• 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

You're a mod. Set the example. Probably too much to ask, I'm sure.

Not at all. I have not personally attacked or flamed you. I've pointed out your hypocrisy. This is a completely appropriate debate tactic. I'm sure you'd do it if you saw it. You don't like it, obviously. Sorry you don't. There is a solution to that problem.
 
Oh, I dunno, like when Perez Hilton discriminated against Carrie Prejean, because he didn't like the answer he got to his question. Like that.

You're ok with that sorta thing?

Dammit, that is two cups of coffee down to this thread. I am sure you don't see the humor in this, but it really is hilarious.

By the way, ask jallman(a gay man who is playing it up in this thread) what he thinks of Perez Hilton.
 
Dammit, that is two cups of coffee down to this thread. I am sure you don't see the humor in this, but it really is hilarious.

By the way, ask jallman(a gay man who is playing it up in this thread) what he thinks of Perez Hilton.

See what you started, Cap? "Mr. Mod"

Good job, sport!
 
Dammit, that is two cups of coffee down to this thread. I am sure you don't see the humor in this, but it really is hilarious.

By the way, ask jallman(a gay man who is playing it up in this thread) what he thinks of Perez Hilton.

I would get started but I don't feel like adding a pile of puke to the puddle of coffee already on the floor.
 
Like I said, did you see the reaction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Obama made that statement? Obama can say anything he wants...A president that makes the state of the union speech every year makes all kinds of promises that he never keeps.....Both republicans and democrats Drilling for oil, building Nuclear plants, closing GITMO removing DADT......Don't hold your breath my left wing friends....None of these things will happen.

As far as DADTgoes.This country is at war.........This is no time for social experiments with our troops..That is not what our military is for even though left wingers love to do it...........


One more thing to throw out DADT will take changimg the law.........That will take 60 votes in the senate........
 
Last edited:
Actually, we never really discussed the Rand Study, and they didn't say what you're claiming they did. In fact, they acknowledged some of the study's limitations for drawing conclusions and suggested conducting future studies which were more robust:



...

Actually, they say exactly what I said they do, while basically pointing out in advance any possible problems with the study. Pretty much any quality study points out that more study is needed, however, the results are pretty clear. Let's look at more that they say:

However, analyses of these war veterans’ ratings of unit cohesion and readiness revealed that knowing a gay or lesbian unit member is not uniquely associated with cohesion or readiness; instead, the quality of leaders, the quality of equipment, and the quality of training are the critical factors associated with unit cohesion and readiness


And I can find more brass, including several which I did not reference I found getting the ones I did, and one I will mention presently. The point was that just because one guy opposes it does not mean much.

The Zogby poll was the same data set used in the Rand study, which was inconclusive.

It was not inconclusive. It was exactly what it was, and does show a change in the attitudes of people in the military.

Did I say Colin Powell is always right? No, I didn't. I took issue with someone's characterization of DADT as "stupid". Obviously, that person knows much more about the military than Colin Powell and the other upper echelon military commanders who drafted the policy.

I was saving this for when it was the right time, now is I think that time. Let's look at Powell's actual words on the subject: Time to review policy on gays in U.S. military: Powell | Reuters

Colin Powell said:
"The policy and the law that came about in 1993, I think, was correct for the time," Powell said on CNN's State of the Union.

"Sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country, and therefore I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed." he added.


The onus shouldn't fall on me to support your position. If you want to radically alter the policies of our military then you should provide a rock-solid case in support of your position. That has yet to happen.

Moreover, my problem isn't with gays serving openly in the military. I don't think that would cause many problems. My issue is specifically about the infantry. Their composition and training is radically different from the residuum.

This is not a radical change in policy. Remember, about half the people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan reported serving with some one they at least thought was gay. Gays are already there, already serving. This is simply a shift to allow them to serve without having to fear a simple mistake will lead them to a discharge.



We've already discussed the limitations of the Zogby poll. It does not prove anything.

So, until you can make a real case in support of your position, I'll just differ to my experience in the military, which is far more robust than any studies you've presented thus far.

Nothing proves anything about the future. However, all the data so far collected shows that there is unlikely to be significant problems from repealing DADT. This includes the Zogby poll(which was only one aspect of the Rand study), looking at changing attitudes, and looking at other countries militaries that do allow gays to serve openly, among other things. There is no evidence nor reason to believe that gays serving openly will lead to morale or discipline problems, and every reason to believe that quality of command will still be the overwhelming factor contributing to readiness and morale.
 
And ignoring everyone else's sexual preferences should be a sacrifice any straight patriotic American should be willing to make.

I agree, they should be willing to do that, but a lot of the infantry folks won't, so where does that leave us? Just kick out all the conservative Christians and headstrong alpha males? That's like 90% of the Marine Corps infantry!

Are you or are you not so willing?

I'm plenty willing to serve with a gay man or woman (except no women in the infantry...I know, I'm just a misogynist homophobe), so long as they do their damn job and keep their personal life in check. It's just too bad a lot of guys in the infantry probably don't feel the same way. I must've heard the word "faggot" or "queer" a million times while I was in the Marines.

That makes you and gay soldiers exactly the same.

I got no beef with gay people. I'm just trying to be practical when it comes to our military efficiency.
 
I'm plenty willing to serve with a gay man or woman (except no women in the infantry...I know, I'm just a misogynist homophobe), so long as they do their damn job and keep their personal life in check. It's just too bad a lot of guys in the infantry probably don't feel the same way. I must've heard the word "faggot" or "queer" a million times while I was in the Marines.

Why did it matter how many times you heard the word? I'll bet Marines talk about shagging chicks a lot too....
 
I agree, they should be willing to do that, but a lot of the infantry folks won't, so where does that leave us? Just kick out all the conservative Christians and headstrong alpha males? That's like 90% of the Marine Corps infantry!

This is argument is not based on any kind of historical research. Matter of fact the USMC has in the past adapted quite well to radical social change.

The Right to Fight: African-American Marines in World War II (Basic Racial Policy)

When the United States began arming against aggression by the Axis powers — Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy — the Marine Corps had a simple and in flexible policy governing African-Americans: it had not accepted them since its reestablishment in 1798 and did not want them now. In April 1941, during a meeting of the General Board of the Navy — a body roughly comparable to the War Department General Staff — the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Major General Thomas Holcomb, declared that blacks had no place in the organization he headed. "If it were a question of having a Marine Corps of 5,000 whites or 250,000 Negroes," he said, "I would rather have the whites."

Whereas General Holcomb and the Marine Corps refused to accept African-Americans, the Navy admitted blacks in small numbers, but only to serve as messmen or stewards. The forces of change were gathering momentum, however. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, after meeting in September 1940 with a panel of black leaders, offered African-Americans better treatment and greater opportunity within the segregated armed forces in return for their support of his rearmament program and his attempt to gain an unprecedented third term in the November Presidential election. Roosevelt won that election with the help of those blacks, mainly in the cities of the North, who could still exercise the right to vote, and he did so without antagonizing the Southern segregationists in the Senate and House of Representatives whose support he needed for his anti-Nazi foreign policy.

1942 :

He kept pushing, however, for greater opportunities for blacks within the bounds of segregation, and the Navy could not defy the Commander in Chief. Secretary Knox on 7 April 1942 advised the uniformed leaders of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard (a component of the wartime Navy) that they would have to accept African-Americans for general service. Some six weeks later, the Navy Department publicly announced that the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard would enlist about 1,000 African-Americans each month, beginning 1 June, and that the Marines would organize a racially segregated 900-man defense battalion, training the blacks recruited for it from the beginning of boot camp onward.

The USMC began enlisting blacks during WWII after over 150 years. While we were at war, while the overwhelming majority of the military was white, while half of the country was still divided by the much deeper lines of Jim Crow. I think it is safe to say that in the 1940s the percentage of liberals within our military was even smaller than it is today. So what changed? Why is it that this particular social change, which the majority of Americans are exposed to anyway would create a bigger problem than desegregation of the armed forces? No. I really do not think the social conservative position on this matter is grounded in reality.
 
Last edited:
No not at all. Although I did serve in the Navy over 20 years ago, but that's not what I'm basing my opinion on. I'm basing it on common sense and basic human rights.

If it's "common sense" that DADT is "stupid" then why do so many high-ranking military officials support it? Why do I support it? Are you saying I'm a moron?

I'm certain our military service members are smart enough and tough enough to deal with gay men and women.

All military service members? There's a lot of them, you know.

What is wrong with removing DADT?

It might undermine cohesiveness in combat units.

You seem to assume vast numbers of our service members will immediately demand a discharge if we end don't ask don't tell. Can you please show proof of this mass exodus that you fear?

I don't fear a mass exodus. I fear increased volatility in combat units, which generally means more dead Americans.

I'm guessing some service members will complain for awhile, the issue will pass, and life will go on.

And what if things don't work out the way you guessed? Just put the cat back in the bag? What a nice mess that would cause - in the middle of two wars, no less.

I'm not sure what that means. The "blackness" was never the problem with desegregation in the military. It wasn't literally about skin color. And you know that. The problem was racism. The problem wasn't with blacks, the problem was with the whites.

Homophobia has a very biological quality to it, which makes it more difficult to ameliorate. Aggressiveness is ingrained into the male's DNA; combine this with intense training and maybe a southern Christian upbringing and you have a guy who might not be too friendly towards a gay fella.

I agree. Sacrifices must be made in the military. But gays already make all of the same sacrifices that straight people make. Why should they have to make more sacrifices?

Nobody makes the same sacrifices in the military. They're all unique to the individual.

So again, show me what you believe. Tell me how an openly gay person serving in the military causes a problem?

Suppose there's these guys, we'll call them "Marine infantrymen", let's suppose a lot of them are "not fond" of gay guys possibly living and training with them in close quarters for months and years at a time. Would that cause any problems?
 
Its easy for a bunch of "feel good Liberals"to say hey let them serve openly.....They are not in the military...No skin off their ass........They don't have to live in close quarters with men and women who are physically attracted to them........Sleep in bunks aboard ship that are about a foot apart..........Shower with them........

In my 20 years in the Navy I have seen violations over and over again...I actually don't blame the gay guys or women.......I equate it to a straight male being put on a ship with only beautiful women...Undressing with them, living in very close quarters, showering with them......I know I could not control myself under those conditions.........I truly doubt if any man could.......


If this thing is approved there will be a mass exodus of straight senior petty officers and Chiefs.......You can't force this experimentation down peoples throats.....
 
Why did it matter how many times you heard the word?

Connect the dots.

I'll bet Marines talk about shagging chicks a lot too....

There aren't any women in the Marine infantry. And lots of Marines are court-martialed for making "sexist" comments.
 
This is not a radical change in policy. Remember, about half the people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan reported serving with some one they at least thought was gay. Gays are already there, already serving. This is simply a shift to allow them to serve without having to fear a simple mistake will lead them to a discharge.

I agree with you.

On the other hand, I feel it's an appeasement for the military gays because Obama want's as many votes as he can get in 2012. Since it's up to the States to vote on "same sex marraige" and Obama has been cowarding this subject, this scores one up for him. It would be a victory for those serving our nation.
 
Actually, they say exactly what I said they do...

Redress, this is patently false. The study did not say:

You know about the Rand Corp study for the Pentagon which stated that it DADT could be eliminated with no problems...

I hope you are not purposely misrepresenting something in order to push an agenda - that's beneath you. Let's clarify this point before we proceed.
 
Redress, this is patently false. The study did not say:



I hope you are not purposely misrepresenting something in order to push an agenda - that's beneath you. Let's clarify this point before we proceed.

From the study, conclusion section:

Analyses of these war veterans’ ratings of
unit cohesion and readiness revealed that knowing a gay or lesbian unit member was
not uniquely associated with cohesion or readiness, but the quality of leaders, equipment,
and training was. Thus, these data challenge the contention that openly serving
lesbian and gay service members are detrimental to unit cohesion and readiness.
Instead, the data point to the importance of leadership, training, and equipment quality
for perceptions of unit cohesion and readiness. Fortunately, unlike the sexual orientation
of service members, which the military cannot control, the military is well equipped
to shape the quality of leadership, training, and equipment across its units.

Sorry for the poor formatting, but I am not going back and eliminating line breaks.
 
This is argument is not based on any kind of historical research.

You're right. It's based upon my first-hand experience in the modern military. Much more reliable than arcane historical analysis.

Matter of fact the USMC has in the past adapted quite well to radical social change.

How do you know the Marines adapted well to desegregation? Can you show that more people didn't die because of increased unit friction?

The USMC began enlisting blacks during WWII after over 150 years. While we were at war, while the overwhelming majority of the military was white, while half of the country was still divided by the much deeper lines of Jim Crow. I think it is safe to say that in the 1940s the percentage of liberals within our military was even smaller than it is today. So what changed?

For one thing, we're not in a desperate World War anymore, which means we can play the numbers game a little tighter with the troops' lives. The Generals didn't have that luxury in WWII with desegregation. The amount of people who would die as a result of unit friction was mathematically offset by the infusion of black soldiers. It's not as much of a numbers game, anymore.

Why is it that this particular social change, which the majority of Americans are exposed to anyway would create a bigger problem than desegregation of the armed forces? No. I really do not think the social conservative position on this matter is grounded in reality.

What does military policy have to do with social conservatism? Are you saying I'm a social conservative? If my position isn't grounded in reality, then what is it grounded in?

I wouldn't ask so many questions, but you're making a lot of open-ended assertions.
 
If it's "common sense" that DADT is "stupid" then why do so many high-ranking military officials support it? Why do I support it? Are you saying I'm a moron?

All military service members? There's a lot of them, you know.

It might undermine cohesiveness in combat units.

I don't fear a mass exodus. I fear increased volatility in combat units, which generally means more dead Americans.

And what if things don't work out the way you guessed? Just put the cat back in the bag? What a nice mess that would cause - in the middle of two wars, no less.

Homophobia has a very biological quality to it, which makes it more difficult to ameliorate. Aggressiveness is ingrained into the male's DNA; combine this with intense training and maybe a southern Christian upbringing and you have a guy who might not be too friendly towards a gay fella.

Nobody makes the same sacrifices in the military. They're all unique to the individual.

Suppose there's these guys, we'll call them "Marine infantrymen", let's suppose a lot of them are "not fond" of gay guys possibly living and training with them in close quarters for months and years at a time. Would that cause any problems?

Well now you're talking about violence against gays in the military should it be discovered they're gay.

Why would Marines not be fond of other gay Marines living and training with them? The gay Marines have passed all of the same training and requirements. They may have even served beside each other in battle.

Why would that cause a problem?

You have stated that "Homophobia has a very biological quality to it". That's quite a statement. Are you saying homophobia is a trait people are born with and can't be helped?

You also seem to be assuming that homophobia is rampant in the Marines. I don't believe that. And then you hinted that homophobia would cause violent actions to be taken against gay Marines. So you're asserting that straight Marines would take violent action against gay Marines and open themselves up to a Court Martial and imprisonment?

I have more faith in our military than that. I think our service members are above the pettiness and silliness. And if we remove DADT the issue of who's gay and who's not goes with it.

I also have another question. Just for my own curiosity. Is there some sense of "manliness" being undermined if gay men are allowed to openly serve? If a Marine goes through all of this tough training and then finds out that some gay guy went through it too and not only passed it but surpassed the straight guys, would that cause animosity?

.
 
From the study, conclusion section:



Sorry for the poor formatting, but I am not going back and eliminating line breaks.

I read the study, Redress. I'm pretty comfortable with statistical analysis.

The study does not say:

...DADT could be eliminated with no problems...

It just doesn't say that, so please stop insulting my intelligence.
 
Awesome! Slowly but surely America is joining the rest of us in the 21st century! :D
You say joining you like it's a good thing. :roll:
 
From the study, conclusion section:



Sorry for the poor formatting, but I am not going back and eliminating line breaks.
So you're saying that all these generals for the last 200 years were wrong?
 
So you're saying that all these generals for the last 200 years were wrong?

All the ones who support repealing DADT and allowing gays to serve openly?
 
I said this a year ago...

...As soon as Obama is done asking the military to bleed for him, he will force the issue. Until then..he's just looking for the gay vote. Clinton spent years and years dealing with the rift between him and the Pentagon over his Don't Ask Don't Tell fiasco. Obama is very well aware. He has military support now. He will not rock the boat in the midst of a war he believes in.

You people who are enthused over his words will hear the same words next year and the next year and...
 
Back
Top Bottom