• 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!

Top uniformed officer: Gay ban should be lifted

Space aliens might land tomorrow and blow up the world, making this whole argument moot. However, like your objection, it's not likely enough to be cause for real concern.

You've already demonstrated an emotional and illogical bias against my position when you misrepresented the findings of the Rand study. So, instead of refuting this perplexing argument, I'll simply say that I'm not interested in discussing this issue with you.
 
I never said that we're suffering from a troop shortage. I'm just asking why we shouldn't retain competent soldiers willing to serve just because they're gay? The fact that it could "rock the boat" isn't enough of a justification.

I think it should be up the commander's discretion whether or not to discharge them.
 
I don't need anything else. The fact that repealing DADT could cause increased unit friction in the middle of two wars is enough to oppose it.

I read a source today stating 1/4 military personnel knows a homosexual that they serve with. I cant find it, however.

[pointless personal experience]And while I was in another platoon had a flaming homo in it and he seemed to do great.[/pointless personal experience]
 
I read a source today stating 1/4 military personnel knows a homosexual that they serve with. I cant find it, however.

[pointless personal experience]And while I was in another platoon had a flaming homo in it and he seemed to do great.[/pointless personal experience]

That's why I think it should be up to the commander's discretion. What works for one unit may not work for another.
 
I hesistate to comment on this. I was denied service in the Army due to my hearing, therefore I think my perspective on this is limited. Frankly I'd like to know one thing: is it going to adversely affect the morale of a large number of our military personnel? If the answer is yes, I'd be hesitant to force it on them. The purpose of the military is to fight wars effectively, not to be fair to everyone or be a platform for social experimentation.

OTOH, since homosexuality is not a crime in the USA, it does seem inconsistent to treat it as one within the military.


My chief concern is whether it will affect military readiness through adverse effects on morale. If an honest study says the answer is No, then it would be more consistent with domestic law to remove the restrictions.
 
That's why I think it should be up to the commander's discretion. What works for one unit may not work for another.

Segregate the homophobes into homophobe platoons then, they're the minority here thats the issue, not the homosexuals in this case, since you put it that way.

If someone's got a problem with it, they can leave and be in the hater brigade.:rofl
 
I hesistate to comment on this. I was denied service in the Army due to my hearing, therefore I think my perspective on this is limited. Frankly I'd like to know one thing: is it going to adversely affect the morale of a large number of our military personnel? If the answer is yes, I'd be hesitant to force it on them. The purpose of the military is to fight wars effectively, not to be fair to everyone or be a platform for social experimentation.

OTOH, since homosexuality is not a crime in the USA, it does seem inconsistent to treat it as one within the military.


My chief concern is whether it will affect military readiness through adverse effects on morale. If an honest study says the answer is No, then it would be more consistent with domestic law to remove the restrictions.

I don't think it would matter much in non-combat roles, but for many combat units the consequences could be increased unit friction. That's why I think it should be left up to the discretion of the commander, instead of the zero tolerance policy currently in effect. That, I think, would be a pragmatic middle ground between the two extremes (repeal it entirely or keep it as it is).
 
Segregate the homophobes into homophobe platoons then, they're the minority here thats the issue, not the homosexuals in this case, since you put it that way.

It depends on the unit.
 
I hesistate to comment on this. I was denied service in the Army due to my hearing, therefore I think my perspective on this is limited. Frankly I'd like to know one thing: is it going to adversely affect the morale of a large number of our military personnel? If the answer is yes, I'd be hesitant to force it on them. The purpose of the military is to fight wars effectively, not to be fair to everyone or be a platform for social experimentation.

OTOH, since homosexuality is not a crime in the USA, it does seem inconsistent to treat it as one within the military.


My chief concern is whether it will affect military readiness through adverse effects on morale. If an honest study says the answer is No, then it would be more consistent with domestic law to remove the restrictions.

There is a grand total of zero evidence it would negatively effect military readiness.
 
It depends on the unit.

A unit full of phobes is about as likely as a unit full of homos. I dont see what the big deal is they're already serving incognito and 1/4 of soldiers are aware of homosexuals and seem fine with it.

I dont see how sexuality is more disruptive than say, skin color or social class. especially when there shouldn't be any sex to be had in the army lol.
 
There is a grand total of zero evidence it would negatively effect military readiness.


Has any serious and objective study been done on it in the past ten years though? I haven't heard of one, and I'd want to know with reasonable assurance that it wasn't going to cause problems. If hardly any soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines care, then fine.

Any studies older than ten years would be dubious, because of changing attitudes.
 
I am sure that the type of reaction that gays serving openly would get would depend alot on the type of unit that they were in. In softskill units that already have lots of women in them I doubt it would be to much of a problem. In infantry units where it is all males and most of them younger, I can see lots more problems. I dont care what some Admirals or Generals say, they are not down at the troop level and havent been in many years, they dont know how it will effect troops at the squad and platoon level or how those troops feel. I also see big problems in the Special Ops world. I was in the infantry 5 years ago and I am still in the Army and feel that I know better than a General about how the troops at that level feel which is where this decision will have the most impact. I am not saying that DADT is not worth changing just something to think about.
 
A unit full of phobes is about as likely as a unit full of homos.

How do you know? The military has lots of different units.

I dont see what the big deal is they're already serving incognito and 1/4 of soldiers are aware of homosexuals and seem fine with it.

I dont see how sexuality is more disruptive than say, skin color or social class. especially when there shouldn't be any sex to be had in the army lol.

I think men deal with homophobia differently than racism. I think the former has more to do with deep-seated insecurities or strongly held religious beliefs, which makes it more difficult to ameliorate in certain people. Just my opinion, of course...
 
I am sure that the type of reaction that gays serving openly would get would depend alot on the type of unit that they were in. In softskill units that already have lots of women in them I doubt it would be to much of a problem. In infantry units where it is all males and most of them younger, I can see lots more problems. I dont care what some Admirals or Generals say, they are not down at the troop level and havent been in many years, they dont know how it will effect troops at the squad and platoon level or how those troops feel. I also see big problems in the Special Ops world. I was in the infantry 5 years ago and I am still in the Army and feel that I know better than a General about how the troops at that level feel which is where this decision will have the most impact. I am not saying that DADT is not worth changing just something to think about.

Totally agree. Civilians lend more weight to the higher-ups' word then they should. I know how Marines on the ground level will react to this way better than Admiral Mullen. He was never part of the lance corporal underground...:cool:
 
Yes, because being gay means you are some sort of subhuman animal who cannot control their sex drive :roll:

Well, you know the military doesn't have communal heterosexual showers for just the reason about men not being able to control themselves. Do you think it would be any difference with gays being in the general population now and not having to worry about hiding their desires?
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pssZk9opON8"]YouTube- Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Colin Powell and Sam Nunn[/ame]
 
Well, you know the military doesn't have communal heterosexual showers for just the reason about men not being able to control themselves. Do you think it would be any difference with gays being in the general population now and not having to worry about hiding their desires?

What??????:confused:
 
Well no, you have a very very low opinion of our service people if you think they would commit murder over something that is none of their business and does not effect them.

Have you been in the military?


Gay soldier discharged for being beaten


A 19-year-old Army private, Kyle Lawson, was physically assaulted and threatened for being gay at the Fort Huachuca Army Base in Arizona. The Army discharged Lawson after a fellow soldier violently beat him.

Lawson suffered a broken nose in the attack. His attacker—Pvt. Zacharias Pierre—reportedly used an anti-gay epithet during the attack. Lawson was later threatened at knifepoint by another soldier. Lawson’s sexual orientation had been revealed by an acquaintance at an October 2005 battalion party.

Fearful for his life, Pvt. Lawson began to sleep on a cot in his drill sergeant’s office. Local police originally charged Pierre with felony assault. Police reports confirm that the attack on Lawson was unprovoked. Fort Huachuca officials used military regulations to take control of the case away from the Sierra Vista police. The officials promptly dropped the felony assault charges after the case was successfully transferred to military jurisdiction.
 
Well no, you have a very very low opinion of our service people if you think they would commit murder over something that is none of their business and does not effect them.
No it's not that I have a low opinion, it's that I have attended enough NJP's/court martial to know and not assume. Have your served?
 
Well no, you have a very very low opinion of our service people if you think they would commit murder over something that is none of their business and does not effect them.
BTw, let me assure you that the military is not free of crime, especially robbery, murder, rape etc., During Vietnam there were many incidents of Fragging but ruled as FF's. I am not saying this is the rule it's far from it, as a whole the military is a well run organization run by dedicated men and women. Non the less being gay will create a rift amongst the enlisted ranks.
 
No it's not that I have a low opinion, it's that I have attended enough NJP's/court martial to know and not assume. Have your served?

I served in the 70's.

There will be a 1 year study by the military then the congress will have hearings. We may see a decision on this in 2 years maybe.
 
I served in the 70's.

There will be a 1 year study by the military then the congress will have hearings. We may see a decision on this in 2 years maybe.
Your right we will see, I as well served in the 70's/80's and you saw what I saw. Perhaps shave changed but knowing enlisted, I don't think so.
 
I served in the 70's.

There will be a 1 year study by the military then the congress will have hearings. We may see a decision on this in 2 years maybe.
Well I can see it now at the Marine Corps Ball, males bring their male dates and women bringing their women dates, yep this will go over like a wet rock. I really don't care what sexual preference people have non of my business really but, when something like this can effect the cohesiveness of a fighting unit, we will have problems.
 
Your right we will see, I as well served in the 70's/80's and you saw what I saw. Perhaps shave changed but knowing enlisted, I don't think so.

I had a friend in my unit that was gay but he kept it to himself. I like him as a person but disagreed with his being gay.
 
Back
Top Bottom