• 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

And I agree that people care much more about the economy than DADT. Hell, I care more about then economy and I'm about the biggest supporter of the repeal there is. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore everything until unemployment is below 6%. I can still care about the economy while supporting the repeal.

A lot of people support repeal and I quite frankly don't care either way. I just wonder how many here will enlist after it is appealed since it is such a big deal for some.
 
Because gays in the military don't have to, "hide". DADT was put into place to protect them; to end the days of recruiters/commanders asking if they're gay. Before DADT gays had to hide and lie. Now, they can say, "you can't ask me that. It's against the rules".

As I've suggested. the ban on gays should be lifted and DADT left in place. I know that's not popular with the anti-dadt folks, because it ****s with the whole gay pride, in yo' face thing.

And that's the thing, they shouldn't need special protection. We don't make blacks get plastic surgery to protect them from racists, because those who pick on people for being themselves don't belong in the army in the first place. Also, if they made it into the army, I would hope they can fend for themselves.

And I like how you guys pride yourselves on making pride sound like a bad thing when it comes to the gay community.
 
And again, the issue is whether the law should be overturned, not whether the discharges should have happened. We went over this earlier in the thread as well.

There are consequences in the real world for violating a policy especially in the military. Some live in another world where you only enforce the laws that support a liberal point of view. If the law was violated then the discharge is warranted.
 
Last edited:
The proponents of changing the law had 17 years to do it including 7 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, and two years of Obama. They didn't do it and the question is why?

Because the time was not right. Now the time is right. Public opinion has swung on the issue, the military agrees it is ready, the DoD report says it can be done with a minimum of disruption.
 
There are consequences in the real world for violating a policy especially in the military. Some live in another world where you only enforce the laws that support a liberal point of view. If the law was violated then the discharge is warranted.

OK, I just told you that people who violate DADT should be discharged, and you come back with this crap. Do you pay attention at all?
 
Because the time was not right. Now the time is right. Public opinion has swung on the issue, the military agrees it is ready, the DoD report says it can be done with a minimum of disruption.

Then when and if it happens, so be it! Still takes either a law change or court action.
 
OK, I just told you that people who violate DADT should be discharged, and you come back with this crap. Do you pay attention at all?

You did? Hmmm...maybe you ought to re-read what you posted

No one is claiming(well, at least not me) that those who violate DADT should be discharged as long as the law is on the books. What is being discussed is whether the law should be changed.

I wonder if "moderators" ever admit when wrong? Looks to me like you aren't claiming that those who violate DADT should be discharged.
 
Last edited:
Then when and if it happens, so be it! Still takes either a law change or court action.

Which I thought was what was being debated. Considering the topic is about an attempt to change the law, I think in fact the topic is changing the law.
 
You did? Hmmm...maybe you ought to re-read what you posted

What part of that confused you. No one is saying that I have seen that the law should not be enforced, only that it should be changed. To put it in simpler terms. While the law is on the books, it is the law. If you violate the law, you bring on the consequences of doing so, which in this case means a discharge. I am not suggesting that those who "tell" should not be discharged. Not at all, not in any way, never said anything to suggest otherwise.
 
What part of that confused you. No one is saying that I have seen that the law should not be enforced, only that it should be changed. To put it in simpler terms. While the law is on the books, it is the law. If you violate the law, you bring on the consequences of doing so, which in this case means a discharge. I am not suggesting that those who "tell" should not be discharged. Not at all, not in any way, never said anything to suggest otherwise.

Looks to me like you you remain confused again, read what you posted not what you think you posted. Do Moderators ever admit when wrong?

No one is claiming(well, at least not me) that those who violate DADT should be discharged as long as the law is on the books.
 
And that's the thing, they shouldn't need special protection. We don't make blacks get plastic surgery to protect them from racists, because those who pick on people for being themselves don't belong in the army in the first place. Also, if they made it into the army, I would hope they can fend for themselves.

And I like how you guys pride yourselves on making pride sound like a bad thing when it comes to the gay community.

It's a bad thing, when it comes to DADT abolition being mostly agenda driven.

I don't think it's, "special protection", it's a device put in place to allow gays to serve, without fear of being kicked out, or witch hunted.

Why not just enlist, do your job and shutup?
 
Looks to me like you you remain confused again, read what you posted not what you think you posted. Do Moderators ever admit when wrong?

You are correct, I forgot to add a the word "not" between the words "should" and "be". That was my mistake.
 
You are correct, I forgot to add a the word "not" between the words "should" and "be". That was my mistake.

thank you, remember that when you jump on others. We all make mistakes.
 
It's a bad thing, when it comes to DADT abolition being mostly agenda driven.

I don't think it's, "special protection", it's a device put in place to allow gays to serve, without fear of being kicked out, or witch hunted.

Why not just enlist, do your job and shutup?

Why not allow people to serve with the same rules for everyone?
 
Why not allow people to serve with the same rules for everyone?

But they are serving under the same rules, DADT is law for everyone. Heterosexuals cannot talk about their sexual preference either.
 
The emails where used to be considered a "tell". That is the problem, the list of things that are considered a tell. You would not accept living under those constraints, nor would I. It goes far beyond just having to never say "I am gay".



That shouldn't be the case.
 
But they are serving under the same rules, DADT is law for everyone. Heterosexuals cannot talk about their sexual preference either.

What?! Yes they can. My husband talks about me often enough that the other guys know who I am when I walk into that office. For that matter, they talk about their wives/girlfriends often enough that I know about them just from the stories my husband tells me. DADT in no way prevents a straight person from revealing their orientation.
 
What?! Yes they can. My husband talks about me often enough that the other guys know who I am when I walk into that office. For that matter, they talk about their wives/girlfriends often enough that I know about them just from the stories my husband tells me. DADT in no way prevents a straight person from revealing their orientation.

You are probably right, but to be totally consistent that is what the gays should be focusing on.
 
You are probably right, but to be totally consistent that is what the gays should be focusing on.

I'm confused now. Isn't that what they're focusing on? The right to serve openly?
 
I'm confused now. Isn't that what they're focusing on? The right to serve openly?

that seems to be the issue yet this is an all volunteer military. Can't imagine someone that really wants to serve having a problem with DADT? When I was in the military from 1970-1976 it certainly wasn't a democracy where the majority rules.
 
that seems to be the issue yet this is an all volunteer military. Can't imagine someone that really wants to serve having a problem with DADT? When I was in the military from 1970-1976 it certainly wasn't a democracy where the majority rules.

It's still not a democracy. You do what you're told, whether than means serving side by side with blacks or gays. If you look up polls conducted in the military when they were integrating blacks, the military was massively opposed to it. I'm not going to say it went smoothly, because there were some hiccups, but it did end up working out and I don't think anyone can imagine the military any other way today.
 
It's still not a democracy. You do what you're told, whether than means serving side by side with blacks or gays. If you look up polls conducted in the military when they were integrating blacks, the military was massively opposed to it. I'm not going to say it went smoothly, because there were some hiccups, but it did end up working out and I don't think anyone can imagine the military any other way today.

Although there is quite a bit of difference between race and sexual orientation especially when it comes to the military.
 
It's still not a democracy. You do what you're told, whether than means serving side by side with blacks or gays. If you look up polls conducted in the military when they were integrating blacks, the military was massively opposed to it. I'm not going to say it went smoothly, because there were some hiccups, but it did end up working out and I don't think anyone can imagine the military any other way today.

The problem with your scenario is the people that are already serving did not sign up to serve with gays openly...They knew they would serve with blacks........If DADT is repealed then any stright guy signing up would know it would be with gays serving openly.......That is a huge difference.......
 
Back
Top Bottom