• 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'

Wiseone said:
I have to contribute and add that no one I know who's been in the military or just entered it with my graduating class has any kind of training or direction teaching us to sniff out gays.

In fact the current guidance is to stay as far away as possible from the issue and you are actively encouraged to ignore any kind of behavior that could be considered homosexual unless it occurs in training areas, during duty hours, or in shared quarters, such as your barracks.

The reason is because its such a massive pain in the ass to start the process to chapter someone out of the Army for homosexual conduct, and it almost always makes for bad press as well. It also must be done through a court martial and the General Officer level, and those guys always want to focus on more important issues.

In fact, and I know Apdst will go nuts when i say this, people often ignore homosexual conduct when it occurs because of all the hassle enforcing DADT involves. In some situations a punishment would have been issued if it was simply heterosexual sex at an inappropriate time or place, however because its now homosexual conduct and requires a massively larger amount of the Army's time and money it sometimes goes ignored.
Click to expand...

Why is it so goddamned hard for people to understand my position on gays serving in the military?

is it because I don't tow the party line? Or is it because my ideas about gays in the military are too ****ing hard for supposedly smarter people to undersand?

OR is it that the DADT abolitionist are so goddamned ignorant of the actual regulations and directives, that they don't even understand what they're opposed to?
 
CriticalThought said:
Dude, if anyone is uninformed it is you. Try not being able to form any family for the enitre time you are in the military. One year? That is laughable compared to some gay soldiers who spend 4 years in the military before they can date, get married, and start a family.
Click to expand...


Try actually serving in the military and then tell me about how uninformed I am. If you actually do, you'll understand.
 
CriticalThought said:
Dude, if anyone is uninformed it is you. Try not being able to form any family for the enitre time you are in the military. One year? That is laughable compared to some gay soldiers who spend 4 years in the military before they can date, get married, and start a family.
Click to expand...

Whats really weird is that if you are gay, then retire and come out of the closet, you still get every penny of retirement even if the government knows you are gay.
 
apdst said:
Try actually serving in the military and then tell me about how uninformed I am. If you actually do, you'll understand.
Click to expand...

You just tried to tell me that 1 year is worse than 4 years. How informed could you be?
 
Wiseone said:
I have to contribute and add that no one I know who's been in the military or just entered it with my graduating class has any kind of training or direction teaching us to sniff out gays.

In fact the current guidance is to stay as far away as possible from the issue and you are actively encouraged to ignore any kind of behavior that could be considered homosexual unless it occurs in training areas, during duty hours, or in shared quarters, such as your barracks.

The reason is because its such a massive pain in the ass to start the process to chapter someone out of the Army for homosexual conduct, and it almost always makes for bad press as well. It also must be done through a court martial and the General Officer level, and those guys always want to focus on more important issues.

In fact, and I know Apdst will go nuts when i say this, people often ignore homosexual conduct when it occurs because of all the hassle enforcing DADT involves. In some situations a punishment would have been issued if it was simply heterosexual sex at an inappropriate time or place, however because its now homosexual conduct and requires a massively larger amount of the Army's time and money it sometimes goes ignored.
Click to expand...

And I agree with this. I was in no way saying that servicemembers are taught to sniff out or even confront those who might be gay. And, I think many just stay away from most political discussions, at least within larger groups altogether.

I was saying that it is "taught" that gays will be detrimental to morale, discipline or unit cohesion. This is not in a formal environment, and not even those who are "teaching" it would realize that they are. And although some might come from people within a servicemember's own command, during one of those rare instances of political discussions, most would actually be coming from more influential military or formal military persons, such as that USMC Cmdt or other military brass who are or were against the repeal. And some may come from respected family members or family friends who were in.

Now some just may get there beliefs from their own biases, but I would say most do "learn" it since the most common phrase used against the repeal of DADT is "it will be detrimental to morale, discipline, and unit cohesion". And something very similar to this phrase is found in the code against gays in the military itself. So, the belief that it will cause detriment could come inadvertently from training on the homosexual conduct policy as well.
 
Wiseone said:
It is a tough decision. However a hetrosexual service member can still have a family, a homosexual one cannot. See the difference?
Click to expand...

Well, look on the bright side. A homo soldier doesn't have to worry about an ex-spouse taking half his retirement, no matter how long they were married and no matter how long ago they were married.

There are a few perks to being gay, in the service.
 
apdst said:
Well, look on the bright side. A homo soldier doesn't have to worry about an ex-spouse taking half his retirement, no matter how long they were married and no matter how long ago they were married.

There are a few perks to being gay, in the service.
Click to expand...

No, instead a "homo" soldier has to worry that if he is captured or killed that his partner will never be informed about it and will never recieve any of his benefits.
 
roguenuke said:
And I agree with this. I was in no way saying that servicemembers are taught to sniff out or even confront those who might be gay. And, I think many just stay away from most political discussions, at least within larger groups altogether.

I was saying that it is "taught" that gays will be detrimental to morale, discipline or unit cohesion. This is not in a formal environment, and not even those who are "teaching" it would realize that they are. And although some might come from people within a servicemember's own command, during one of those rare instances of political discussions, most would actually be coming from more influential military or formal military persons, such as that USMC Cmdt or other military brass who are or were against the repeal. And some may come from respected family members or family friends who were in.

Now some just may get there beliefs from their own biases, but I would say most do "learn" it since the most common phrase used against the repeal of DADT is "it will be detrimental to morale, discipline, and unit cohesion". And something very similar to this phrase is found in the code against gays in the military itself. So, the belief that it will cause detriment could come inadvertently from training on the homosexual conduct policy as well.
Click to expand...

But, it's not. How many times do you have to be told that it isn't?
 
apdst said:
Why is it so goddamned hard for people to understand my position on gays serving in the military?

is it because I don't tow the party line? Or is it because my ideas about gays in the military are too ****ing hard for supposedly smarter people to undersand?

OR is it that the DADT abolitionist are so goddamned ignorant of the actual regulations and directives, that they don't even understand what they're opposed to?
Click to expand...

But you realize that if we removed DADT and allowed gays to serve openly, that they would be punished for sexual activity in the barracks the same way a hetrosexual couple would? The problem with enforcing the kind of conduct you are trying to outlaw entirely is to place the same rules around it which govern hetrosexual relations.
 
Wiseone said:
But you realize that if we removed DADT and allowed gays to serve openly, that they would be punished for sexual activity in the barracks the same way a hetrosexual couple would? The problem with enforcing the kind of conduct you are trying to outlaw entirely is to place the same rules around it which govern hetrosexual relations.
Click to expand...

Ok. And you point is...?
 
apdst said:
Well, look on the bright side. A homo soldier doesn't have to worry about an ex-spouse taking half his retirement, no matter how long they were married and no matter how long ago they were married.

There are a few perks to being gay, in the service.
Click to expand...

Also you can do accompanied tours to Korea now, they've got all kinds of extra family size houses of there after the post 9/11 draw down. Not that it has anything to do with the issue here, but just FYI.
 
Wiseone said:
But you realize that if we removed DADT and allowed gays to serve openly, that they would be punished for sexual activity in the barracks the same way a hetrosexual couple would? The problem with enforcing the kind of conduct you are trying to outlaw entirely is to place the same rules around it which govern hetrosexual relations.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Ok. And you point is...?
Click to expand...

That kind of conduct wouldn't be ignored in many cases, because a General Officer doesn't have to get personally involved. So you'd actually get what you want, which is better enforcement. Of course you'd have to compromise in a way and say its acceptable for a service member to have a gay sexual encounter in a hotel room off post or at his private quarters anywhere else.
 
apdst said:
But, it's not. How many times do you have to be told that it isn't?
Click to expand...

It is. You just don't see it.

So are you going to answer my questions? If you weren't taught that gays serving openly might be detrimental to morale, unit cohesion and discipline, then where did you get your beliefs? Do you believe that gays serving openly might be detrimental to morale, unit cohesion and discipline or do you have some other reason to oppose gays serving openly?
 
apdst said:
I never said that.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what you just did. You are so selective in your thinking regarding this issue that it is sad. A gay soldier cannot openly date, marry, or start a family the entire time they are in the service or they will get kicked out.

How did you reply to that argument? Oh, well some straight soldiers have to be away from their families for a year!

It seems that you are perfectly fine with the idea that gay soldiers have to choose between starting a family and serving their country.
 
Wiseone said:
Also you can do accompanied tours to Korea now, they've got all kinds of extra family size houses of there after the post 9/11 draw down. Not that it has anything to do with the issue here, but just FYI.
Click to expand...

You can't have dependents, if you're posted to a forward camp. You know that, right?
 
roguenuke said:
It is. You just don't see it.
Click to expand...

You're right. I enver saw it, in 12 years.

So are you going to answer my questions? If you weren't taught that gays serving openly might be detrimental to morale, unit cohesion and discipline, then where did you get your beliefs? Do you believe that gays serving openly might be detrimental to morale, unit cohesion and discipline or do you have some other reason to oppose gays serving openly?
Click to expand...

Why don't you take a shot at telling me what you think my beliefs are?
 
apdst said:
You can't have dependents, if you're posted to a forward camp. You know that, right?
Click to expand...

I may be confused on terminology then. For example I'm being deployed to Camp Stanley just north of Seoul, where you can bring dependents. Its pretty "forward" and very close to the DMZ. But is there a specific type of camp or military post dubbed a "forward post" because to me being forward just means close to the DMZ.
 
CriticalThought said:
That is exactly what you just did. You are so selective in your thinking regarding this issue that it is sad. A gay soldier cannot openly date, marry, or start a family the entire time they are in the service or they will get kicked out.

How did you reply to that argument? Oh, well some straight soldiers have to be away from their families for a year!

It seems that you are perfectly fine with the idea that gay soldiers have to choose between starting a family and serving their country.
Click to expand...

And, I've said time-n-again, that gays should be able to serve in the military, without fear of being disciplined for leading that lifestyle.

Why are you folks so narrow minded?
 
apdst said:
And, I've said time-n-again, that gays should be able to serve in the military, without fear of being disciplined for leading that lifestyle.

Why are you folks so narrow minded?
Click to expand...

Okay, you want gays to be able to serve openly. Thank you. Case closed.
 
apdst said:
You're right. I enver saw it, in 12 years.



Why don't you take a shot at telling me what you think my beliefs are?
Click to expand...

Judging solely on your posts from the last week or so on threads on the repeal of DADT, then I would say that you are for keeping DADT and not allowing gays to serve openly, which are the same thing, no matter how you wish to say they aren't.

If I am wrong, then prove it. State your stand on gays in the military. Exactly how you feel about allowing gays to serve openly.

This won't change my stance that many, if not most, that believe that gays serving openly will be detrimental to unit cohesion and morale and discipline were taught this, but it will give me a better idea of how you feel.
 
Wiseone said:
I may be confused on terminology then. For example I'm being deployed to Camp Stanley just north of Seoul, where you can bring dependents. Its pretty "forward" and very close to the DMZ. But is there a specific type of camp or military post dubbed a "forward post" because to me being forward just means close to the DMZ.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the, "stand alone", camps. I was at Camp Greaves, out to the northwest of Seoul; where there were no dependent services available.
 
roguenuke said:
Judging solely on your posts from the last week or so on threads on the repeal of DADT, then I would say that you are for keeping DADT and not allowing gays to serve openly, which are the same thing, no matter how you wish to say they aren't.

If I am wrong, then prove it. State your stand on gays in the military. Exactly how you feel about allowing gays to serve openly.

This won't change my stance that many, if not most, that believe that gays serving openly will be detrimental to unit cohesion and morale and discipline were taught this, but it will give me a better idea of how you feel.
Click to expand...

Then, I would say that you're sleep posting. No point in talking to you on the subject.

Seriously. Have you read any of my posts? Obviously, not.

I've already stated my stand on gays in the military, a bazillion-million times. You're one of those folks that sees what you wanna see, and nevermind reality.
 
CriticalThought said:
Okay, you want gays to be able to serve openly. Thank you. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Well, you're close. I want to see the ban lifted and DADT to remain in place, so as to avoid discrimination. Personally, I think it would be in the best interest of gay soldiers for DADT to remain in place.
 
CriticalThought said:
Okay, you want gays to be able to serve openly. Thank you. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Well, you're close. I want to see the ban lifted and DADT to remain in place, so as to avoid discrimination. Personally, I think it would be in the best interest of gay soldiers for DADT to remain in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom