• 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!

Pentagon: No Plans to Change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy After Court Ruling

Selective enforcement is not allowed. Article 125 is a red herring.

neither is sodomy, but people still do it.

ignoring the issue or calling it a non-issue is not going to make it go away. Article 125 needs to be addressed, not ignored. If, in conjuction with the repeal of DADT they also address Article 125, then there would be no issue. no possibility for abuse of the Article, no one setting themself up for punishment etc. I fail to see why you refuse to acknowledge that Article 125 could cause problems, instead of admitting that it is an issue that needs to be addressed.
 
Article 125 is not a major issue and can easily be address when doing away with discrimination against homosexuals.
 
Article 125 is not a major issue and can easily be address when doing away with discrimination against homosexuals.

I guess you can just wave your magic fairy wand and make it go away then? Obviously you have never worked in govt or the military or else you would know that NOTHING can ever be "easily addressed".
 
Awesome news!! I'm so glad that liberal activists ruling has been thwarted. I want gays to be 2nd class citizens and wouldn't have it any other way, but I'll disguise that opinion but making **** up like Gays will negatively effect a groups cohesion! Don't ask me where I got it from, it just sounded like a legitimate concern so I use that excuse!

LOL, How dare we try to make them equal...it's not like they are born that way and can't control it.
 
..it's not like they are born that way and can't control it.

not that it is , in any way, relevant to this particular topic but that has yet to be proven with any certainty.
 
I guess you can just wave your magic fairy wand and make it go away then? Obviously you have never worked in govt or the military or else you would know that NOTHING can ever be "easily addressed".

Worked in the military. And yes, it can be easily addressed. It will come with the admission into the service of qualified individuals and doing away with discrimination. .
 
Worked in the military. And yes, it can be easily addressed. It will come with the admission into the service of qualified individuals and doing away with discrimination. .


lol, you must be smoking crack if you think you can "easily" do away with discrimination. :rofl:
 
lol, you must be smoking crack if you think you can "easily" do away with discrimination. :rofl:

Legally, we can. That doesn't mean people won't habor discrimnary thoughts or act in a discriminatory way. but there will be legal remedy. And the military is pretty good at following orders. ;)
 
lol, you must be smoking crack if you think you can "easily" do away with discrimination. :rofl:

"Easily", maybe not. Less difficultly than many of you think, yes. Article 125 will become as much a nonissue as it is for straits, and exposure to gays will quickly get people past their initial queasiness. As usual, no one has brought forward a good reason why it can't be done, nor why it should not be done, nor has any one actually referenced the ruling itself with any knowledge of what it contains.
 
The homophobic bigots responsible for the creation of DADT are an embarassment to this nation. They should be villified at every opportunity.
 
not that it is , in any way, relevant to this particular topic but that has yet to be proven with any certainty.

And it never will. You can't prove anything, you can only falsify. And the "born that way" hypothesis is just as credible as any other hypothesis out there at this point.
 
I'm noticing a strange shift in the GOP base. It was Republicans who brought a legal challenge to DADT, a Republican lawyer who lead the challenge of a same sex marriage ban in California, a Republican judge who is struck down a same sex marriage ban in California, a Republican campaign manager who came out as gay and dedicated himself to fighting for same sex marriage, etc.

If Democrats don't get their act together, then the GOP will be the ones who will claim that they established gay rights in the United States.
 
I'm noticing a strange shift in the GOP base. It was Republicans who brought a legal challenge to DADT, a Republican lawyer who lead the challenge of a same sex marriage ban in California, a Republican judge who is struck down a same sex marriage ban in California, a Republican campaign manager who came out as gay and dedicated himself to fighting for same sex marriage, etc.

If Democrats don't get their act together, then the GOP will be the ones who will claim that they established gay rights in the United States.
No, the Dems will still claim it, and most likely get the credit as well.
 
Activist judge = one who rules in a way you do not like.

By the way, no one has claimed to my knowledge that this meant an immediate change or was the end of any process. Nice try though.

Well, actually, that's exactly what ya'll claimed.
 
Well, actually, that's exactly what ya'll claimed.

You can of course show where I or any one else claim that. Start with where I claim it, then move on. Or are you going to duck and run from proving your claims again?
 
You can of course show where I or any one else claim that. Start with where I claim it, then move on. Or are you going to duck and run from proving your claims again?

So, you're now saying that you didn't get all excited, since the 9th Circus ruled DADT unconstitutional? Several of us said that this would have zero effect on DADT and you et. al. called us homphobes, ignorant and liars. You seriously don't remember that?
 
Why do we look at the facts:
1) There's no study which looks at how a homosexual person interacts with his hetrosexual counterparts in combat or any military setting.
2) All statements that allowing gays to serve openly will harm combat effectiveness is only assumption because there is no study
3) Gays have been serving in the US military throughout its history.

So we have two models, a military with gay servicemen and a military without them. The latter has never existed in history. So its reasonable to say after 200+ years of gays in the military, that they have no negative affect on the military as a whole.

The issue isn't whether gays can serve, its whether they can serve openly which hasn't happened yet. So lets look at that, everyone who says DADT should remain in place does so by talking about how it'll hurt combat effectiveness and unit cohesion. However all these arguements are based on their assumption of someone ELSE'S reaction. No one is going to say, "I can't/won't work with a gay person" because it makes them look, correctly, like a bigot.

So here's what I need to even consider supporting DADT, a large group of servicemen and former servicemen saying "I cannot or will not work with a homosexual individual because of their lifestyle." Until them all I've seen in hundreds of pages of these arguments from this topic and others is assumptions on other people's reactions.
 
Why do we look at the facts:
1) There's no study which looks at how a homosexual person interacts with his hetrosexual counterparts in combat or any military setting.
2) All statements that allowing gays to serve openly will harm combat effectiveness is only assumption because there is no study
3) Gays have been serving in the US military throughout its history.

So we have two models, a military with gay servicemen and a military without them. The latter has never existed in history. So its reasonable to say after 200+ years of gays in the military, that they have no negative affect on the military as a whole.

The issue isn't whether gays can serve, its whether they can serve openly which hasn't happened yet. So lets look at that, everyone who says DADT should remain in place does so by talking about how it'll hurt combat effectiveness and unit cohesion. However all these arguements are based on their assumption of someone ELSE'S reaction. No one is going to say, "I can't/won't work with a gay person" because it makes them look, correctly, like a bigot.

So here's what I need to even consider supporting DADT, a large group of servicemen and former servicemen saying "I cannot or will not work with a homosexual individual because of their lifestyle." Until them all I've seen in hundreds of pages of these arguments from this topic and others is assumptions on other people's reactions.

You have credible sources to support everything you've said?
 
You have credible sources to support everything you've said?

Well firstly, there has been so study... Its just a fact, try and find a DoD study, it doesn't exist. And since there is no study which makes any conculsion on the relation of homosexuality the military, all statements about how gays will serve has no basis either.

Now its natural to assume that gays have been in the military since this nation was founded, as gays have existed much longer than that in recorded history. However thats not really important, whats really important is the fact that gays serve today. Now of course we don't know whos gay and whos not gay while they are serving, however we KNOW gays are currently serving in the military because the military is constantly finding and removing them!

As for the rest, its observational, but I'd be damned if you find an arguement where someone actually says "I can't serve with them" rather than "Someone else can't serve with them"
 
The military will not reinstate any gay service members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy despite a judge's ruling last week that the policy is unconstitutional, the Pentagon said Monday. Though the ruling gave a boost to gay rights activists trying to overturn the policy via Congress and the courts, a Pentagon spokeswoman said the decision has no bearing on military policy.

"This ruling has no impact on the current law. The current law is still in effect," spokeswoman Cynthia Smith told FoxNews.com. She said the Justice Department and Defense Department are reviewing the decision, but that nothing will change without congressional action.



Darn it! No activist judge decisions to become law!

Damn that Constitution!


FOXNews.com - Pentagon: No Plans to Change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy After Court Ruling

Is nice to see there is still some sanity in this country...............Let the troops themselves decide on DADT not a bunch of bureaucrats and "Feel Good Liberals" who are clueless about the military and the effect a stupid decision like this will have on morale amd readiness.................
 
You have credible sources to support everything you've said?
I think he's saying that the lack of sources is his proof.

So no, he wouldn't have a source to support it, as his whole argument was drawn from (what he said was) the fact that there were no sources.
 
So, you're now saying that you didn't get all excited, since the 9th Circus ruled DADT unconstitutional? Several of us said that this would have zero effect on DADT and you et. al. called us homphobes, ignorant and liars. You seriously don't remember that?

So what you are saying is when challenged, you once again can not offer any evidence to back up your claim. Got it.
 
Is nice to see there is still some sanity in this country...............Let the troops themselves decide on DADT not a bunch of bureaucrats and "Feel Good Liberals" who are clueless about the military and the effect a stupid decision like this will have on morale amd readiness.................

Sanity? Letting the troops decide who can join? It's sad to see senility finally taking hold on you.
 
Back
Top Bottom