• 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!

Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

CriticalThought said:
Good policy. It took 5 years to desegregate the armed forces and if you listen to Obama he wants to make this as gradual a change as possible so as to minimize any problems.
Click to expand...

Well, I believe the Pentagon understands the pulse of the military better than President Obama. If the Pentagon wanted to place DADT aside, why would the President refuse it? The Marine Corps and the Army have hated this policy since before 9/11.
 
apdst said:
Not a generalization, bro. Just a fact. Libbos think they're smarter than the rest of the world and that's why we need to step aside and let them call the shots.
Click to expand...

uuuuuuuuggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh...
 
MSgt said:
Well, I believe the Pentagon understands the pulse of the military better than President Obama. If the Pentagon wanted to place DADT aside, why would the President refuse it? The Marine Corps and the Army have hated this policy since before 9/11.
Click to expand...

The military doesn't have a choice. The National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress in 1993 requires that the military kick out gays, the "Don't Ask" part is the only part that Clinton added through a Defense Directive.
 
CriticalThought said:
The military doesn't have a choice. The National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress in 1993 requires that the military kick out gays, the "Don't Ask" part is the only part that Clinton added through a Defense Directive.
Click to expand...

Which defines the burden. The point was that Obama went against the Pentagon which merely tried to do what he promised to do on his campaign trail. As for choice, review the numbers since 9/11. Did gays just dissapear in the "troop" branches or did parts of the military make a choice? Though not a Washington choice, the result was the same. The brick wall continues to be Washington.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Which defines the burden. The point was that Obama went against the Pentagon which merely tried to do what he promised to do on his campaign trail. As for choice, review the numbers since 9/11. Did gays just dissapear in the "troop" branches or did parts of the military make a choice? Though not a Washington choice, the result was the same. The brick wall continues to be Washington.
Click to expand...

How did he go against the Pentagon? The Pentagon was ordered by a federal court to stop the ban.
 
CriticalThought said:
The military doesn't have a choice. The National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress in 1993 requires that the military kick out gays, the "Don't Ask" part is the only part that Clinton added through a Defense Directive.
Click to expand...

Actually, the ban on gays was implemented by Defense Directive 1334, under Reagan.

You might want to be careful, it almost sounds like you're defending DADT.



CriticalThought said:
How did he go against the Pentagon? The Pentagon was ordered by a federal court to stop the ban.
Click to expand...

A Federal court ordered the Pentagon to stop enforcing DADT. The ban on gays is still in effect. The failure of the DADT abolitionists to realize the difference isn't going to result in a happy ending with this deal.
 
I agree with others that they need to just get it done. With Gates for it, and the judicial system seemingly ready to roll out the red carpet ..... it all was a matter of time anyway. I think things will adjust OK in the units. Gays will never be warmly welcomed in the higher testosterone outfits, and those situations will find their own equilibrium which will never be favorable to the gays. I have no problem with that, as that's the way things are wired. DADT will be replaced with various versions of STFU is all.

I served for seven years with the 82nd. Combat Infantry. I am not saying that I like this, but it is how things are going to be. My younger brother is gay, and I love him to death. Joining the military never crossed his mind, and he knows it would have been a real bad fit. So he became a left-leaning attorney :)

Adapt, and move on.
 
CriticalThought said:
AFP: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

As some of you may have recalled, Marine General John Amos, the new top Marine commander, argued that any changes could hurt the Marine corps’ effectiveness. He cited that 95% of Marines were worried about the repeal of the ban against openly gay soldier based on show of hands at open town hall style meetings

To recap, the DADT policy has been found...

-By a federal court to be unconstitutional in how it is enforced
-By a federal court to endanger national security as a resulting of losing vital units
-To be opposed by 70-80% of Americans
-To be irrelevant to most troops

Furthermore, the December lame duck session of Congress will likely be the last chance that the policy will be repealed despite all these overwhelming factors against it. Once Republicans take control of the House next year, it will be at least another 2 years before the policy can be repealed. Republicans have an enormous incentive to make sure this policy is not repealed because it would likely mean that Obama would lose many of his gay constituents and financial backers and would find himself considerably worse off come 2012. It also speaks of the mountain gay rights activists have to climb when they cannot get such a policy repealed despite having a Democratically controlled Presidency and Congress for 2 years.
Click to expand...

I hope you realize that gay rights mean exactly dick when it comes to national defense. If the military needs to ban women, married soldiers, left-handers, whatever, it's all good.

I personally strongly support gays serving openly, but a General is concerned about 'good order and discipline' and your response is "ZOMG teh haz RIGHTS lolkthxby" (yes, that is an accurate summery of your OP), that's bull****.

Try addressing the General's concerns instead of ignoring them and going of in your own direction.
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
Gays will never be warmly welcomed in the higher testosterone outfits, and those situations will find their own equilibrium which will never be favorable to the gays.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I think what people envision of gay men is that we are some group of queens, fairies, and gym bunnies. There are plenty of gay men who are indistinguishable from heterosexuals who will probably do just fine in those units because they aren't likely to be very expressive about their sexuality and are quite capable of getting the job done.

And all the gym bunnies can adapt by coming over to my house. :)
 
Jerry said:
I hope you realize that gay rights mean exactly dick when it comes to national defense. If the military needs to ban women, married soldiers, left-ganders, whatever, it's all good.

I personally strongly support gays serving openly, but a General is concerned about 'good order and discipline' and your response is "ZOMG teh haz RIGHTS lolkthxby" (yes, that is an accurate summery of your OP), that's bull****.

Try addressing the General's concerns instead of ignoring them and going of in your own direction.
Click to expand...

His concerns are based on something that is actually taught to Marines and soldiers and even other servicemembers. Something that is being taught to service members with absolutely no proof to back it up. In fact, all evidence contradict such teachings. If you teach something like this to people who are expected to believe and trust their upper enlisted and brass, then many of them eventually believe it themselves. Add to this an already present bias against gays and/or beliefs that gay men are somehow less manly, then you are going to get guys who actually believe that openly gay men (most guys could care less about gay women serving openly) will cause problems. The only way to fight such biases and false teachings is to actually prove to them that there are no problems with gays serving openly.
 
CriticalThought said:
I dunno. I think what people envision of gay men is that we are some group of queens, fairies, and gym bunnies. There are plenty of gay men who are indistinguishable from heterosexuals who will probably do just fine in those units because they aren't likely to be very expressive about their sexuality and are quite capable of getting the job done.

And all the gym bunnies can adapt by coming over to my house. :)
Click to expand...

ohhhhhhh, now I get it! It is all about, "I'm gay and in your face".

Why am I not surprised.
 
Jerry said:
I personally strongly support gays serving openly, but a General is concerned about 'good order and discipline' and your response is "ZOMG teh haz RIGHTS lolkthxby" (yes, that is an accurate summery of your OP), that's bull****.
Click to expand...

That was incredibly irresponsible remark for him to make. He based his argument on show of hands at town hall style meetings. Every other commander has said that we need to wait until the December study.
 
apdst said:
"I'm gay and in your face".
Click to expand...

:roll:

Can't get over the prejudice, can ya?

For your information I have seriously considered service but my family has been against it because of that policy.
 
CriticalThought said:
:roll:

Can't get over the prejudice, can ya?

For your information I have seriously considered service but my family has been against it because of that policy.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're not man enough to make the decision, for yourself, then the service certainly isn't the place for you.
 
roguenuke said:
His concerns are based on something that is actually taught to Marines and soldiers and even other servicemembers. Something that is being taught to service members with absolutely no proof to back it up. In fact, all evidence contradict such teachings. If you teach something like this to people who are expected to believe and trust their upper enlisted and brass, then many of them eventually believe it themselves. Add to this an already present bias against gays and/or beliefs that gay men are somehow less manly, then you are going to get guys who actually believe that openly gay men (most guys could care less about gay women serving openly) will cause problems. The only way to fight such biases and false teachings is to actually prove to them that there are no problems with gays serving openly.
Click to expand...

No such anti-gay bias is being taught in the militery.
 
CriticalThought said:
I dunno. I think what people envision of gay men is that we are some group of queens, fairies, and gym bunnies. There are plenty of gay men who are indistinguishable from heterosexuals who will probably do just fine in those units because they aren't likely to be very expressive about their sexuality and are quite capable of getting the job done.

And all the gym bunnies can adapt by coming over to my house. :)
Click to expand...

We agree, and your views are consistent with what I said. The smartest way to exist as a gay in these units is to be low key about it. Do your job, earn the respect of your fellows soldiers that you got their back, and move on.

What I meant to convey was that, regardless of the law and policies, basic small team male dynamics will set the rules by which things are OK, or meet resistence. To flaunt one's gayness, especially in the more serious units, will get a low-level but thorough smackdown real quick. In the end, the basic rules will still be the same: either you got my back, in which case I will allow you the honor, or you don't, in which case you will be made to go somewhere else, easy way or the hard way, but you will be able to cover my back or you will not stay here.

Here's the way it is in male Basic. Discussions about whether eating putang is good or not are OK, and often break on racial lines. Discussions about whether it is better to eat putang or suck wang will not happen in the male units. Not for a minute.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Well, if you're not man enough to make the decision, for yourself, then the service certainly isn't the place for you.
Click to expand...

Yeah because real men do not honor the wishes of their family. :roll:
 
apdst said:
ohhhhhhh, now I get it! It is all about, "I'm gay and in your face".

Why am I not surprised.
Click to expand...

You think gay people want to serve openly just so they can brag about it? Or just because they're all jerks who just want to go up to people who don't want them there and rub it in their face?
You could make a similar argument about black people wanting to vote, its just cause they want to elect black people just to show they can to whites, and for no other reason besides spite.
Are you ever going to show any facts or evidence to back up what you say?

Lastly, this argument you have about extremists in the service is already happening according to your definition of what is an extremist. Namely the thousands of Muslim service members, you have yourself on many many many occasions called Islam extremist by its very doctrine. Therefore naturally those who follow an extremist doctrine are extremists themselves.

So if you truly believe Muslims are all extremists, than you've invalidated your own ridiculous argument already being allowing Muslims, ie "extremists" in your view, to serve openly has not destroyed the military.

See what I did there?
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Yeah because real men do not honor the wishes of their family. :roll:
Click to expand...

Real men make their own decisions, based on their own wishes. If you were wishing to do something illegal, or immoral, you might have a point.

A family that trully cares about it's members, supports their decisions, even if they disagree with those decisions.

When my kids come of age and want to join the service, I will support that decision 100%. When they choose not to join the service, because they don't believe that it's for them, then I'll support that decision 100%.
 
Jerry said:
No such anti-gay bias is being taught in the militery.
Click to expand...

It's not officially taught, like in a class room setting type situation. But it is taught in that the older or more experienced personnel will tell this to those junior personnel or respected military personnel will say such things in public and on public record. It only takes a quick look on this board, in threads like this where the phrase "allowing gays to serve openly will negatively impact unit morale, cohesion and/or discipline" or some variation of this phrase that is very similar to it are used often, especially by some of the more senior military personnel or older veterans. This is the phrase that is repeated over and over. Yet no one has any actual proof that this will happen. So why this phrase if they aren't taught it?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
We agree, and your views are consistent with what I said. The smartest way to exist as a gay in these units is to be low key about it. Do your job, earn the respect of your fellows soldiers that you got their back, and move on.

What I meant to convey was that, regardless of the law and policies, basic small team male dynamics will set the rules by which things are OK, or meet resistence. To flaunt one's gayness, especially in the more serious units, will get a low-level but thorough smackdown real quick. In tthe end, the basic rules will still be the same: either you got my back, in which case I will allow you the honor, or you don't, in which case you will be made to go somewhere else, easy way or the hard way, but you will be able to cover my back or you will not stay here.
Click to expand...

There were 2 open gays in my BCT company. They were offered a general discharge, declined it, and it wasn't a problem. One of them was in my platoon, it wasn't a problem. Sorry, Navy, he wasn't trying to rape us in our sleep.

Your typical runt and platoon ****-up is a far greater problem (and has more to fear from his buddies) than does your typical gay man who enlists. It's just not a big deal.

Now, people like MSgt come on and start talking about tight fire teams; everyone needs to listen to those concerns. Romantic feelings can **** up a fire team and get people killed (which is why we shouldn't seek co-ed fireteams).
 
roguenuke said:
It's not officially taught, like in a class room setting type situation. But it is taught in that the older or more experienced personnel will tell this to those junior personnel or respected military personnel will say such things in public and on public record. It only takes a quick look on this board, in threads like this where the phrase "allowing gays to serve openly will negatively impact unit morale, cohesion and/or discipline" or some variation of this phrase that is very similar to it are used often, especially by some of the more senior military personnel or older veterans. This is the phrase that is repeated over and over. Yet no one has any actual proof that this will happen. So why this phrase if they aren't taught it?
Click to expand...

Uh, not sure how long ago you went to BCT, but no such thing existed at Fort Benning this summer.
 
Wiseone said:
You think gay people want to serve openly just so they can brag about it? Or just because they're all jerks who just want to go up to people who don't want them there and rub it in their face?

You could make a similar arguement about black people wanting to vote, its just cause they want to elect black people just to show they can to whites, and for no other reason besides spite.

Are you ever going to show any facts or evidence to back up what you say?
Click to expand...


No, but I think that that is why DADT abolitionists are so atimate about gays serving openly.

Whyelse would they be sooooo opposed to lifting the ban and keeping DADT in place? They're not content with gays just being able to serve in the military, they want it flaunted in everyone's face, that gays are serving in the military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom