• 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!

Army discharges don't ask critic who told

texmaster said:
It does show he doesn't give a damn about the rules.
Click to expand...

Yes rules exist for a reason and its important to follow them, however it is still important to ask what following a rule accomplishes. Rules exist for a reason, but they do not exist simply to be followed. If one follows rules simply because they are rules then you'd end up following all kinds of ridiculous rules that accomplish nothing other than making yourself extremely obedient. Of course obedience is important but its not everything.

Now if one would like to be a leader or a decision maker than they have to decide what rules to implement, follow, and ask yourself what the purpose of each is. When it comes to DADT I ask myself what it accomplishes towards the missions of the Army and the military as a whole, and when I think critically about it I don't see a single aspect of this rule aids in the Army's or the military's missions.

Now if you want to hold the rules above all else well than you're going to be a gerbil for the rest of your life.
 
Your Star said:
It is part of the OP.
Click to expand...

You are referencing the opinion of the poster not the story which is the subject.

And to be honest, if they discharged him for uniform violation, then fine. There's evidence for that, and they should enforce the rules. But the difference between breaking the uniform rule, and DADT is that one is a blatant discriminatory rule, and the other isn't.

So please, forget about this guy, this situation, and explain to me how does DAD strengthen the military? Oh, yeah thats right you won't.
Click to expand...

Its already been given to you multiple times. I'll quote:

It maintain's good order, discipline and unit cohesion.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly why. Since he doesn't want to follow the rules for DADT and he knew the rules going in thats his fault and no one else's. Wearing a uniform and breaking the miltary code of command just gives support to the notion that he doesn't care about the rules.
 
Wiseone said:
Yes rules exist for a reason and its important to follow them, however it is still important to ask what following a rule accomplishes. Rules exist for a reason, but they do not exist simply to be followed. If one follows rules simply because they are rules then you'd end up following all kinds of ridiculous rules that accomplish nothing other than making yourself extremely obedient. Of course obedience is important but its not everything.

Now if one would like to be a leader or a decision maker than they have to decide what rules to implement, follow, and ask yourself what the purpose of each is. When it comes to DADT I ask myself what it accomplishes towards the missions of the Army and the military as a whole, and when I think critically about it I don't see a single aspect of this rule aids in the Army's or the military's missions.

Now if you want to hold the rules above all else well than you're going to be a gerbil for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

This isn't protesting casual day. He is in the miltiary where rules are strictly enforced. He knew the rule going in and he openly broke it. There is no excuse that justifies that.

He wants to protest let him do so legally. There is no sympathy for his chosen action.
 
Your Star said:
It is part of the OP. And to be honest, if they discharged him for uniform violation, then fine. There's evidence for that, and they should enforce the rules. But the difference between breaking the uniform rule, and DADT is that one is a blatant discriminatory rule, and the other isn't.

So please, forget about this guy, this situation, and explain to me how does DAD strengthen the military? Oh, yeah thats right you won't.
Click to expand...

There is a ban on gays in the military. Being gay and joining the military is a violation of that ban. DADT allows a gay person to serve, because no one is allowed to ask them about their sexual preference. The price for violating DADT, for a gay soldier, is discharge. Dan Choi knew this, when he admitted that he was gay.

This is the military. A soldier doesn't get to choose which regulations he obeys, based on his agreement with them.

Today, Dan Choi disagrees with DADT. This time next year, he may be in Afghanistan and disagree with the ROE and think he's within his rights to waste a few civilians; just because he thinks the ROE is wrong.

That's why following the rules--all of the rules--is so important for good order and discipline. Dan Choi's disobediance of the regulations is a breakdown in discipline.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
I'm talking about the story not the opinion of the OP. Had I been referencing the poster's opinion I would have stated that.
Click to expand...

A poster starts a thread and presents either an opinion or question. SOP at DP is that members can either discuss the article, what the poster has presented, or both. YourStar has asked a question that references the OP's question. Valid and viable in this thread, as the OP presented it. If you only want to discuss the article, that's fine, but her question ABSOLUTELY references the OP. Discuss or not discuss is your choice. But claiming that it is not part of the OP is incorrect.
 
As far as the issue goes, rules are rules. He broke them and needs to pay the consequences, regardless of how he feels about them.

As far as whether DADT negatively affects the military, I think there is no consensus on that. Other countries have folks serving who are openly gay without problems, but I do understand issues of unit cohesion.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
A poster starts a thread and presents either an opinion or question. SOP at DP is that members can either discuss the article, what the poster has presented, or both. YourStar has asked a question that references the OP's question. Valid and viable in this thread, as the OP presented it. If you only want to discuss the article, that's fine, but her question ABSOLUTELY references the OP. Discuss or not discuss is your choice. But claiming that it is not part of the OP is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Not allowing gays in the millitary just because of their sexuality is equally abhorrent as racism. It's the same story with a different group... Gays should not just be allowed to serve but should also be a part of the draft. Actually, even women should be part of the draft too, but that's another thread altogether.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
As far as whether DADT negatively affects the military, I think there is no consensus on that. Other countries have folks serving who are openly gay without problems, but I do understand issues of unit cohesion.
Click to expand...

Do you agree as Choi said in the video that Honesty is one of the core values that promote commaraderie and unit cohesion?
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
Not allowing gays in the millitary just because of their sexuality is equally abhorrent as racism. It's the same story with a different group... Gays should not just be allowed to serve but should also be a part of the draft. Actually, even women should be part of the draft too, but that's another thread altogether.
Click to expand...

If gays are allowed to serve openly in the military, then they should definitely be a part of the draft.
 
disneydude said:
Do you agree as Choi said in the video that Honesty is one of the core values that promote commaraderie and unit cohesion?
Click to expand...

Integrity is important for unit cohesion, which he is lacking.
 
disneydude said:
Do you agree as Choi said in the video that Honesty is one of the core values that promote commaraderie and unit cohesion?
Click to expand...

Sure. But there are other things to consider, too. I don't agree with DADT, and think it should be repealed, but I also see how other issues could factor into unit cohesion.
 
apdst said:
Integrity is important for unit cohesion, which he is lacking.
Click to expand...

One could say he has a great deal of integrity because he chose to be honest despite the consequences. His integrity does not come into question with him violating the uniform regulation. I would think his violation by wearing the uniform would have more to say about his submission to authority than it does about his integrity.
 
jallman said:
One could say he has a great deal of integrity because he chose to be honest despite the consequences. His integrity does not come into question with him violating the uniform regulation. I would think his violation by wearing the uniform would have more to say about his submission to authority than it does about his integrity.
Click to expand...

But, he wasn't honest upon joining the Army. He knowingly violated the DoD's ban on gays serving in the military. The pinnacle of integrity would have dictated that he refused to join the Army, because the DoD doesn't allow gays to serve in the military, or adhered to DADT.

But, that's not even close to what he did. He tried to say that breaking the rules is some how an exhibition of integrity.
 
apdst said:
But, he wasn't honest upon joining the Army.
Click to expand...

How can you say that? Did the Army ask him if he was gay? Did he lie at MEPS and tell them he was a heterosexual in response to their questions? I wasn't aware they even asked about that...in fact, half of DADT is...*gasp* "Don't Ask".

So again, how does this affect his integrity?
 
apdst said:
But, he wasn't honest upon joining the Army. He knowingly violated the DoD's ban on gays serving in the military. The pinnacle of integrity would have dictated that he refused to join the Army, because the DoD doesn't allow gays to serve in the military, or adhered to DADT.

But, that's not even close to what he did. He tried to say that breaking the rules is some how an exhibition of integrity.
Click to expand...

Do you even understand DADT? He did not "knowingly violate DADT" when he joined. This post makes ZERO sense.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sure. But there are other things to consider, too. I don't agree with DADT, and think it should be repealed, but I also see how other issues could factor into unit cohesion.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to hear from those in his unit...whether they felt that his being gay hurt unit cohesion.
 
apdst said:
But, he wasn't honest upon joining the Army. He knowingly violated the DoD's ban on gays serving in the military. The pinnacle of integrity would have dictated that he refused to join the Army, because the DoD doesn't allow gays to serve in the military, or adhered to DADT.

But, that's not even close to what he did. He tried to say that breaking the rules is some how an exhibition of integrity.
Click to expand...

Alright, your all into not breaking the rules. I get that, but do you think DADT should be repealed? And if it was, would you be this upset if someone beat up an openly gay solider? Because they were breaking the rules, a rule which is by far worse than a dress code violation.
 
disneydude said:
It would be interesting to hear from those in his unit...whether they felt that his being gay hurt unit cohesion.
Click to expand...

That would be an interesting examination. Ask the people in a unit who had a gay member... who was discharged for violating DADT if they felt that member hurt their unit.
 
Gipper said:
Telling a buddy in private that you're gay would, I highly doubt, cause a discharge. Now if you showed up on base wearing a fishnet shirt, assless chaps and yelling with a lisp, then sure.

People get fired from the private sector for a whole lot less. What makes the military so damned special?
Click to expand...

There is a huge flaw in your argument here: telling any one you are gay is a high risk activity for a gay soldier. It can and does lead almost directly to a discharge. The military uses 3 criteria for discharging some one under DADT, words, actions, marriage. Words is the most common reason to discharge some one under DADT. It means that if you tell some one you are gay, and they tell some one in the chain of command, you get discharged.

Now, oddly enough, your second example is not going to get some one discharged for acts. Acts refers simply to sex with some one of the same sex. Dressing in a "gay" manner(hint: gays who join the military are not the type who dress or act like that) is not going to get you a DADT discharge.

So, in point of fact, you are wrong in both assertions, and your scenario is entirely false. People in the private sector do not get discharged(fired) for telling coworkers they are gay, they do in the military.
 
disneydude said:
Army Discharges Lt. Dan Choi, 'Don't Ask' Critic Who Told

I challenge anyone who is against repealing the DADT policy to watch the video in the attached link and make an argument why it strengthen the military to discharge this West Point graduate.

As he says in the end of the video, there have been nothing but positive ramifications among his infantry in the 17 months since he came out..."Honesty is the foundation of building teamwork and troop cohension". How can anyone possibly disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Choi should have been discharged, it was an entirely appropriate discharge, and in truth he does not help the pro-gay in the military cause. He was not a good soldier, because he chose to violate the rules on a consistent basis. Until DADT is repealed(and it will be), gays in the military have to do their utmost to be good soldiers and sailors. They can, once out, use that as evidence that yes, gays can be good for the military. We have a couple gay people who have served and gotten out after their enlistment who post here, and I think they are much better examples of why DADT should be repealed.
 
Is there a rule that would be being broken if heterosexual soldiers who support gays in the military were to all start stating that they are gay? Like, on a specified day all heterosexual enlisted folks who support the repeal of DADT posting to their Facebook wall "I am gay." Or whatever.
 
Dezaad said:
Is there a rule that would be being broken if heterosexual soldiers who support gays in the military were to all start stating that they are gay? Like, on a specified day all heterosexual enlisted folks who support the repeal of DADT posting to their Facebook wall "I am gay." Or whatever.
Click to expand...

The facebook idea could get them all discharged. Remember, saying "I am gay" is one of the ways to be discharged under DADT. Depends on what they did and whether they where instructed not to. It's probably a bad idea though
 
jallman said:
How can you say that? Did the Army ask him if he was gay? Did he lie at MEPS and tell them he was a heterosexual in response to their questions? I wasn't aware they even asked about that...in fact, half of DADT is...*gasp* "Don't Ask".

So again, how does this affect his integrity?
Click to expand...

Did the Army mandate that he, ...don't tell? He took and oath to follow the rules, as an officer and a gentleman. He violated that oath. His integrity is shot.
 
Your Star said:
Alright, your all into not breaking the rules. I get that, but do you think DADT should be repealed?
Click to expand...

No, I do not. I don't think it should be ok for any soldier to have to reveal his/her sexual orientation, regardless of what his/her sexual orientation may be. It will most certainly lead to discrimination.



And if it was, would you be this upset if someone beat up an openly gay solider? Because they were breaking the rules, a rule which is by far worse than a dress code violation.
Click to expand...

Of course I would be upset if a soldier assaulted another soldier, unless it was self defense.
 
apdst said:
Did the Army mandate that he, ...don't tell? He took and oath to follow the rules, as an officer and a gentleman. He violated that oath. His integrity is shot.
Click to expand...

That's typical right-wing logic for you. Telling a lie means you have integrity. Telling the truth means you lack integrity. Yup.....sounds like the right-wing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom