• 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 call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal, adviser says

That is where you and I are different....I gave the orders, you took them..........

Unless you were the President of the United States, you were taking orders from someone.
 
Well whatever options they pick in repealing DADT, it will probably take at least a good 5 years to enact it. Even if they choose to segregate gays from certain combat units, it will come down to what works. Obama is wise enough to wait until Congress and the top military leaders are behind the change.

Are you agreeing with me right now? What happened to me not having a valid argument?

:cool:
 
I suppose I am in favor of removing it, but I still hold to the opinion that it might be too politically dangerous if the Democrats (or rather, even just the Obama administration) are trying to court the opinion of the Republicans or the conservatively-minded people (moderates or no) in the country.

Could this cost them in other areas? It just might if it becomes a magnet for tension. Democrats and Republicans have a lot to figure out soon.
 
Unless you were the President of the United States, you were taking orders from someone.

I didn't know a Marine would take orders from a sailor anyway.
 
Are you agreeing with me right now? What happened to me not having a valid argument?

:cool:

To be honest, in my mind even if they didn't repeal DADT on some combat units in the near future, they would eventually do so once the rest of the military had DADT repealed and they found no significant problems. It's the same thought I have with same sex marriage. Every year that same sex marriage exists in states like Massachusetts and in other countries like Canada, the more normal it seems, and the less credibility there is in the arguments of the anti same sex marriage people. The problems with the military or marriage will disappear in time as attitudes and perceptions change, so I see your compromise as simply a small step in the right direction.

I often wish that it were libertarians who were running the government. Things would go much slower than I would like them to go, but I believe that they would at least choose policies that would be better for the country than for partisan interests.
 
Last edited:
Unless you were the President of the United States, you were taking orders from someone.

I see your not familiar with the rank of Chief Petty Officer in the U.S. Navy.......
 
I see your not familiar with the rank of Chief Petty Officer in the U.S. Navy.......

Secretary of the Navy: Get on your face and give me fifty, sailor!

Navy Pride: I don't take orders, I give them.

*court-martial*

:rofl
 
Secretary of the Navy: Get on your face and give me fifty, sailor!

Navy Pride: I don't take orders, I give them.

*court-martial*

:rofl


You have no clue...........Chief Petty Officer is a unique rank in all the military......Every Officer depends on a Chief to get things done......They would be lost without him......By the way the SECNAV is a civilian.he would never giver orders to a Chief........Its the best rank in the Navy........So good I turned down a commission to be and officer for it.........


Once you make Chief its for life...........
 
What unit or ship were you on?

VFA-131, deploying about the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. Going to dismiss me too for not knowing about military life?
 
You have no clue...........Chief Petty Officer is a unique rank in all the military......Every Officer depends on a Chief to get things done......They would be lost without him......By the way the SECNAV is a civilian.he would never giver orders to a Chief........Its the best rank in the Navy........So good I turned down a commission to be and officer for it.........


Once you make Chief its for life...........

Dude, everyone in the military takes orders. You aren't an exception to that. The fact that you had an officer over you should clue you into this fact.

And if the SECNAV told you to get on your face you'd do it without question or you'd be court-martialed. End of story, old timer.
 
Secretary of the Navy: Get on your face and give me fifty, sailor!

Navy Pride: I don't take orders, I give them.

*court-martial*

:rofl

And, when Navy Pride stands to court, he can go ahead and file his legal greviance against the SECNAV for violating DoD regulations regarding issueing physical punishment outside of a training environment. At that point, I'm confident that any charges against Navy Pride will be dropped.
 
You allow them to serve as long as they practice protected anal sex? Works for me.

Let me guess, you consider a 5 millimeter slice of tearable latex, safe?

After all, the only type of homosexual behavior that increases the risk of HIV is unprotected anal sex.

Condoms tear, Junior.:cool:

Allowing them to serve openly would actually probably reduce the HIV risk because then the military could address the behavior by having condoms and such available.

We allow them to serve openly in every other environment, has it reduced the risk of AIDS or the fact that homosexual men dominate the AIDS stats?

:Oopsie

So we get down to the truth of the matter of your side.

That is, AIDS must be discussed in any discussion on allowing them to serve openly, I'm glad we agree.

This is about "condoning homosexual behavior". This has nothing to do with matters of national security.

It has to do with not condoning a behavior that would certainly increase the risk of AIDS contractions amongst soldiers and sailors. Given the preposterous and disproportionate stats on this disease, any look into males serving close and in direct contact with each other must consider the obvious and high risk behavior of these soldiers/sailors when not in uniform.
 
Let me guess, you consider a 5 millimeter slice of tearable latex, safe?

Every reputable health organization in the United States does.

We allow them to serve openly in every other environment, has it reduced the risk of AIDS or the fact that homosexual men dominate the AIDS stats?

It's men who have had unprotected anal sex with men that dominate the AIDs stats. You are distorting the point by trying make it an issue of sexual orientation, when it is an issue of unsafe sexual behavior. Furthermore, the law prohibits discrimination of people based on their HIV status. Are you suggesting the military go against federal law? Because you are really arguing two separate issues.
 
Last edited:
Although I can't deem a downside to DADT being limited to combat units at commander discretion as long as servicemen are transferred to a different division upon outing themselves rather than dismissed from the military entirely.

Cpt: Alright men, listen up. We're at war again and this unit is scheduled to deploy to the front lines next week. Any questions?

Pvt: Yoo hoo, mister captain sir. Did you know I'm gay? Who do I get to bunk with? ;)
 
Cpt: Alright men, listen up. We're at war again and this unit is scheduled to deploy to the front lines next week. Any questions?

Pvt: Yoo hoo, mister captain sir. Did you know I'm gay? Who do I get to bunk with? ;)

That would be where the discretion comes in.
 
Every reputable health organization in the United States does.

Their claim is a reduced risk, doesn't remove it. They also encourage safe sex education, illustrate where a condom isn't effective.

It's men who have had unprotected anal sex with men that dominate the AIDs stats.

They're gonna use a condom upon joining the military.:cool:

You are distorting the point by trying make it an issue of sexual orientation, when it is an issue of unsafe sexual behavior.

I've repeatedly have made this about behavior and not orientation, and it's an issue of behavior, not just unsafe sexual behavior. It's obvious that homosexual men aren't wearing a condom, they dominate AIDS stats to the point where their behavior is twice as risky as IV drug use. So risky that when the CDC or these "reputable health organizations" above regard these same behaviors by heteros "risky"...whether they use condoms or not.

Furthermore, the law prohibits discrimination of people based on their HIV status.

So...you're alos gonna throw out there that a positive HIV status shouldn't prevent you from combat roles in the military?

Are you suggesting the military go against federal law? Because you are really arguing two separate issues.

I'm arguing the same exact issue and you're darn right the military goes against federal law...for all types of behaviors and status. That's why there is a UCMJ. That's why military law is quite different for obvious reasons.

We were just discussing don't ask don't tell. Think that would fly in the public domain? The military goes against federal law now......pay attention!

I'm sure this found in EVERY federal law:

c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

Bet you can desert IBM or Bank Of America or your City job anytime war or peace...and the major punishment is you being fired...not shot at dawn. Does this go against federal law......CT?:roll:

I'm sure this mirrors federal law as well.

Article 125—Sodomy
 
So...you're alos gonna throw out there that a positive HIV status shouldn't prevent you from combat roles in the military?

The current policy is it doesn't. That is federal law. That is why it is a completely separate issue.

If you want to discriminate against HIV positive people, then you will need to start a new thread. This is about gay people, and last time I checked, not all gay people are HIV positive.

Also, the Uniform Code of Conduct is federal law, and it only applies to the military....so I don't know what the hell you were trying to say with your example.
 
Last edited:
You want to repeal DADT, not me. That means it's your responsibility, not mine, to provide the framework for said policy change. The fact that I asked you to outline such a framework does not all of a sudden shift the burden of responsibility onto me, indeed, that would be truly silly.

You asked me a question. I answered.

Now I'm asking you the same question. Too afraid to answer? Got no answer? Don't understand the lingo? Maybe this will help...

Do you know how to read English? Because you didn't answer my question. Let's try again...

How would you handle DADT being rescinded?

Answer the question.

:roll:
 
I say we let the service members vote on it and go by the outcome of that vote.
 
VFA-131, deploying about the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. Going to dismiss me too for not knowing about military life?

Did I ask you anything? Besides air dales don't count...............;)
 
Dude, everyone in the military takes orders. You aren't an exception to that. The fact that you had an officer over you should clue you into this fact.

And if the SECNAV told you to get on your face you'd do it without question or you'd be court-martialed. End of story, old timer.

You might have done those things but I didn't and never would.......There are ways to show superiors respect with out bowing down to them Dude.......You obviously did not learn that..............
 
The current policy is it doesn't. That is federal law. That is why it is a completely separate issue.

If you want to discriminate against HIV positive people, then you will need to start a new thread. This is about gay people, and last time I checked, not all gay people are HIV positive.

Also, the Uniform Code of Conduct is federal law, and it only applies to the military....so I don't know what the hell you were trying to say with your example.

Actually, someone with AIDS cannot be in the military, as his readiness is affected by illness. He would receive a medical discharge.
 
I say we let the service members vote on it and go by the outcome of that vote.

Why? Should they vote on all the rules and criteria they have in the service? It is nonsense to have people vote on such things.
 
Back
Top Bottom