• 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!

'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal in doubt

Navy Pride said:
First of all Redress is a female..............Secondly I know nothing about lesbians in the Navy....My problem is with gay men serving openly aboard ship in the Navy..
Click to expand...

Hey Navy. Did you know the survey of military personal is now done and the results are now "statistically significant" but not entirely done? Did you know the results will be released Dec 1? Did you know that the survey had exactly nothing to do with whether the military should repeal DADT, but with how to do so?

Pentagon Reviews Results of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Survey - Yahoo! News

Not looking good for those opposed to gays serving openly.
 
Navy Pride said:
First of all Redress is a female..............Secondly I know nothing about lesbians in the Navy....My problem is with gay men serving openly aboard ship.......
Click to expand...

Did I miss where Redress stated this or admitted what sex he/she really is or are you just assuming this?
 
Redress said:
Hey Navy. Did you know the survey of military personal is now done and the results are now "statistically significant" but not entirely done? Did you know the results will be released Dec 1? Did you know that the survey had exactly nothing to do with whether the military should repeal DADT, but with how to do so?

Pentagon Reviews Results of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Survey - Yahoo! News

Not looking good for those opposed to gays serving openly.
Click to expand...

I don't read it the same way you do Redress...........Did tou read this sentence:


Mullen said the Pentagon now has enough data to be statistically significant. The information, which Mullen said he hoped would help guide the legislative process, will be used in implementing a new policy.

Implementing a new policy does not mean DADT is finished............It means there will be a policy change...we chall see what it is..................
 
roguenuke said:
Did I miss where Redress stated this or admitted what sex he/she really is or are you just assuming this?
Click to expand...

I don't know why this bothers you so much but she has said she is female...............If you don't believe me you so much why don't you send her a PM............
 
Redress said:
Hey Navy. Did you know the survey of military personal is now done and the results are now "statistically significant" but not entirely done? Did you know the results will be released Dec 1? Did you know that the survey had exactly nothing to do with whether the military should repeal DADT, but with how to do so?

Pentagon Reviews Results of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Survey - Yahoo! News

Not looking good for those opposed to gays serving openly.
Click to expand...

Another thing, you don't have the votes in the senate and after November you never will...........your liberal friends in the senate are gutless.............
 
Navy Pride said:
Another thing, you don't have the votes in the senate and after November you never will...........your liberal friends in the senate are gutless.............
Click to expand...

Why are you assuming that every Repulican politician is automatically against this? There are a lot of Republicans that are quite alright with allowing gays to serve openly in the military. And there are at least some Repulican politicians that would vote for it if the military gives it its blessing, which seems to be about to happen. There are a good number of military brass (I know not all of them) who are for this.
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't know why this bothers you so much but she has said she is female...............If you don't believe me you so much why don't you send her a PM............
Click to expand...

It bothers me that you feel that you have to have two different standards on this issue. You are automatically discounting anyone who is or might be female who served just so that you can say "well I only care about how male personnel feel". The reality is NP, that the military will never just tell gay women that they can serve openly but then tell gay men that they can't. That would be discrimination. Besides that, I would love to see research done on why openly serving gay men would harm morale but openly serving gay women won't. Not that there has ever been any real research done that even suggests that openly serving gay servicemembers of either gender have ever harmed morale.
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't read it the same way you do Redress...........Did tou read this sentence:


Mullen said the Pentagon now has enough data to be statistically significant. The information, which Mullen said he hoped would help guide the legislative process, will be used in implementing a new policy.

Implementing a new policy does not mean DADT is finished............It means there will be a policy change...we chall see what it is..................
Click to expand...

I did read that, and in fact referred to it directly in my post. The policy change that will come is the end of DADT. That is where this is headed, that was the purpose of the survey and the Pentagon/DoD review.
 
Navy Pride said:
Another thing, you don't have the votes in the senate and after November you never will...........your liberal friends in the senate are gutless.............
Click to expand...

Do you know why it failed this time Navy? Did it have something to do with procedures and that ass Reid trying to set things up for a pet program of his? Is there already enough votes in the Senate if the procedural crap is left out of it?
 
Redress said:
I did read that, and in fact referred to it directly in my post. The policy change that will come is the end of DADT. That is where this is headed, that was the purpose of the survey and the Pentagon/DoD review.
Click to expand...

The way I read it is there will be a policy change but whether it will be DADT is up for debate.....The purpose of the survey was to find out how military personnel felt about the issue..................
 
roguenuke said:
It bothers me that you feel that you have to have two different standards on this issue. You are automatically discounting anyone who is or might be female who served just so that you can say "well I only care about how male personnel feel". The reality is NP, that the military will never just tell gay women that they can serve openly but then tell gay men that they can't. That would be discrimination. Besides that, I would love to see research done on why openly serving gay men would harm morale but openly serving gay women won't. Not that there has ever been any real research done that even suggests that openly serving gay servicemembers of either gender have ever harmed morale.
Click to expand...

Again I am concerned about what affects Navy male personnel aboard ship.....As far as I am concerned women should not even be aboard a Navy combatent.........To be honest with you I am more concerned with straight females aboard ship and the problem of fratenization..........The USS STENNIS is here in the yard and they have a huge problem in that area...........It seems half the women on the ship are walking around the shipyard pregnant................This is another thread though...............
 
Are navy personal more immature than the average population? They can't behave? Navy hetorsexuals would willingly have sex with homosexuals? Exactly what is the concern?
 
Redress said:
Do you know why it failed this time Navy? Did it have something to do with procedures and that ass Reid trying to set things up for a pet program of his? Is there already enough votes in the Senate if the procedural crap is left out of it?
Click to expand...

Your problem is the dems will always try to slip **** in..........DADT or immigration has nothing to do but the bill on the defense budget.Why do the dems try and include it?
 
Boo Radley said:
Are navy personal more immature than the average population? They can't behave? Navy hetorsexuals would willingly have sex with homosexuals? Exactly what is the concern?
Click to expand...

They live in much closer conditions aboard ship then other members..................No private rooms aboard ship for sailors..................
 
Navy Pride said:
They live in much closer conditions aboard ship then other members..................No private rooms aboard ship for sailors..................
Click to expand...

So? It makes sex less likely, doesn't it? Or do they just watch each other?
 
roguenuke said:
Why are you assuming that every Repulican politician is automatically against this? There are a lot of Republicans that are quite alright with allowing gays to serve openly in the military. And there are at least some Repulican politicians that would vote for it if the military gives it its blessing, which seems to be about to happen. There are a good number of military brass (I know not all of them) who are for this.
Click to expand...


Did you happen to notice the last vote in the senate? All the Republicans voted against DADT and so did several dems..............It will be much worse after November............
 
Navy Pride said:
Again I am concerned about what affects Navy male personnel aboard ship.....As far as I am concerned women should not even be aboard a Navy combatent.........To be honest with you I am more concerned with straight females aboard ship and the problem of fratenization..........The USS STENNIS is here in the yard and they have a huge problem in that area...........It seems half the women on the ship are walking around the shipyard pregnant................This is another thread though...............
Click to expand...

Well, women, like gay men, are aboard Navy combatant ships and neither of these facts will change anytime soon (except maybe that gay men and women will be allowed to state that they are gay without worrying about being kicked out). And your perception on military women is severely flawed. I highly doubt that anywhere close to half the women aboard the Stennis are pregnant.

NP, even if women weren't aboard ships at all, the rule would still apply to them. And you still have not given any reasons why you think gay men serving openly would cause any impact on unit/ship effectiveness and/or what that impact might be? Your past experiences with gay men who were violating other UCMJ rules can't be considered proof, since there are obviously other rules in place to deal with attempted sexual assault/rape or actual sexual assault/rape, and even rules to deal with fraternization (and plus for you NP, gay men don't get pregnant), when it is actually against the rules, and sexual harassment.
 
Boo Radley said:
So? It makes sex less likely, doesn't it? Or do they just watch each other?
Click to expand...

It makes unwanted advances more likely..............If your in a service where you live in a private room like the AF unwanted advances are less likely.........
 
Navy Pride said:
It makes unwanted advances more likely..............If your in a service where you live in a private room like the AF unwanted advances are less likely.........
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense? Why would a person on a ship full of hetersexuals make an unwanted advance? Surely that would be foolish and unlikely.
 
Navy Pride said:
Did you happen to notice the last vote in the senate? All the Republicans voted against DADT and so did several dems..............It will be much worse after November............
Click to expand...

I saw. Now show me where it says or where each and every Republican Senator has said that he voted against that bill just to prevent DADT from being repealed (considering the procedure issues and other riders attached to it, I probably would have voted against it too, if I were in the Senate) or proof that all those Republicans would vote against a repeal of DADT if it were a bill by itself and had military endorsement (which it most likely will get from the majority of military high brass very soon, if it doesn't already have).
 
Navy Pride said:
It makes unwanted advances more likely..............If your in a service where you live in a private room like the AF unwanted advances are less likely.........
Click to expand...

Unwanted advances are covered under sexual harassment, which is against military rules. And most gay guys aren't going to hit on guys that they know are straight, and especially ones that would likely either turn them in or beat the crap out of them. The ones who are making unwanted advances can be dealt with the same way that straight guys who hit on the women can be dealt with, through reporting, and if necessary, NJP.
 
roguenuke said:
Unwanted advances are covered under sexual harassment, which is against military rules. And most gay guys aren't going to hit on guys that they know are straight, and especially ones that would likely either turn them in or beat the crap out of them. The ones who are making unwanted advances can be dealt with the same way that straight guys who hit on the women can be dealt with, through reporting, and if necessary, NJP.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can say that.............As and enlisted man who served 21 years on 6 ships living in male enlisted berthing compartments I have witnessed gays make unwanted advances against straight males...I have been a witness at a courtmartial............It happens more then you would ever think and it costs a lot of money and man hours to resolve the problem..............

As far as straight men and women go we neve had a problem when only men served at sea......................
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't know how you can say that.............As and enlisted man who served 21 years on 6 ships living in male enlisted berthing compartments I have witnessed gays make unwanted advances against straight males...I have been a witness at a courtmartial............It happens more then you would ever think and it costs a lot of money and man hours to resolve the problem..............

As far as straight men and women go we neve had a problem when only men served at sea......................
Click to expand...

I can say "that" because I have been in since you served. I have lived on a ship since you got out. I have seen straight men "hit" on each other. I have heard stories of straight guys piling into a guys rack, with him in it, to see how many they can get to fit. I have known plenty of gay guys who worked along side straight guys openly, with no problems. Even with the current knowledge that someone can report someone for unwanted advances and especially attempted sexual assault, there was never any mention of this happening in my departments' berthings, despite there being over 400 men in my department and at least a dozen of them were known to be gay.
 
roguenuke said:
I can say "that" because I have been in since you served. I have lived on a ship since you got out. I have seen straight men "hit" on each other. I have heard stories of straight guys piling into a guys rack, with him in it, to see how many they can get to fit. I have known plenty of gay guys who worked along side straight guys openly, with no problems. Even with the current knowledge that someone can report someone for unwanted advances and especially attempted sexual assault, there was never any mention of this happening in my departments' berthings, despite there being over 400 men in my department and at least a dozen of them were known to be gay.
Click to expand...

Listen to what your saying.............If a guy hits on another guy he is not straight..............He is a gay male.........Straight males don't hit on guys.......they have the wrong equipment.............As far as the guys in your department being gay, you don't know that for sure..........A lot of guys have feminine traits but they are not gay...........If you knew gay men who were having gay sex sex aboard ship it is your duty to report it...................
 
Navy Pride said:
Listen to what your saying.............If a guy hits on another guy he is not straight..............He is a gay male.........Straight males don't hit on guys.......they have the wrong equipment.............As far as the guys in your department being gay, you don't know that for sure..........A lot of guys have feminine traits but they are not gay...........If you knew gay men who were having gay sex sex aboard ship it is your duty to report it...................
Click to expand...

We had straight guys who were hitting on other guys in order to mess with them. Have you never seen guys messing around with each other? They were trying to see if they could get on the other guys' nerves.

And we had gay guys who openly admitted that they were gay to the department. Our department chain of command could care less, as long as they did their jobs, which they did, and didn't try to do anything to anyone else, which they didn't. I truly doubt that any of the ship's Captains during my time aboard cared if any of his crew were gay, as long as they did their job and no one complained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom