• 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!

Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

If we repeal DADT, they will all start walking around with mega-hard raging boners in the showers. :2razz:

All the rules that apply to protecting straight servicemembers from harrassment, rape, assault from other straight servicemembers would apply to gay servicemembers as well. Thats to say, if a gay servicemember were to sexually assault a straight person, they could be charges and if a straight servicemember assaulted a gay servicemember, for being gay, they would be charged too. Its all already covered.

As long as they don't play rave music at the barracks, its not a big deal.




When I served, we sorta policed ourselves, and really didn't need to go up the chain of command to deal with innapropriate behavior....


Guess times have changed.
 
When I served, we sorta policed ourselves, and really didn't need to go up the chain of command to deal with innapropriate behavior....


Guess times have changed.

I think certain roles in the military, have different ways of dealing with issues. The people that show up at 0800 and leave work at 1630 everyday, would be more apt to send things up and down the chain. When you are in role where you deploy to the field for various amounts of time, by necessity, the unit will deal with things themselves, since they do not have the luxury of offices and official documents.
 
When I served, we sorta policed ourselves, and really didn't need to go up the chain of command to deal with innapropriate behavior....


Guess times have changed.

Boyfriend and Bro both served on submarines. Talk about close, confining quarters. Both of them have told me that they just wish DADT would be repealed, because it's a freaking farce. Some guys/gals are gay. Big freaking deal.

On the sub, if someone got out of line, and in that case, it usually meant not taking care of personal hygiene, their peers straightened them out. I suspect the same thing would happen here.
 
Ask your dad if he knowingly shared an open bay shower with a gay soldier. Ask him how he would have felt about that. Ask him if he would, "spoon", with an openly gay soldiers on a freezing cold night.

I am a Vietnam Vet and I am having second thoughts about the DADT rule. I do not understand gayness, I do not accept it, I do not condone it. Yet I have modified my opposition to gays serving if they strictly follow all the rules and do not in any way use their rank/position to force a lower ranked individual into sex acts. Actually no trolling whatsoever within the military can be allowed.

I really had seconds thoughts about this DADT after I heard that Lt. Colonel F-15 DRIVER and he appears to be one who can do the job despite his condition. We have spent millions of dollors on his training so what a waste would kicking him out as long as he has not violated anyone and absolutely not violated any children. Let him fly.

I did not knowningly share an open bay shower with any gay and I wouldn't think about "spooning" with any guy whether gay, straight, or confused.
 
Last edited:
Just because a man is gay doesn't mean like he's going to act like a knob slobbering idiot every time he's around other men. Jesus.

I don't think I ever said that was neccessarily the case. Did I? If so, then I apologize. You're more than welcome to quote me, if you can.

Every active duty person I know, and I know a few, support overturning DADT. They just don't speak out on the subject because THEY CAN'T. Active duty military personnel aren't really allowed to speak out on policy issues.


That's not true. I spoke out against policy quite often when I was in the service.



I am a Vietnam Vet and I am having second thoughts about the DADT rule. I do not understand gayness, I do not accept it, I do not condone it. Yet I have modified my opposition to gays serving if they strictly follow all the rules and do not in any way use their rank/position to force a lower ranked individual into sex acts. Actually no trolling whatsoever within the military can be allowed.

I really had seconds thoughts about this DADT after I heard that Lt. Colonel F-15 DRIVER and he appears to be one who can do the job despite his condition. We have spent millions of dollors on his training so what a waste would kicking him out as long as he has not violated anyone and absolutely not violated any children. Let him fly.

My issue is, simply, that having openly gay soldiers serving in the military, especially in combat arms, will cause a breakdown in discpline. These breakdowns in discipline could result in soldiers getting killed. There have already been breakdowns in discipline in coed units. It's the reason that the IDF no longer allow coed combat arms units.

I was always cool with DADT; thought it was a revolutionary policy. Wanna be gay? Go be gay...on your time. When you're on my time, you're a heartbreaker and a lifetaker.


I did not knowningly share an open bay shower with any gay and I wouldn't think about "spooning" with any guy whether gay, straight, or confused

Didn't get that cold in Vietnam, huh?...LOL!!! Take my word for it, when it's 15 below, you're not going to give a ****...LOL!!!
 
Ask your dad if he knowingly shared an open bay shower with a gay soldier. Ask him how he would have felt about that. Ask him if he would, "spoon", with an openly gay soldiers on a freezing cold night.

One thing I've noticed about men who most strongly oppose gays in the military... they tend to frame the argument by imagining situations in which they are 'hit on' by gays, whether in the shower or in more intimate situations such as 'spooning.'

There was a major in my office during Clinton's DADT debate who was extremely outspoken about the issue. He seemed to be under the impression that gay men were attracted to him and wanted to get into his pants. He wasn't particularly attractive. If he walked into a gay bar I imagine he'd have trouble picking up a date. But in his mind, all gay men wanted a piece of his ass. Weird.

:2wave:
 
One thing I've noticed about men who most strongly oppose gays in the military... they tend to frame the argument by imagining situations in which they are 'hit on' by gays, whether in the shower or in more intimate situations such as 'spooning.'

Some people exist in rich fantasy worlds.
 
One thing I've noticed about men who most strongly oppose gays in the military... they tend to frame the argument by imagining situations in which they are 'hit on' by gays, whether in the shower or in more intimate situations such as 'spooning.'

There was a major in my office during Clinton's DADT debate who was extremely outspoken about the issue. He seemed to be under the impression that gay men were attracted to him and wanted to get into his pants. He wasn't particularly attractive. If he walked into a gay bar I imagine he'd have trouble picking up a date. But in his mind, all gay men wanted a piece of his ass. Weird.

:2wave:

One thing I've noticed, is that people who support gays serving openly in the military always resort to the, "homophobe", argument, rightaway. Thay never stop to think of the full ramification of such policies.

I've always proposed that we allow our service members to vote on the issue and go with their consensus, and let their vote settle things once and for all.
 
One thing I've noticed, is that people who support gays serving openly in the military always resort to the, "homophobe", argument, rightaway. Thay never stop to think of the full ramification of such policies.

I've always proposed that we allow our service members to vote on the issue and go with their consensus, and let their vote settle things once and for all.

He did not accuse you of being a homophobe, nor did you refute his points in any way. You post is a classic example of misdirection, steering attention away from points you cannot refute.
 
I've always proposed that we allow our service members to vote on the issue and go with their consensus, and let their vote settle things once and for all.

As a retired veteran I find this laughable at best. Since when do we allow our soldiers to vote on anything in regards to the military.

To quote my Drill Sergeant, which did not come up with the phrase, but it is true to this day in the military, "We are here to protect Democracy, not to practice it"
 
He did not accuse you of being a homophobe, nor did you refute his points in any way. You post is a classic example of misdirection, steering attention away from points you cannot refute.

Got those coed latrine docs yet? We're all waiting.
 
As a retired veteran I find this laughable at best. Since when do we allow our soldiers to vote on anything in regards to the military.

To quote my Drill Sergeant, which did not come up with the phrase, but it is true to this day in the military, "We are here to protect Democracy, not to practice it"

Thank you for your service.

I think that it is the right of every soldier to a safe and comfortable environment. Yes? Since you're retired, I'm sure you are already familiar with that policy. It's the same policy that prevents the military from forcing males and females to use the same shower, at the same time. It's also the same policy that EOB's are created IAW and the same policy that prohibits offciers and NCO's from physically punishing an enlisted man. Probably even the same policy that ended flogging as a punishment.

You may want to reference FM 27-1, chapter 10 and/or AR 600-20, for further information.
 
Still using misdirection instead of debate?

Gottem, or not? I'm just living up to the high standard that you set the first day I joined this forum.
 
One thing I've noticed, is that people who support gays serving openly in the military always resort to the, "homophobe", argument, rightaway. Thay never stop to think of the full ramification of such policies.

This is an interesting line of reasoning.

Do you believe most men worry about being leered at in the locker room at the gym? I'm a member of 24 Hour Fitness. There's no 'gay' policy there. And to my knowledge, no one's even raised the issue. Guys work out, shower, change, and get on with their business.

What are the specific 'ramifications' you're so concerned about regarding the shower scenario in the military? Can you elaborate?

Could you also elaborate on your 'spooning' scenario? If male and female soldiers were somehow caught in 15 below zero conditions, do you believe 'spooning' for warmth would lead to unwanted sexual advances?

..
 
^^^

One reason I ask the above question is that I've known quite a few gay service members. None of them have ever related to me any interesting 'shower' stories.

I have, however, been deluged with 'shower' horror scenarios from straight service members concerned about military readiness. All of them imaginary.

:cool:
 
Do you believe most men worry about being leered at in the locker room at the gym? I'm a member of 24 Hour Fitness. There's no 'gay' policy there. And to my knowledge, no one's even raised the issue. Guys work out, shower, change, and get on with their business.

Do they work together with loaded weapons? Do they have to depend on each other to stay alive on the battlefield? What's the sexual harrassment policy at your gym?

What are the specific 'ramifications' you're so concerned about regarding the shower scenario in the military? Can you elaborate?

it could cause a breakdown in discipline. When those soldiers at Ft. Huaichuca beat the crap out of that gay soldier, it was a breakdown in discipline. Do we won't that scenario to take place in the field, where it could degrade a unit's combat power?

What if recruitment falls way below quota? Would you rather our all volunteer force be replaced by a conscripted force? If you're opposed to a draft, then you may need to think about whether, or not, it's worth it.

Could you also elaborate on your 'spooning' scenario? If male and female soldiers were somehow caught in 15 below zero conditions, do you believe 'spooning' for warmth would lead to unwanted sexual advances?

Females aren't allowed to serve in combat arms units. In those units, most specifically infantry units, is where that scenario is most likely to take place.
 
One reason I ask the above question is that I've known quite a few gay service members. None of them have ever related to me any interesting 'shower' stories.

yeah, and everyone always has a black, or Latino friend and so on. I only ever met one gay service member and he got his ass kicked for oogling at a dude in the shower one night--charged with sexual harrassment, then later discharged--so I'm having a hard time believing that this many people know that many gay troops. Just guaging by my own experience.
 
^^^

One reason I ask the above question is that I've known quite a few gay service members. None of them have ever related to me any interesting 'shower' stories.

I have, however, been deluged with 'shower' horror scenarios from straight service members concerned about military readiness. All of them imaginary.

:cool:

There has been one statistical study of the effect of gays in the US military: Palm Center Releases First-Ever Statistical Study On Gays and Unit Cohesion

The data indicated no associations between knowing a lesbian or gay unit member and ratings of perceived unit cohesion or readiness. Instead, findings pointed to the importance of leadership and instrumental quality in shaping perceptions of unit cohesion and readiness.

The new study was conducted by Drs. Bonnie Moradi of the University of Florida and Laura Miller of the Rand Corporation, a think tank with longstanding ties to the Pentagon started after World War II by former military officers.
 
Let's see, on the one hand, we have one thousand officers saying that it's a bad idea. On the other hand, we have kid from UC Santa Barbara, with an obvious agenda, whose made appearances on NPR and Democracy Now.

I'm goin' with the generals. Sorry.

Dr. Laura L. Miller

Dr. Laura L. Miller is a military sociologist at the Rand Corporation. She holds a Bachelor¹s Degree from University of Redlands, and a Master¹s Degree and Doctorate from Northwestern University. She is a member of the Army Science Board, the Executive Council of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, and the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military. She is widely published and has conducted extensive research on various social issues in the military. She served on the Fowler Commission investigating sexual misconduct at the Air Force Academy, and served as a consultant to the Secretary of the Army's Senior Review Panel on Sexual Harassment in 1997. She also served as survey consultant for the Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues, and was a Post-doctoral Fellow at the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University.

Yeah, cannot see why a study she did on the current military would be taken over the word of a bunch of retired military people who belong to a conservative vet group.
 
I think that it is the right of every soldier to a safe and comfortable environment. Yes? Since you're retired, I'm sure you are already familiar with that policy. It's the same policy that prevents the military from forcing males and females to use the same shower, at the same time. It's also the same policy that EOB's are created IAW and the same policy that prohibits offciers and NCO's from physically punishing an enlisted man. Probably even the same policy that ended flogging as a punishment.

You may want to reference FM 27-1, chapter 10 and/or AR 600-20, for further information.

My point being that all those references were not VOTED on by all the soldiers. If the people in charge of the military deem it to be, it is.

I'm sure that if voted upon at a time, blacks would not have been allowed to be officers. The military is not a democracy to vote policy changes by the soldiers.
 
Last edited:
My point being that all those references are not VOTED on by soldiers. If the people in charge of the military deem it to be, it is.

"It is", up to the point when soldier's rights are an issue. Ever see a 1st sgt. relieved because he wasn't on time and on target with chow? I bet you have, if you spent 20+ years in the service. or, maybe you weren't in that kind of unit. I dunno.

When it comes down to the rights that the military says these soldiers have, then they do have a choice, believe it, or not. If soldier don't agree with the abolition of DADT, they are going to vote. Probably with their feet and not a ballot, but vote just the same.
 
I will say this, as a "non-ranger' person in the U.S. Army, when I was in I sure in the hell wouldn't have voted for the damn berets and force the ranger folks to go tan.
 
"It is", up to the point when soldier's rights are an issue. Ever see a 1st sgt. relieved because he wasn't on time and on target with chow? I bet you have, if you spent 20+ years in the service. or, maybe you weren't in that kind of unit. I dunno.

Never had a 1st SGT in that situation.

When it comes down to the rights that the military says these soldiers have, then they do have a choice, believe it, or not. If soldier don't agree with the abolition of DADT, they are going to vote. Probably with their feet and not a ballot, but vote just the same.

Tell me when did the soldiers have a vote on DADT in the first place?

Did the soldiers have a vote in Black Officers?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom