• 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' repeal fails in Senate

Remember, Jim Crow laws were repealed many decades after they were originally passed. Opinions change. People change. Cultures become more open to this change. Welcome to the 21st century. Most Americans no longer fear homos.

Jim Crow laws have nothing to do with the military, there are rules to join, don't like the rules, don't enlist.
 
This is not true. There are no questions "about sexual harassment by gays" whatsoever.

Here are the questions from the survey, with a link to the entire survey: http://militarytimes.com/webtools/files/Survey%20questionnaire.pdf

Has a service member of the same gender ever made a romantic or sexual advance toward you?

What was your reaction to that advance, or to most advances, if there have been
multiple advances?

Do you think there are gay men or women in your current unit? (By unit, we mean Air Force squadron, Army company or detachment, Marine company or battery, or Navy department.)

Did you report this service member's sexual orientation to your chain of command?

Why didn’t you report it?

To your knowledge, did your chain of command take any action in response, such as initiate an investigation of that person’s sexual orientation?

To your knowledge, was that person ever discharged or is that person currently being discharged because of his or her sexual orientation?

To your knowledge, did your chain of command ever find out that a service member was gay but decline to take any action?

Not all questions in this chain would be asked, it depends on the answer of previous questions. Those questions precede immediately the next question:
All in all, do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays
and lesbians to serve openly in the military?

The questions leading up to it(you are correct, the phrase "sexual harassment" was not used) would tend to have an impact on the answer to the question on repeal of DADT.
 
As stated it has been law for 17 years and affects an ALL VOLUNTEER military. No one forces anyone to enlist and if someone doesn't like the policy then don't enlist.

Just because you volunteer for the military does not mean you give up your right to equal protection. The all volunteer aspect is a red herring.
 
First of all, how do you know that there weren't any openly gay soldiers in WW2 and that some of those soldiers didn't do very brave and heroic acts?

Second, it is not that allowing gays to serve openly will somehow make us able to win every war or even a much better fighting force. It is the fact that allowing gays to serve openly will actually be standing by the US ideals of freedom and democracy for all (not just heterosexuals) and it will actually show that the military really is fighting intolerance within its ranks.

I can try and dig up the source for this, but an estimated I think 1 million gay soldiers starting with Korea have served in the US military. They did not go back further since data was increasingly hard to get.
 
Here are the questions from the survey, with a link to the entire survey: http://militarytimes.com/webtools/files/Survey%20questionnaire.pdf
That's a different poll than the one one that was linked and to which you originally responded. This one is from 2009 and -- while specifically targeted at DADT and related issues -- doesn't ask the question of interest in the 2008 poll:
57. If the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly,
how would you respond? (Check one)
No response; I would continue to serve—1
I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service—2
I would not re-enlist or extend my service—3
No opinion—4

The 2008 poll covered a very broad range of topics, touching on politics, gender, religion and race in addition to DADT.
 
Just because you volunteer for the military does not mean you give up your right to equal protection. The all volunteer aspect is a red herring.

So is your argument, you feel so strongly that DADT violates someone's civil rights why not file suit and let the courts decide? fact is we have an all volunteer military and no one is being forced to serve thus it doesn't violate any individual rights. If one doesn't like the law then don't enlist.
 
Just because you volunteer for the military does not mean you give up your right to equal protection. The all volunteer aspect is a red herring.

It means you agree to abide by the oath and the rules of the military. If one of the rules is DADT (and it is) that means a discharge if that rule is broken. You continue to equal protection under the UCMJ. It does not mean you get special treatment for sexual orientation. And you continuing to repeat "red herring" doesn't make it true.
 
That's a different poll than the one one that was linked and to which you originally responded. This one is from 2009 and -- while specifically targeted at DADT and related issues -- doesn't ask the question of interest in the 2008 poll:


The 2008 poll covered a very broad range of topics, touching on politics, gender, religion and race in addition to DADT.

None of which invalidates what I stated. The poll is flawed and self selected among Military Times readers. It is only slightly more valid that some of the polls here at DP. The DoD poll was scientific and had a margin of error of less than 1 %. Trying to use the Military Times poll to refute the DoD poll is silly(which you are not doing, but is being done in this thread).
 
So is your argument, you feel so strongly that DADT violates someone's civil rights why not file suit and let the courts decide? fact is we have an all volunteer military and no one is being forced to serve thus it doesn't violate any individual rights. If one doesn't like the law then don't enlist.

The process is in the courts now, and the first step of that process is finished, with DADT losing in the courts. Repeal by congress would be faster and better, ie the current law and DoD directives are reworded, and the military is given time to prepare for the changes before the law takes effect.
 
It means you agree to abide by the oath and the rules of the military. If one of the rules is DADT (and it is) that means a discharge if that rule is broken. You continue to equal protection under the UCMJ. It does not mean you get special treatment for sexual orientation. And you continuing to repeat "red herring" doesn't make it true.

If you enlist now and violate DADT, you an be discharged and there is nothing wrong with the military discharging you. I know of no one who is saying otherwise. Gay people though have an entirely extra, arbitrary set of rules to what they can and cannot do. That is not equal protection.
 
The process is in the courts now, and the first step of that process is finished, with DADT losing in the courts. Repeal by congress would be faster and better, ie the current law and DoD directives are reworded, and the military is given time to prepare for the changes before the law takes effect.

The military won't implode either way yet the passion for repeal is quite high right now. You don't like the rules, don't enlist. Seems like a concept that you can't understand.
 
The military won't implode either way yet the passion for repeal is quite high right now. You don't like the rules, don't enlist. Seems like a concept that you can't understand.

If you don't like the rules, work to change them. That is the American process in action. I am not sure why you cannot understand this.
 
WTF, this thread sprouted 20+ pages since I was here yesterday?

Well, since I was unwilling to read all the words, I scanned em'.
So.

-------------------------------------

Regarding the statement I've seen multiple times (paraphrased), "DADT is the rule of the military at this time, and if gay persons don't want to deal with it, they shouldn't join."

That's just pure BS. I am 100% sure that there are multiple gay persons who have joined the US military dispite DADT, because they, along with (I believe) the majority of military members, consider it their calling/duty to fight for our great country.

They are WILLING to put up with the BS that is DADT, so they can do this.

But the fact that they have to is obviously unfair. Fair would be "Well, you've joined the military. In regards to sexual matters, you are NOT allowed to sexually harass/molest other military members, END OF STORY."

As it currently stands, its equivalent to telling the heterosexual members of the military "We don't want to know who you sleep with, we don't care about your significant other and/or children, and if you die your family is **** out of luck." Since I think everyone would agree that such would be a detriment to moral, the military doesn't do such - except too their gay members... :doh

As I see it, most heterosexual members of the military realize this, and because the moral of their brothers and sisters in arms is of concern to them, among other reasons, they support removing any limitations on military membership by sexual preference and the like.

-------------------------------------

*Bangs head against wall*
 
Last edited:
WTF, this thread sprouted 20+ pages since I was here yesterday?

Don't feel bad, I spent yesterday till this morning at my mothers, and I get home to find the thread was huge and pretty over the top. Thankfully things have cooled down some now and it's a decent discussion.
 
Why do people insist on all these labels?
I'm not the one assigning the labels. The folks who believed that allowing soldiers to vote is some sort of conflict of interest, were self identified liberals. I've never heard a conservative advocate for such a thing.
 
If you don't like the rules, work to change them. That is the American process in action. I am not sure why you cannot understand this.

Totally and completely understand the rules and the current rules now are preventing DADT from being repealed. It isn't going to happen.
 
Totally and completely understand the rules and the current rules now are preventing DADT from being repealed. It isn't going to happen.

The current rules are not what is preventing DADT from being repealed. A lack of votes is. That will likely change. Maybe tomorrow, maybe next year, probably within the next 3 years.
 
I'm not the one assigning the labels. The folks who believed that allowing soldiers to vote is some sort of conflict of interest, were self identified liberals. I've never heard a conservative advocate for such a thing.

Where did some one say soldiers should not vote?
 
You sure about this? Women are allowed in special forces and infantry now?

There are three standards for the application of Equal Protection. I suggest reading up on the topic.
 
If you enlist now and violate DADT, you an be discharged and there is nothing wrong with the military discharging you. I know of no one who is saying otherwise. Gay people though have an entirely extra, arbitrary set of rules to what they can and cannot do. That is not equal protection.

There is just one rule:

"Under this policy, but not the law, service members are not to be asked about
nor allowed to discuss their “same-sex orientation.”

Since 1993 this policy has been in place and has been unsuccessfully challenged four times in the courts. Conservative's consistent view is correct: If a servicemember who is LGBT and is abiding by DADT finds it discriminatory, they can voluntarily discharge themselves. If a person wishing to go into military service finds the DADT policy discriminatory, they can choose not to join.
 
Where did some one say soldiers should not vote?
In other other forums, usually by the same people who say illegal immigrants and felons should be allowed to vote.
 
The current rules are not what is preventing DADT from being repealed. A lack of votes is. That will likely change. Maybe tomorrow, maybe next year, probably within the next 3 years.

At the rate this country is going it is going to be a long, long time before Democratic liberals get back into power so don't hold your breath.

November Deficit was a historical deficit.
 
There is just one rule:

"Under this policy, but not the law, service members are not to be asked about
nor allowed to discuss their “same-sex orientation.”

Since 1993 this policy has been in place and has been unsuccessfully challenged four times in the courts. Conservative's consistent view is correct: If a servicemember who is LGBT and is abiding by DADT finds it discriminatory, they can voluntarily discharge themselves. If a person wishing to go into military service finds the DADT policy discriminatory, they can choose not to join.

That is not the rule actually. Here it is: http://www.sldn.org/page/-/Website/The%20Law/The%20Law%20-%20Statute.pdf

(b) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed
forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the
following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such
regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited
another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings,
made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations,
that the member has demonstrated that --
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and
customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion,
or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s
continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of
the armed forces in proper discipline, _ good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in
homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual,
or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in
accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has
demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in,
has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to
be of the same biological sex.

Number 2 is the stickler, and covers a broad range of things that are considered a "tell", such as being seen holding hands with another person of the same gender, sending romantic emails to some one of the same sex and having some one read it over your shoulder unknown to you, and so on.

The rest of your post is just nonsense that no one is disputing, except for adding a third option: attempt to change the law.
 
In other other forums, usually by the same people who say illegal immigrants and felons should be allowed to vote.

So you can't show where any one said it. Thank you.

Moving along now....
 
Back
Top Bottom