• 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'

Jerry said:
"Good order and disiplin".

We were never taught bias, formaly or passivly. Even when we teased eachother with sexual references, etc, it was about that soldier's behavior and not some group.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said was being taught, not the bias. The bit about homosexuality being detrimental to good order and discipline is what is being taught, eventhough no one has any proof that it is true. It is just being taught as if it is. And many soldiers and marines and other servicemembers are accepting that as the truth, even if they have nothing to back it up.
 
apdst said:
I''m only using the same argument that you've used all along. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

No, actually it has nothing to do with my argument. Nice try, but not even remotely close.
 
apdst said:
Actually, a commander does have the right to request personal information from a soldier.

Why would you oppose a policy that would go a long way to prevent disccrimination? That's what doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

A commander does not have the right to question a soldier about his sex life.
 
danarhea said:
I don't buy that argument at all. The reason is obvious. Just answer the following question:

gayoone.gif
Click to expand...

The one on The Left, obviously :mrgreen:
 
Redress said:
A commander does not have the right to question a soldier about his sex life.
Click to expand...

This conversation doesn't have to include sex at all. DADT would out a Soldier who tries to report a same-sex spouce for TriCare or survivor benifits.
 
roguenuke said:
No they don't. A commander cannot ask a soldier, for instance, if the soldier has ever had sex outside of marriage just during a meeting or private conversation. The soldier is completely within their rights to tell the commander, respectfully, that it isn't their business and/or that the question was not appropriate. Any flak for not answering such a question could easily be reported to the Equal Opportunities officer or a formal report submitted beyond the CO.
Click to expand...

A redefined DADT policy, would be the way to go, especially in the Army and Marine Corps and most definitely in combat arms units. If you want this to succeed, that's the way to go about it.

While it may be ilegal for a commander/leader to formally ask a soldier if he/she is gay/straight, there are informal situations where those kinds of questions could be asked and wouldn't be in violation of any article, or regulation. A type of DADT policy should be in place to prevent those situations.
 
Redress said:
A commander does not have the right to question a soldier about his sex life.
Click to expand...

Well, a commander does have that right, if he thinks that that soldier's sex life is a risk to the, "discipline and good order", of the unit. Also, there's no regulation that says a soldier of equal rank can't ask those questions. There's no regulation that prevents an officer from asking a soldier his opinion of certain policies. What's going to happen when a gay officer asks a straight soldier what he thinks of DADT and goes all Hilton Perez on that soldier? Let us not pretend that it can't happen.

What's so wrong with enforcing regulations that order soldiers to keep their sex lives under wraps? The objective is create a safe environment for gays to serve in the military, without fear of reprisal from command, or fellow soldiers. Or, is this just a gay pride parade, dressed up to look like something else?
 
apdst said:
While it may be ilegal for a commander/leader to formally ask a soldier if he/she is gay/straight, there are informal situations where those kinds of questions could be asked and wouldn't be in violation of any article, or regulation. A type of DADT policy should be in place to prevent those situations.
Click to expand...

I can't think of a way that such a policy could be crafted that it wouldn't be discriminatory. You are basically telling gays that they have to stay in the closet regarding any information of their spouse or significant other and under no circumstances are superiors to ask about it. You pretty much would have to have a full ban on talking about family and a ban on any military gathering that included family.
 
CriticalThought said:
I can't think of a way that such a policy could be crafted that it wouldn't be discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't, because you don't have the first clue about how things work in the military.

You are basically telling gays that they have to stay in the closet regarding any information of their spouse or significant other and under no circumstances are superiors to ask about it. You pretty much would have to have a full ban on talking about family and a ban on any military gathering that included family.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that a system needs to be created that protects all soldiers, regardless of sexual orientation, from discrimination.
 
apdst said:
No, I'm saying that a system needs to be created that protects all soldiers, regardless of sexual orientation, from discrimination.
Click to expand...

I think such a system would be counterproductive. The military has to discriminate. For example, soldiers who are too weak minded, fat, short, unstable, stupid, etc. are discriminated against. Furthermore, just because gays are allowed to serve openly does not mean that their superiors should have their hands tied if they start flouting their sexuality in such a way that it begins to cause problems. Gays can be smart and simply choose not to tell people about their sexuality unless they know they are going to be cool with it.
 
CriticalThought said:
I think such a system would be counterproductive. The military has to discriminate. For example, soldiers who are too weak minded, fat, short, unstable, stupid, etc. are discriminated against. Furthermore, just because gays are allowed to serve openly does not mean that their superiors should have their hands tied if they start flouting their sexuality in such a way that it begins to cause problems. Gays can be smart and simply choose not to tell people about their sexuality unless they know they are going to be cool with it.
Click to expand...

That's not discrimination. Soldiers who don't possess the ability to perform there duties, are discharged.

Furthermore, just because gays are allowed to serve openly does not mean that their superiors should have their hands tied if they start flouting their sexuality in such a way that it begins to cause problems.
Click to expand...

Hence, a redefined version of DADT. It would also provide protection for straight soldiers from gay commanders, who hate straight people. It would prevent a gay commander from intimidating his troops, because of his sexuality. i.e. there wouldn't be any platoon leaders, or company commander addressing his troops and say, "I'm your new commander and I'm gay. Anyone have a problem with that?!?". That would automatically become a risk to, "good order and discipline", within the unit.

People are people; all human beings that, if given the chance, will do something stupid. I'm only proposing that we create a system that--as much as possible--doesn't give them that chance.
 
As to the raised hands at the town hall meetings way up thread...

If you were a gay sitting in one of those meetings or even someone that don't have a problem with gays in the military and you knew superiors and maybe some gay hater peers in the room were against it would you step up and say no problem with me or would you raise your hand to remain unknown and not draw the ire of others?

I prefer private vote as proof not raise your hand in front of everyone cause I think you will see more of the real truth privately.

Peer pressure and protect yourself human nature exist everywhere.
 
apdst said:
Well, a commander does have that right, if he thinks that that soldier's sex life is a risk to the, "discipline and good order", of the unit. Also, there's no regulation that says a soldier of equal rank can't ask those questions. There's no regulation that prevents an officer from asking a soldier his opinion of certain policies. What's going to happen when a gay officer asks a straight soldier what he thinks of DADT and goes all Hilton Perez on that soldier? Let us not pretend that it can't happen.

What's so wrong with enforcing regulations that order soldiers to keep their sex lives under wraps? The objective is create a safe environment for gays to serve in the military, without fear of reprisal from command, or fellow soldiers. Or, is this just a gay pride parade, dressed up to look like something else?
Click to expand...

Actually, unless there was a direct reason, no commanding officer could in fact question a soldiers sex life. Being gay would not be a direct reason.

Further, while some one of the same rank could ask about a soldiers personal life, they could do as I pointed out, which is say it's none of their business.

Sorry, but you are entirely wrong in what you think.
 
apdst said:
Hence, a redefined version of DADT. It would also provide protection for straight soldiers from gay commanders, who hate straight people. It would prevent a gay commander from intimidating his troops, because of his sexuality. i.e. there wouldn't be any platoon leaders, or company commander addressing his troops and say, "I'm your new commander and I'm gay. Anyone have a problem with that?!?". That would automatically become a risk to, "good order and discipline", within the unit.

People are people; all human beings that, if given the chance, will do something stupid. I'm only proposing that we create a system that--as much as possible--doesn't give them that chance.
Click to expand...

Why do other countries that have openly gay soldiers not need a version of DADT to function without problems?
 
Redress said:
Actually, unless there was a direct reason, no commanding officer could in fact question a soldiers sex life. Being gay would not be a direct reason.

Further, while some one of the same rank could ask about a soldiers personal life, they could do as I pointed out, which is say it's none of their business.

Sorry, but you are entirely wrong in what you think.
Click to expand...

Care to show us that exact regulation?
 
CriticalThought said:
I think such a system would be counterproductive. The military has to discriminate. For example, soldiers who are too weak minded, fat, short, unstable, stupid, etc. are discriminated against. Furthermore, just because gays are allowed to serve openly does not mean that their superiors should have their hands tied if they start flouting their sexuality in such a way that it begins to cause problems. Gays can be smart and simply choose not to tell people about their sexuality unless they know they are going to be cool with it.
Click to expand...

I think you went a little overboard in trying to make a case for "discrimination". Can we acknowledge without listing that "discrimination" as you mention it exists, and is legal, everywhere ? i.e. There are certain non-biased qualifications with almost any job, usually under the umbrella of minimum standards, etc. The issue here, and the discrimination of concern, is with regard to what our Courts have established, as in race, creed, sex, etc., in that "You may not discriminate because of ...... ". The law has never been that an organization cannot discriminate.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I think you went a little overboard in trying to make a case for "discrimination". Can we acknowledge without listing that "discrimination" as you mention it exists, and is legal, everywhere ? i.e. There are certain non-biased qualifications with almost any job, usually under the umbrella of minimum standards, etc. The issue here, and the discrimination of concern, is with regard to what our Courts have established, as in race, creed, sex, etc., in that "You may not discriminate because of ...... ". The law has never been that an organization cannot discriminate.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, then I say just extend the same discrimination protections that are currently offered for race and sex in the armed forces to sexual orientation. You don't need a whole new DADT policy, you just need to do what has worked with racial integration and women integration.
 
CriticalThought said:
If that is the case, then I say just extend the same discrimination protections that are currently offered for race and sex in the armed forces to sexual orientation. You don't need a whole new DADT policy, you just need to do what has worked with racial integration and women integration.
Click to expand...

Well, that would sound like a format for Congress to enact new legislation upon, which is one solution to the issue. The other, as oft mentioned, is for the Courts to rule that sexual orientation is protected, even in the military. I am not sure which remedy will come first, if either.

I personally am for a repeal of DADT, and would like it to be simplified to just do your job and STFU if you have a sex issue. I do not assume to know how SCOTUS would rule on the base issue, and suspect that the votes are not there in Congress, even now with the lame duck session. The blue dogs are content to let the Courts decide, IMMHO.
 
CriticalThought said:
If that is the case, then I say just extend the same discrimination protections that are currently offered for race and sex in the armed forces to sexual orientation. You don't need a whole new DADT policy, you just need to do what has worked with racial integration and women integration.
Click to expand...

If racial and sexual discrimination didn't exist, you might have a point. However, discrimination does exist.
 
apdst said:
If racial and sexual discrimination didn't exist, you might have a point. However, discrimination does exist.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the military already has policies to limit racial and sexual discrimination in the forces. Why can't it simply use similar policies for sexual orientation? Why do we need a DADT policy instead of simply following the same path of racial integration and sexual integration?
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm sure the military already has policies to limit racial and sexual discrimination in the forces. Why can't it simply use similar policies for sexual orientation? Why do we need a DADT policy instead of simply following the same path of racial integration and sexual integration?
Click to expand...

In fact, the military has a policy against discrimination based on sexuality. I know this is true. I looked at the training on it the other day. Since the only person in someone's chain of command who can start an investigation into someone's sexuality, no one else is allowed to discriminate in any way against someone who is suspected of being gay or bi or even who out right says they are gay, but they have not been investigated and/or discharged because of it.

The only issue with it right now, is that if, during the investigation into a discrimination claim based on sexuality, evidence is found that proves the person who was being discrimination against is homosexual, then they can be processed out under DADT. However, this is not supposed to stop the original discrimination claim from being investigated completely, and if the person was being discriminated against due to their sexuality, then the one who was discriminating can still be punished for it. The policies are already in place to deal with discrimination based on sexuality.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yeah...I don't believe that one bit. I know Marines and they claim that calling each other "fag" and "fairy" is pretty common in the service.
Click to expand...

Well add this soldier to that list. We call things "gay" all the time. Instead of "final formation" it's "final-fag" because final formation is gay (there's no reason to form up the whole company to get a head count and tell us the rules when you can just have the PG give you the count and post the rules on the bulletin board in each platoon's bay). Instead of "fireguard" it's "fire-fag" because fireguard duty is gay (no-one smokes in the barracks since Vietnam and all the cleaning duties fireguard performs could be accomplished in 1 hour by the whole platoon).

You're confusing common vernacular venting frustration with an actual social bias.

I have news for you: even the females in my platoon will ask if you need to borrow some Vagisil if you're sandbagging it during PT. Even the female sergeants will ask males if they have sand in their vagina when they go to sick call. Feel like throwing up? Your own battle buddy will make a motion like he's holding back your hair.

That doesn't mean anyone is biased against women.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I'm sure the military already has policies to limit racial and sexual discrimination in the forces. Why can't it simply use similar policies for sexual orientation? Why do we need a DADT policy instead of simply following the same path of racial integration and sexual integration?
Click to expand...

Sure, they have those policies in place. Wanna know what? Discrimination because of race, sex, creed, color and religion happens, anyway. Nothing will stop covert discrimination. A DADT policy will go along way to protect gays and straights from being discriminated against.

Personally, I don't think throwing gay soldiers to the wolves is a good idea, not at first, anyway. If, after a few years and we see how things are going, then maybe it will be time to lift any and all DADT restrictions.

Anyone that thinks we can make the transition, overnight is living a fantasy.
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm sure the military already has policies to limit racial and sexual discrimination in the forces. Why can't it simply use similar policies for sexual orientation? Why do we need a DADT policy instead of simply following the same path of racial integration and sexual integration?
Click to expand...

Sure, they have those policies in place. Wanna know what? Discrimination because of race, sex, creed, color and religion happens, anyway. Nothing will stop covert discrimination. A DADT policy will go along way to protect gays and straights from being discriminated against.

Personally, I don't think throwing gay soldiers to the wolves is a good idea, not at first, anyway. If, after a few years and we see how things are going, then maybe it will be time to lift any and all DADT restrictions.

Anyone that thinks we can make the transition, overnight is living a fantasy.
 
apdst said:
Sure, they have those policies in place. Wanna know what? Discrimination because of race, sex, creed, color and religion happens, anyway. Nothing will stop covert discrimination. A DADT policy will go along way to protect gays and straights from being discriminated against.

Personally, I don't think throwing gay soldiers to the wolves is a good idea, not at first, anyway. If, after a few years and we see how things are going, then maybe it will be time to lift any and all DADT restrictions.
Click to expand...


So you think discrimination prevents discrimination:lamo


Anyone that thinks we can make the transition, overnight is living a fantasy.
Click to expand...

This transition has been going on for a while now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom