• 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

apdst said:
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.





Of course I would be upset if a soldier assaulted another soldier, unless it was self defense.
Click to expand...

Again...twisted logic. Repealing DADT dos not require anyone to REVEAL his/her sexual orientation. It just prevents discrimination against those who choose to be open and honest. But teaching a right-winger about openess and honesty is difficult.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

Twisted right-wing logic? How does not saying anything equate to telling a lie. Get back with me on that one, thanks!
 
disneydude said:
Again...twisted logic. Repealing DADT dos not require anyone to REVEAL his/her sexual orientation. It just prevents discrimination against those who choose to be open and honest. But teaching a right-winger about openess and honesty is difficult.
Click to expand...

It would open the door for a leader/commander/supervisor to ask as to a soldier's sexual orientation.

How do you propose we deal with a case where a gay commander discriminates against a straight soldier? Or, are you going to explain to us that--like black people--gay are incapable of discrimination?
 
apdst said:
It would open the door for a leader/commander/supervisor to ask as to a soldier's sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Then just drop the don't tell policy. The army has no business asking, but a solider shouldn't be discharged for being gay. That's flat out discrimination.
 
I really need to stop watching I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry before opening this thread.
 
apdst said:
How do you propose we deal with a case where a gay commander discriminates against a straight soldier?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Are you seriously asking how the military would deal with a supervisor that discriminates against another soldier? Hello? The military already has a means to deal with that. It's called EO. There is already an avenue to deal with it.
 
Most DADT violations that I've aware of *happen* because "someone saw so-n-so at teh movie theater in the next town over kissing her date - then took pictures and presented a case against the kissing soldier" - not very often does someone actually *tell* on themselves.

:shrug:

Just an observation as to *how* the rules don't actually matter - the REAL point is that "we don't want to know - NO MATTER HOW WE HEAR OF IT"
 
The only acceptable PDA is two hot lesbians. Lipstick ones. I don't want to see some chick who can bench me cramming her tongue down anyone's throat.
 
apdst said:
It would open the door for a leader/commander/supervisor to ask as to a soldier's sexual orientation.

How do you propose we deal with a case where a gay commander discriminates against a straight soldier? Or, are you going to explain to us that--like black people--gay are incapable of discrimination?
Click to expand...

Everyone is capable of discrimination. Actual cases of discrimination can be dealt with the same way they are now, through equal opportunity channels and punishment.

Your logic doesn't make much sense, when there are certainly plenty of heterosexuals that wouldn't have to be very openly vocal about their sexuality, when just being married in the military tells a commander that the person is most likely straight. It isn't exactly a secret who is married, whether the person wears a wedding band or not. It is in their file. And they most certainly could have a gay commander now who discriminates, although it is hard to discriminate against a person if everyone else or almost everyone else has the same characteristic as the one being discriminated against. It would be like arguing that a black commander is discriminating against whites, but he only has whites in his unit. Or, from a personal standpoint, it would be like if I were accused of discrimating against men, eventhough I am the only woman in my division in the Reserves. Unless the supervisor is actually stating that he/she is discriminating due to that certain characteristic, in which, he/she is then definitely subject to a discrimination charge.
 
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...

Uh, no. He had a lapse in judgment. That does not negate his integrity. That's just more of you trying to inflate a bad situation into an even worse one.

It's that pure emotionalism I mentioned earlier that undermines your credibility.
 
apdst said:
It would open the door for a leader/commander/supervisor to ask as to a soldier's sexual orientation.

How do you propose we deal with a case where a gay commander discriminates against a straight soldier? Or, are you going to explain to us that--like black people--gay are incapable of discrimination?
Click to expand...

Well now, this is one of the most incredibly wrong statements on the subject I have ever seen.

If a commander/supervisor asked a soldier his/her orientation, the soldier could(politely) tell him to go **** himself, it ain't none of his damn business. Under DADT it's not allowed, and if DADT was repealed, it would be entirely none of a supervisor's business.

We would deal with commanders discriminating(gay or strait), the same way we do now...duh....
 
Redress said:
Well now, this is one of the most incredibly wrong statements on the subject I have ever seen.

If a commander/supervisor asked a soldier his/her orientation, the soldier could(politely) tell him to go **** himself, it ain't none of his damn business. Under DADT it's not allowed, and if DADT was repealed, it would be entirely none of a supervisor's business.

We would deal with commanders discriminating(gay or strait), the same way we do now...duh....
Click to expand...

As a former member of the armed services, you should know that without DADT a service member doesn't have any right to tell his commander/leader/supervisor to, "go **** himself".

Hence, the need for, "don't ask, don't tell".

We would deal with commanders discriminating(gay or strait), the same way we do now...duh....
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah! The same way we do with blacks discriminating with whites. Eh?
 
apdst said:
As a former member of the armed services, you should know that without DADT a service member doesn't have any right to tell his commander/leader/supervisor to, "go **** himself".

Hence, the need for, "don't ask, don't tell".
Click to expand...

A person's sexual orientation should not be asked about and if it is, it is perfectly acceptable to tell the person who asked, even if a supervisor, "I really don't think that is an appropriat question sir" or "I'd rather not discuss that sir". I have told a LCDR that it was none of his business if I was having sex before I was married when he asked me. It was an inappropriate question, as asking anything about sexual activities is for someone in charge, unless they believe that the service member is actually breaking a law or something. Then it should be more of a question on that subject.
 
apdst said:
As a former member of the armed services, you should know that without DADT a service member doesn't have any right to tell his commander/leader/supervisor to, "go **** himself".

Hence, the need for, "don't ask, don't tell".
Click to expand...

No. It states the need for a don't ask policy, not DADT. The army has no need to know ones sexual orientation, but people shouldn't have to hide there sexual orientation. They should be treated just the same as straight soldiers, and don't you dare tell me they are right now. Not one straight soldier has ever been discharged because of their sexuality.
 
apdst said:
Twisted right-wing logic? How does not saying anything equate to telling a lie. Get back with me on that one, thanks!
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that a gay person can say nothing and not be exposed. What planet are you living on?
 
apdst said:
It would open the door for a leader/commander/supervisor to ask as to a soldier's sexual orientation.

How do you propose we deal with a case where a gay commander discriminates against a straight soldier? Or, are you going to explain to us that--like black people--gay are incapable of discrimination?
Click to expand...

Like that is really going to happen....Dude ....you are REALLY grasping for straws here.
 
Your Star said:
No. It states the need for a don't ask policy, not DADT. The army has no need to know ones sexual orientation, but people shouldn't have to hide there sexual orientation. They should be treated just the same as straight soldiers, and don't you dare tell me they are right now. Not one straight soldier has ever been discharged because of their sexuality.
Click to expand...

No, it states that the military can't ask and the soldier shouldn't tell.

Be that as it may, I think--as should any given Libbo--a unit leader/commander shouldn't be able to inquire as to a soldier's sexual orientation. If DADT is repealed, a unit commander/leader will uninhibited from asking that very question.

Doesn't it make sense that that question be off limits? Regardless of sexual orientation?

Or, are we going to say that it's okay, just as long as it's being asked of a straight soldier?
 
disneydude said:
Like that is really going to happen....Dude ....you are REALLY grasping for straws here.
Click to expand...

So, you are claiming that there's no way a gay soldier/leader/supervisor/commander can discriminate against a straight service member?

Please! Don't tell me you're a part of the, "they aren't able to discriminate", crowd.

This is a classic case of Libbos doing more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
If DADT is repealed, a unit commander/leader will uninhibited from asking that very question.
Click to expand...

No they will not because that falls under Sexual Harrasment which IS ALREADY COVERED. Do you not get that? That would be like a supervisor asking a subordinent if they like the missionary position or doggy style. They would be brought up on sexual harrasment just as they would if they would ask about their SEXUAL orientation.
 
apdst said:
No, it states that the military can't ask and the soldier shouldn't tell.

Be that as it may, I think--as should any given Libbo--a unit leader/commander shouldn't be able to inquire as to a soldier's sexual orientation. If DADT is repealed, a unit commander/leader will uninhibited from asking that very question.

Doesn't it make sense that that question be off limits? Regardless of sexual orientation?

Or, are we going to say that it's okay, just as long as it's being asked of a straight soldier?
Click to expand...

It should be off limits, for all orientations. The Army has no business in the sexual lives of its soldiers. But do you not see the hypocrisy in DADT? Let me give you this scenario, lets say Natalie is a soldier on leave, and she goes out to a restaurant with her girlfriend, the two are getting close, like couples do. Now another member of her unit is also at the restaurant, and spots the two, takes a photo of the two, and gives the photo to their commanding officer. Later Natalie gets discharged under the DADT policy. Do you think that this is okay? Do you not see the hypocrisy of this situation, and the fact that this would never happen to a heterosexual soldier?
 
TheNextEra said:
No they will not because that falls under Sexual Harrasment which IS ALREADY COVERED. Do you not get that? That would be like a supervisor asking a subordinent if they like the missionary position or doggy style. They would be brought up on sexual harrasment just as they would if they would ask about their SEXUAL orientation.
Click to expand...

A male asking another male about his sexual orientation isn't sexual harassment.
 
Your Star said:
It should be off limits, for all orientations. The Army has no business in the sexual lives of its soldiers. But do you not see the hypocrisy in DADT? Let me give you this scenario, lets say Natalie is a soldier on leave, and she goes out to a restaurant with her girlfriend, the two are getting close, like couples do. Now another member of her unit is also at the restaurant, and spots the two, takes a photo of the two, and gives the photo to their commanding officer. Later Natalie gets discharged under the DADT policy. Do you think that this is okay? Do you not see the hypocrisy of this situation, and the fact that this would never happen to a heterosexual soldier?
Click to expand...

Hence, "Don't ask, don't tell". Welcome to the real world. 'Nuff said?!?
 
apdst said:
So, you are claiming that there's no way a gay soldier/leader/supervisor/commander can discriminate against a straight service member?

Please! Don't tell me you're a part of the, "they aren't able to discriminate", crowd.

This is a classic case of Libbos doing more harm than good.
Click to expand...

No...I'm not saying that....But if that is the best that you can do in terms of debate...you are streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it.
 
apdst said:
Hence, "Don't ask, don't tell". Welcome to the real world. 'Nuff said?!?
Click to expand...

And yet you ignore my scenario in which a gay soldier would be treated unjustly under DADT. Typical.
 
apdst said:
Hence, "Don't ask, don't tell". Welcome to the real world. 'Nuff said?!?
Click to expand...

Fine.. That works for me. You would be willing to discharge any soldier that exposes his sexual orientation right? So any straight soldier that talks about a girlfriend or posts a pin up girl should be discharged....right?

I'm glad that we both agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom