were conscientious objection and claiming to be Homosexual.

Whether truth or urban legend I do not know but a popular story was one sailor requested to see his commanding officer. The request was granted and he told his CO that he was gay. The CO then unzipped his fly and told the sailor to prove it.

If the gays truly want to serve then there should be no obstacles placed in their path. Current sexual harrasment laws provide plenty of protection against unwanted advances in the work place so any fear of a homosexual making unwanted advances or making some kind of spectacle etc out of the work enviroment would be ended quickly.

Moe
 
That wouldn't be a problem for gays, would it?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom