• 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 reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell"

goldendog said:
Please expain the negative aspects of having "openly gay citizens" serving their country and explain just how they might conduct themselves differently than they do currently when the President and congress repeal DADT?
Click to expand...

It opens up a whole new can of worms. Gay and straight showers and billets, rape and sexual harrassment rates could possibly rise.
It could have a negative impact on morale, at a time when it's obvious that the Congress and the president aren't big fans of out military.
 
Fiddytree said:
They could certainly frame the debate in that fashion of it being useful for the War on Terror, but nevertheless there is still a large amount of people who do not see it that crucially to winning the War on Terror.



Why do you want me to do that, exactly? You can get those responses anywhere. Secondly, I already said I support removal of DADT.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the decision should be postponed pending the end of the war on Terror?

How about instead because of the War on terror we stop undermining our armed forces by getting rid of excellent soldiers due to their sexuality
 
apdst said:
It opens up a whole new can of worms. Gay and straight showers and billets, rape and sexual harrassment rates could possibly rise.
It could have a negative impact on morale, at a time when it's obvious that the Congress and the president aren't big fans of out military.
Click to expand...

Thank you

Gay and straight showers? :2razz:

How about just a shower and be thankful at that. As for rape and sexual harrassment, just punish indiscipline severely.

It wont have any impact on morale, the decent soldier in the field is unconcerned about such things. Nor does the President or congress have any such impact.

If the British can do it then the Americans certainly can.
 
I have seen those polls quite a number of times. The problem is that I think that the numbers will dwindle once the issue comes to the forefront and a number of our elected officials will probably be hesitant to agree with it.

Are you saying the decision should be postponed pending the end of the war on Terror?

How about instead because of the War on terror we stop undermining our armed forces by getting rid of excellent soldiers due to their sexuality
Click to expand...

No. This is, what...the second or third time someone has tried to sell me in one position or another in this thread. Again, I fully support removal of DADT at any point. I'm just not so sure the Obama administration or various members of Congress will see it the same way.
 
creation said:
Thank you

Gay and straight showers? :2razz:

How about just a shower and be thankful at that. As for rape and sexual harrassment, just punish indiscipline severely.

It wont have any impact on morale, the decent soldier in the field is unconcerned about such things. Nor does the President or congress have any such impact.

If the British can do it then the Americans certainly can.
Click to expand...

This ain't Britain, nor should we try to be like the Europeans.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Has he decided if we are staying or going in A-stan yet?
Click to expand...

Well, apparently, the removal of troops option was ruled out last week or earlier. Status-quo, raise in troop levels below 40,000, and troop levels to 40,000 are still the options present.
 
apdst said:
It opens up a whole new can of worms. Gay and straight showers and billets, rape and sexual harrassment rates could possibly rise.
It could have a negative impact on morale, at a time when it's obvious that the Congress and the president aren't big fans of out military.
Click to expand...

Why? Most servicemembers are well aware now of who in their units are gay. And, I'm pretty sure that in most of the situations where the military has open-bay showers, most people are way more concerned about getting in, getting clean, and getting out than looking at someone else's junk. (I figure those who would be worried that theirs is being stared at will feel that way whether gays serve openly or in the closet.)

And why in the world would you think that homosexuals would jeopardize their open status by engaging in behaviors such as harassment and/or rape more after working so hard to serve openly? Where did you get this idea from?
 
apdst said:
This ain't Britain, nor should we try to be like the Europeans.
Click to expand...

Whats the difference? Both have modern armies based on modern secular socially liberal societies. The British are fighting the very same wars too.

Problem?

In fact the risk to unit effectiveness is born not of the gay issue but the gender issue. Women are prone to get pregnant and become useless to the Pentagon.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Why? Most servicemembers are well aware now of who in their units are gay. And, I'm pretty sure that in most of the situations where the military has open-bay showers, most people are way more concerned about getting in, getting clean, and getting out than looking at someone else's junk. (I figure those who would be worried that theirs is being stared at will feel that way whether gays serve openly or in the closet.)
Click to expand...

That wasn't my experience in the service. But, then I was in the infantry and that's a totally different world from the other branches of arms.

All it's going to take, is one person to file a grievance and it's going to snowball from there.

And why in the world would you think that homosexuals would jeopardize their open status by engaging in behaviors such as harassment and/or rape more after working so hard to serve openly? Where did you get this idea from?
Click to expand...


Why is always assumed that I mean gay soldiers when I say that sexual harrassment will increase. Straight soldiers can sexually harrass gay soldiers. Straight soldiers get into trouble all the time for sexual harrassment. They're all human and subject to the same mistakes.
 
apdst said:
That wasn't my experience in the service. But, then I was in the infantry and that's a totally different world from the other branches of arms.

All it's going to take, is one person to file a grievance and it's going to snowball from there.
Click to expand...

The US has lived with women in the front line for years now and got along just fine.



Why is always assumed that I mean gay soldiers when I say that sexual harrassment will increase. Straight soldiers can sexually harrass gay soldiers. Straight soldiers get into trouble all the time for sexual harrassment. They're all human and subject to the same mistakes.
Click to expand...

Then apply and expect discipline.
 
creation said:
The US has lived with women in the front line for years now and got along just fine.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, the US military hasn't lived with women on the front lines, becaus women aren't allowed to serve in combat arms units and in the units where women are allowed to serve, it hasn't been alright.





Then apply and expect discipline.
Click to expand...


That's what happens, but in certain circumstances, discpline breaks down. Soldiers are humans, too. You can only go so far, before morale breaks down. Unit morale is far more important than politically correct social experiments. That breakdown occurs when you throw a soldier's rights out the window and tell them tuff ****.
 
apdst said:
That's what happens, but in certain circumstances, discpline breaks down. Soldiers are humans, too. You can only go so far, before morale breaks down. Unit morale is far more important than politically correct social experiments. That breakdown occurs when you throw a soldier's rights out the window and tell them tuff ****.
Click to expand...

Only heterosexual soldiers have rights?
 
apdst said:
Well, actually, the US military hasn't lived with women on the front lines, becaus women aren't allowed to serve in combat arms units and in the units where women are allowed to serve, it hasn't been alright.
Click to expand...

This denies the modern reality where women often spend their time in FOBs or on patrol with infantry or artillery or armed convoy for most of their tours. Not to mention the amount of women pilots the US now has.

This situation has been a boost to the US military rather than a problem.







That's what happens, but in certain circumstances, discpline breaks down. Soldiers are humans, too. You can only go so far, before morale breaks down. Unit morale is far more important than politically correct social experiments. That breakdown occurs when you throw a soldier's rights out the window and tell them tuff ****.
Click to expand...

Morale actually doesnt break down much, thats just a scare story. It certainly doesnt break down because of the presence of gays or women but for lots of other reasons.

Theres no reason that the US cant demand the same standards of its soldiers that it applies to its own normal life.
 
winston53660 said:
Only heterosexual soldiers have rights?
Click to expand...

Not just heterosexual soldiers, but hetero soldiers do still have rights and you can't just flush them down the toilet because you want to.
 
From my vantage point on active duty, I'd say the current climate would be more accepting to gay soldiers than it used to.

With that being said, I'm not looking forward to all the new EO and POSH classes I'll have to go through if DADT is overturned. Uh, nightmare.

Ironically, I think your average grunt would rather have a gay man in his foxhole instead of a female. Sexism is still far more prevelant than homophobia, IMO. I know that's the way I feel. I served with a few guys that I am pretty sure were gay. I had no issue with them. I prefer not to have females in my unit, if possible. I would rather have the gay guy.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Not just heterosexual soldiers, but hetero soldiers do still have rights and you can't just flush them down the toilet because you want to.
Click to expand...

So homosexual soldiers rights are secondary?
 
creation said:
This denies the modern reality where women often spend their time in FOBs or on patrol with infantry or artillery or armed convoy for most of their tours. Not to mention the amount of women pilots the US now has.

This situation has been a boost to the US military rather than a problem.
Click to expand...

Well, let's get something cleared up: female soldiers don't go on patrol with combat units. Do they see combat on un-conventional battlefields? Sure they do. It's been my experience that co-ed units see more discipline problems than all male units, because of males and females working in close proximety. Have you seen something different, or are you just talking?









Morale actually doesnt break down much, thats just a scare story. It certainly doesnt break down because of the presence of gays or women but for lots of other reasons.
Click to expand...

Morale can and will break down if you tell soldiers that they no longer have rights.

Theres no reason that the US cant demand the same standards of its soldiers that it applies to its own normal life.
Click to expand...


The standards in the military are higher than those applied to civilians, actually. It's the reason that it's so easy for a soldier to be discplined for sexual harrassment.
 
apdst said:
Another stupid question, I see. Got any input?
Click to expand...

So then explain how a gay soldiers serving openly stomps on the rights of heterosexual soldiers?
 
kansaswhig said:
From my vantage point on active duty, I'd say the current climate would be more accepting to gay soldiers than it used to.

With that being said, I'm not looking forward to all the new EO and POSH classes I'll have to go through if DADT is overturned. Uh, nightmare.

Ironically, I think your average grunt would rather have a gay man in his foxhole instead of a female. Sexism is still far more prevelant than homophobia, IMO. I know that's the way I feel. I served with a few guys that I am pretty sure were gay. I had no issue with them. I prefer not to have females in my unit, if possible. I would rather have the gay guy.
Click to expand...


I have to say that if I had to choose between a female, or a gay male to share a fighting position with, I would definitely choose the gay male, unless he was a major dork, then I would just man that pos by myself.

But, we can't just look at it from a combat perspective. Military service is only about 10% combat and the rest is a garrison environment. If straight, or even gay soldiers refuse to share billets with other soldiers of the same sex, then they have that right.
 
roguenuke said:
Why? Most servicemembers are well aware now of who in their units are gay. And, I'm pretty sure that in most of the situations where the military has open-bay showers, most people are way more concerned about getting in, getting clean, and getting out than looking at someone else's junk. (I figure those who would be worried that theirs is being stared at will feel that way whether gays serve openly or in the closet.)
Click to expand...

And so what if they do stare? It's just nudity. We need to get over it. Now, unwanted physical advances are another story. They'll sort themselves out.

The objective ought to be scenes from the movie Starship Trooper, by Robert Heinlein, where the units are co-ed and everyone showers together. :)

(a solid first post at DP, I think!)
 
apdst said:
I have to say that if I had to choose between a female, or a gay male to share a fighting position with, I would definitely choose the gay male, unless he was a major dork, then I would just man that pos by myself.
Click to expand...

There's a lot straight soldiers that are dorks :mrgreen:

But, we can't just look at it from a combat perspective. Military service is only about 10% combat and the rest is a garrison environment. If straight, or even gay soldiers refuse to share billets with other soldiers of the same sex, then they have that right.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but combat is what counts. Still, females cause me more problems in garrison than gays would, I think. I still believe that many gay soldiers would not "come out" even if DADT went away.
 
reefedjib said:
And so what if they do stare? It's just nudity. We need to get over it. Now, unwanted physical advances are another story. They'll sort themselves out.
Click to expand...


If they stare, then it will be considered sexual harrassment. That's what.

The objective ought to be scenes from the movie Starship Trooper, by Robert Heinlein, where the units are co-ed and everyone showers together. :)
Click to expand...

That ain't never gonna happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom