• 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

Shewter said:
That may be alot of womens perspective. But most every man I know had the protection of women pounded into him throughout his upbringing.

I honestly don't think much has changed in that respect.


P.S. You may as well call myself and my peers the "Younger Generation".

I am 23 years old.
Click to expand...

I'm 42 and I have seen a dramatic change in the perception of women in both myself and culture. If a woman can pass the test to be in the infantry and has that desire I have no problem with it.

BTW I do open doors for my girlfriend.
 
Shewter said:
Exactly what I mean.
Click to expand...

I think I see your position with crystal clarity now.

If this were to occur, I think that there is sufficient room for argument to keep it from happening. The arguments of man vs woman still apply even when it is a gay man vs a woman. Well...most gay men anyway.
 
winston53660 said:
I'm 42 and I have seen a dramatic change in the perception of women in both myself and culture. If a woman can pass the test to be in the infantry and has that desire I have no problem with it.

BTW I do open doors for my girlfriend.
Click to expand...

To me it's not about their capability. It's about the majority's actions regarding the woman.

I'm sure there are plenty of women in the U.S. that have more than what it takes to get down in the **** and tough it out.

I stated before that I realize it is not fair. But I don't believe that our culture is ready for that yet.
 
that's what really pisses me off about this debate; it's grounded completely in bull**** arm chair psychology. no one is arguing that gay men can't serve for real reasons.
 
jallman said:
I think I see your position with crystal clarity now.

If this were to occur, I think that there is sufficient room for argument to keep it from happening. The arguments of man vs woman still apply even when it is a gay man vs a woman. Well...most gay men anyway.
Click to expand...

I hope so.

I just see it turning into an arguement of sole opinions and a bunch of name calling with sexist thrown in more than its fair share.

sigh...

One question though, is the don't ask don't tell policy offensive? Out of all of my gay friends and acquaintences only one has had an issue with it. But he's kind of a bitch anyways.
 
new coup for you said:
that's what really pisses me off about this debate; it's grounded completely in bull**** arm chair psychology. no one is arguing that gay men can't serve for real reasons.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's asking too much to wait for peace to implement such a major policy change.
 
Shewter said:
To me it's not about their capability. It's about the majority's actions regarding the woman.

I'm sure there are plenty of women in the U.S. that have more than what it takes to get down in the **** and tough it out.

I stated before that I realize it is not fair. But I don't believe that our culture is ready for that yet.
Click to expand...

I'll buy you a drink a drink of your choice if we agree to disagree:2wave:

After all I can not think of a way to empirically quantify beyond a doubt our opposing positions unless it actually happened.
 
new coup for you said:
that's what really pisses me off about this debate; it's grounded completely in bull**** arm chair psychology. no one is arguing that gay men can't serve for real reasons.
Click to expand...

Wait, people are arguing that gay men shouldnt serve? I'll have to go back through and read the posts that I skipped :lol:
 
RightOfCenter said:
I don't think it's asking too much to wait for peace to implement such a major policy change.
Click to expand...

I think the political reality is that if we don't do it now it might not happen. And that's not the fault of the Democrats. Since the Republicans couldn't be reasonable in the 90s, the army has to suffer.
 
winston53660 said:
I'll buy you a drink a drink of your choice if we agree to disagree:2wave:

After all I can not think of a way to empirically quantify beyond a doubt our opposing positions unless it actually happened.
Click to expand...

There's no need for either of us to verbally beat the other to a pulp.

Of course I'll agree to disagree.
 
new coup for you said:
that's what really pisses me off about this debate; it's grounded completely in bull**** arm chair psychology. no one is arguing that gay men can't serve for real reasons.
Click to expand...

I think Ethereal came the closest with his argument that unit eficiency and cohesion would take a hit. I agree with him actually.

But you are right; it isn't about gay men's ability to serve. It is more about hetero's inability to integrate.
 
jallman said:
I think Ethereal came the closest with his argument that unit eficiency and cohesion would take a hit. I agree with him actually.

But you are right; it isn't about gay men's ability to serve. It is more about hetero's inability to integrate.
Click to expand...

which is total bull**** because the army was successfully racially integrated. clearly it's capable of adapting. I really doubt that the straight-gay divide is greater then the white-black divide.
 
new coup for you said:
I think the political reality is that if we don't do it now it might not happen. And that's not the fault of the Democrats. Since the Republicans couldn't be reasonable in the 90s, the army has to suffer.
Click to expand...

I see major US involvement in Iraq ending in the next 2-4 years. If it does Obama and most Democrats will almost certainly be re-elected. Then would be the time to end it, not now. As others have said, it isn't worth the damage it may cause to unit cohesion, despite how irrational the fears of the straight people that cause the damage are.
 
RightOfCenter said:
I see major US involvement in Iraq ending in the next 2-4 years. If it does Obama and most Democrats will almost certainly be re-elected. Then would be the time to end it, not now. As others have said, it isn't worth the damage it may cause to unit cohesion, despite how irrational the fears of the straight people that cause the damage are.
Click to expand...

And in 2-4 years the memory of Bush's immense evil will be diminished and people will forget that all of his ideas are terrible things, and will thus be less likely to support integration.
 
RightOfCenter said:
I see major US involvement in Iraq ending in the next 2-4 years. If it does Obama and most Democrats will almost certainly be re-elected. Then would be the time to end it, not now. As others have said, it isn't worth the damage it may cause to unit cohesion, despite how irrational the fears of the straight people that cause the damage are.
Click to expand...

Gays have already been serving and several here that served said they knew some people they served with were gay.
 
new coup for you said:
which is total bull**** because the army was successfully racially integrated. clearly it's capable of adapting. I really doubt that the straight-gay divide is greater then the white-black divide.
Click to expand...

Just throwin this out there... Prepare for an extreme contradiction of my views on women in the military for the sake of humor!

But it would be nice to know that the guy covering my ass doesnt want to see it ruined for the sake of being able to look at it later. :lol:
 
new coup for you said:
And in 2-4 years the memory of Bush's immense evil will be diminished and people will forget that all of his ideas are terrible things, and will thus be less likely to support integration.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole aside, don't you think Obama's success will make his other policies (like the end of DADT) look that much better? Especially when, IIRC in this thread something like 75% of Americans favor ending it?
 
winston53660 said:
Gays have already been serving and several here that served said they knew some people they served with were gay.
Click to expand...

I really don't think this is the norm. Also, most people on DP tend to be more open minded on things like this than your average soldier.
 
RightOfCenter said:
I really don't think this is the norm. Also, most people on DP tend to be more open minded on things like this than your average soldier.
Click to expand...

Everybody in the military knows they have been serving with gay people under DADT.
 
Shewter said:
I've yet to see anything (experience) that shows me otherwise.

My parents may have taught me misogyny, if that's the word you choose to label it. But it has proved true more often than not.
Click to expand...

Women may show their emotions more readily, but that doesn't make them emotionally fragile.
 
winston53660 said:
Everybody in the military knows they have been serving with gay people under DADT.
Click to expand...
Not so, when I served, there was one"man" who was a homosexual and he was booted out via an Article, as I recall.
Don't ask, don't tell, must remain, and is a good idea..
And the military is no place for misguided social experiments...
 
Shewter said:
I hope so.

I just see it turning into an arguement of sole opinions and a bunch of name calling with sexist thrown in more than its fair share.

sigh...

One question though, is the don't ask don't tell policy offensive? Out of all of my gay friends and acquaintences only one has had an issue with it. But he's kind of a bitch anyways.
Click to expand...

I don't find it offensive for myself but then I am not a big gay rights advocate since I have never really suffered any ill effects or discrimination for being gay.
 
which is total bull**** because the army was successfully racially integrated. clearly it's capable of adapting. I really doubt that the straight-gay divide is greater then the white-black divide.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how uncomfortable a socially conservative man could get when his team leader is openly homosexual. The idea of a homosexual directing and commanding and even verbally berating him are unfathomable. Perhaps the Air Force and Navy could integrate fairly easily but as for the Army and Marines - combat units in particular - it's an entirely different story. For example, do you know how many times a day the word "fag" or "queer" is used by the average grunt?

The simple fact is this, a policy of integration not only presents numerous potential complications for our most important units (combat units) but it doesn't even really provide an identifiable benefit to those it's supposedly helping. Why does a gay person need to be "out" while they're serving? Really?

"Good news crew! We can tell everyone we're gay now! Isn't life just grand?"

Who cares!? Just do your time and get out. Once you transition feel free to change your myspace info accordingly...
 
RightOfCenter said:
I really am all for this. You don't have to be straight to shoot straight.

One has to wonder if it will have any adverse effects on our military. You average private is not necessarily the most open minded person.
Click to expand...
You mean not everyone in the military is a "straight shooter"? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom