• 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

Redress said:
Actually no, that is not proof it worked. As fine as our military is, and it is very fine, it can improve, and this might very well improve it.
Click to expand...

And it very well might not, then what?
 
Redress said:
Actually no, that is not proof it worked. As fine as our military is, and it is very fine, it can improve, and this might very well improve it.
Click to expand...

And, it might not--without some foresight. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", comes to mind to respond to your post.

I'll continue to beat this horse, although he's dead: if I'm wrong, then no harm is done. If you're wrong, people can die.

And, if you're wrong, you'll never hear the end of it, from me. We can be talking about pooper-scooper laws and I'm going to remind you that you were wrong and how it hurt our armed services.
 
apdst said:
Fairness is exactly what I'm talking about. What I've been suggesting all this time is a way for gays to serve, without fear of being discharged and to make this transition as comfortable as possible.



I hope you're right; from the bottom of my heart, I hope so. But, what if you're wrong? And people die? Or, our combat strength is weakened?

I agree with allowing gays to serve (which wasn't always my position. I've turned around a little on that issue.) But, the, "I'm gay and in yer face and if you don't like it tuff ****", approach isn't worth someone's life, nor damage to our armed forces. Do you think it's worth it?
Click to expand...

People have died now. I think that it is easier for people to inflict harm on others when the system marginalizes them, making them appear less valuable, not deserving of equal treatment. We can't prevent all violence, but if we're going to have violence, let it be in the open, so that those who commit the violence can be punished in the open.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
What do you base that on?

Other militaries adapted just fine.
Click to expand...

The fact that it has been in place for 17 years without any evidence that DADT has caused any problems. It really is a simple question, military leaders have said there is a potential problem here so they admit there could be a problem, What happens if their is? Why is it you and other liberals can never accept the FACT that you just could be wrong on an issue? There are consequences for mistakes, are you willing to accept responsibility for yours?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I can't believe that the Commandant doesn't understand that sexual orientation is worth jack, when the **** hits the fan.
Click to expand...

It is, if it's a distraction, like he believes it will be. I'll be willing to bet, that he know a helluva lot more about how damaging distractions on the battlefield can be, than you do. Whatcha think?

General Amos has the navy Distinguished Service Medal, 2 Legions of Merit, A Bronze Star, The Merotirious Service Medal, The Navy Presidential Unit Citation, Navy Unit Commendation, Kosovo Campaign Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal and a Yugoslavia Campaign Medal.

I would say that his opinion rates quite a bit higher than your average DADT abolitionist.
 
Conservative said:
And it very well might not, then what?
Click to expand...

apdst said:
And, it might not--without some foresight. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", comes to mind to respond to your post.

I'll continue to beat this horse, although he's dead: if I'm wrong, then no harm is done. If you're wrong, people can die.

And, if you're wrong, you'll never hear the end of it, from me. We can be talking about pooper-scooper laws and I'm going to remind you that you were wrong and how it hurt our armed services.
Click to expand...

Replying to both since it's the same point:

There is no real evidence it won't work, and a mountain of evidence it will. It has worked for other countries, SecDef and Chairman JCS and CinC think it will work and DoD did a review of whether it will work and concluded it would. No one has yet offered any concrete evidence that it will not work.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
What do you base that on?

Other militaries adapted just fine.
Click to expand...

Two problems with your point:

1) That's them and not us.

2) How do you know everything is honkey-dory?

We can see that everything may not necessarily be, "just fine".

Head of the British Army General Sir Richard Dannatt said discrimination prevented the full contribution that is "vital for our success in operations".

Stonewall said it had yet to set up an action plan, but that it would initially focus on recruitment and retention of military personnel.

BBC NEWS | UK | Army acts to promote gay rights
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Replying to both since it's the same point:

There is no real evidence it won't work, and a mountain of evidence it will. It has worked for other countries, SecDef and Chairman JCS and CinC think it will work and DoD did a review of whether it will work and concluded it would. No one has yet offered any concrete evidence that it will not work.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence that it will work. There are theories put forth, based on polls, that suggest that; but we all know reliable polls are in the real world.

It worked for other countries?

See what the commander of the British Army had to say about how it worked for his soldiers:

discrimination prevented the full contribution that is "vital for our success in operations".
Click to expand...

Pay special attention to, "prevented the full contribution". If there's not a, "full contribution", in a firefight, someone is going to die. Someone that may not have necessarily been killed.
 
apdst said:
There's no evidence that it will work. There are theories put forth, based on polls, that suggest that; but we all know reliable polls are in the real world.

It worked for other countries?

See what the commander of the British Army had to say about how it worked for his soldiers:



Pay special attention to, "prevented the full contribution". If there's not a, "full contribution", in a firefight, someone is going to die. Someone that may not have necessarily been killed.
Click to expand...

Before I respond, please link a source for the comment.
 
Here is another indictment of abolishing DADT. A U.S. General, with extensive field experience says it's a bad idea and back it up with evidence of how a unit can become combat ineffetive.

Sheehan pointed to the Netherlands, which he said embarked on a process of social engineering in the Dutch military once the Cold War ended. "They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military. It included open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war," he said.

Sheehan backed his contention that gay soldiers undermined Dutch combat readiness by pointing to the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995. Four-hundred Dutch peacekeepers protecting the area were overwhelmed by Serbian forces, which killed an estimated 8,000 Muslim men and boys.

VOA | Retired US General: Gay Dutch Troops Contributed to Srebrenica Massacre | News | English
Click to expand...

If you wrong, people will die.
 
apdst said:
A break down in discipline and unit cohesion. A soldier doesn't provide covering fire for a gay soldier that is advancing against the enemy and that gay soldier is hosed down by the bad guys.

A straight soldier is seperated from his unit and one of his gay commrades just leaves him, because he's been picked on for being gay and the lost soldier dies.

The scenarios are virtually infinite.
Click to expand...

Your first scenario would not be prevented by DADT. A soldier could find out now that there was a gay soldier or someone that he believed was gay, and choose not to protect the gay soldier from enemy fire. In that case, the person should be punished severely for allowing his fellow soldier to die because he didn't approve of his sexuality.

Your second scenario is also not prevented by DADT. In fact, it is far more likely with DADT in place, because if the closeted gay soldier had to listen to a particular soldier express his disgust of gays day in and day out but is fearful of turning the soldier in because, during the investigation, it could be found that the accuser is actually gay and he could be discharged for doing so, then it would be much more effective for a person who really wanted to rid themselves of such a bigot, to just allow him to get killed in combat. However, that gay soldier should too be punished for allowing his fellow soldier to die because he didn't have the courage to stand up to the guy or at least find a way to turn him in or just deal with it.



apdst said:
There's where you're wrong. It is a right for a soldier to refuse to billet with other soldiers, for numerous reasons. It's covered in Ar 600-20, The Army's Command policy, "Every soldier has the right to work and live in a safe and comfortable environment, free from harassment". So, it's not just about straight soldiers refusing to billet with gay soldiers, it's also about gay soldiers refusing to billet with straight soldiers, because they have the right to, "...live in a safe and comfortable environment, free from harassment".

What are you going to say when gay soldiers refuse to billet with straight soldiers? That's soldier is a bigot? A hetero-phobe? Send him to the stockade for refusing to obey orders.

I think that alot of you, that oppose DADT, are having trouble from looking at this from more than one demension.
Click to expand...

A soldier would be required to prove that his roommate is actually harassing him. He cannot simply refuse to berth with someone just because a person is gay and the straight soldier believes that the gay guy may sexually assault him just because he is gay. There has to be documented proof that it likely to happen. And if there is proof, then the gay guy would most likely be punished for it and probably discharged for the sexual harassment.

And the gay soldier would have to have some sort of proof that his safety was threatened by the other soldier, not just his own fear that the soldier might do him harm.

There will be issues with repealing DADT, but they are not nearly as huge as you are making them out to be. Gays and straights already live together in the military.

apdst said:
Well, I think the Commandant understands that those scientific polls are worth jack, when the **** hits the fan. You can't even close a sucking chest wound with it.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with why the Cmdt has no idea what will actually happen when the **** hits the fan if he has openly gay troops in his units. In fact, he already does have gay marines who have at least admitted to some of those that they work with that they are gay. One of them came out to his buddy on my lanai in Hawaii. The buddy's reaction was "man, you too? So and so told me he was gay. What is it with all the gay marines coming out to me?" and they moved on to another subject. Most people don't really care if they have to work with gay men/women. And many of those who say that they would care, will most likely see things differently when they actually are working with openly gay men/women. There are other rules in place to deal with those who do or those gay men/women who would cause issues.
 
apdst said:
A break down in discipline and unit cohesion. A soldier doesn't provide covering fire for a gay soldier that is advancing against the enemy and that gay soldier is hosed down by the bad guys.

A straight soldier is seperated from his unit and one of his gay commrades just leaves him, because he's been picked on for being gay and the lost soldier dies.

The scenarios are virtually infinite.
Click to expand...

The scenarios are endless now and we don't see this stuff happening. People are picked on in the miltary and don't leave their bully to die. People still provide cover for those in their unit that they despise. Despite your fears, our military is professional enough to know where the line is that you don't cross.

apdst said:
There's where you're wrong. It is a right for a soldier to refuse to billet with other soldiers, for numerous reasons. It's covered in Ar 600-20, The Army's Command policy, "Every soldier has the right to work and live in a safe and comfortable environment, free from harassment". So, it's not just about straight soldiers refusing to billet with gay soldiers, it's also about gay soldiers refusing to billet with straight soldiers, because they have the right to, "...live in a safe and comfortable environment, free from harassment".

What are you going to say when gay soldiers refuse to billet with straight soldiers? That's soldier is a bigot? A hetero-phobe? Send him to the stockade for refusing to obey orders.

I think that alot of you, that oppose DADT, are having trouble from looking at this from more than one demension.
Click to expand...

And if a gay or a straight soldiers is harassing someone, the issue can be dealt with then. The mere existence of a gay soldier is not harassment though. There's no law in the miltary that gurantees you can move billets if you feel uncomfortable. Otherwise the military never would have desegregated.

apdst said:
Well, I think the Commandant understands that those scientific polls are worth jack, when the **** hits the fan. You can't even close a sucking chest wound with it.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt the Commandant would have put his full faith and support behind this study if it had the results he wanted it to.
 
Damn it. You know, I really hate it when you and another person post at the same time, saying the same thing, only they said it much better.
 
roguenuke said:
Your first scenario would not be prevented by DADT.
Click to expand...

In my professional opinion, it would.


A soldier could find out now that there was a gay soldier or someone that he believed was gay, and choose not to protect the gay soldier from enemy fire. In that case, the person should be punished severely for allowing his fellow soldier to die because he didn't approve of his sexuality.
Click to expand...

Right. Try proving that in a courts martial.

Your second scenario is also not prevented by DADT. In fact, it is far more likely with DADT in place, because if the closeted gay soldier had to listen to a particular soldier express his disgust of gays day in and day out but is fearful of turning the soldier in because, during the investigation, it could be found that the accuser is actually gay and he could be discharged for doing so, then it would be much more effective for a person who really wanted to rid themselves of such a bigot, to just allow him to get killed in combat. However, that gay soldier should too be punished for allowing his fellow soldier to die because he didn't have the courage to stand up to the guy or at least find a way to turn him in or just deal with it.
Click to expand...

In my professional opinion, it would be prevented.





A soldier would be required to prove that his roommate is actually harassing him. He cannot simply refuse to berth with someone just because a person is gay and the straight soldier believes that the gay guy may sexually assault him just because he is gay. There has to be documented proof that it likely to happen. And if there is proof, then the gay guy would most likely be punished for it and probably discharged for the sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that in the Army. Isn't your hubby in the Army? Ask him. An accusation, alone, is basis enough to go ahead with harassment charges. In those situations, the burden of proof is on the accused. You're thinking like a civilian and it just don't work like that in the service.
And the gay soldier would have to have some sort of proof that his safety was threatened by the other soldier, not just his own fear that the soldier might do him harm.

There will be issues with repealing DADT, but they are not nearly as huge as you are making them out to be. Gays and straights already live together in the military.
Click to expand...

But, what if you're wrong? Does anyone have the guts to tackle that question?



Which has nothing to do with why the Cmdt has no idea what will actually happen when the **** hits the fan if he has openly gay troops in his units. In fact, he already does have gay marines who have at least admitted to some of those that they work with that they are gay. One of them came out to his buddy on my lanai in Hawaii. The buddy's reaction was "man, you too? So and so told me he was gay. What is it with all the gay marines coming out to me?" and they moved on to another subject. Most people don't really care if they have to work with gay men/women. And many of those who say that they would care, will most likely see things differently when they actually are working with openly gay men/women. There are other rules in place to deal with those who do or those gay men/women who would cause issues.[/QUOTE]
 
Kelzie said:
Damn it. You know, I really hate it when you and another person post at the same time, saying the same thing, only they said it much better.
Click to expand...

You said it in much less words than I did.
 
Kelzie said:
The scenarios are endless now and we don't see this stuff happening. People are picked on in the miltary and don't leave their bully to die. People still provide cover for those in their unit that they despise. Despite your fears, our military is professional enough to know where the line is that you don't cross.



And if a gay or a straight soldiers is harassing someone, the issue can be dealt with then. The mere existence of a gay soldier is not harassment though. There's no law in the miltary that gurantees you can move billets if you feel uncomfortable. Otherwise the military never would have desegregated.



I have no doubt the Commandant would have put his full faith and support behind this study if it had the results he wanted it to.
Click to expand...

You're prepared to posibly make it worse?
 
apdst said:
You're prepared to posibly make it worse?
Click to expand...

:shrug: Bullying's bullying. A few people have a propensity to engage in that type of behavior, but I don't see gays being open encouraging more people to bully.
 
If I may,
the problem with being openly gay, especially on the battle field is the people fighing along side you are in their early 20's, if that.
the scenarios I saw, personally were based on "why would you want to flaunt being gay, stfu.
I may know you're gay, but if you are worthy to fight, and keep it to yourself, as I would say my belief that "Spongebob" was one of my favorite shows back home, then I would have no problem with it.
but if I was to openly talk about Spongebob episodes all the time, I would expect 20 year olds to poke fun at me from time to time.

Would they leave me to die because of it? no of course not.

but i've ran out into a firefight to drag an enemy soldier to safety too, these things know no predjudice, within reason of course.
JMO

the problem I see with the other side of the argument here is that liberals seem to want to think everyone thinks like they do
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
:shrug: Bullying's bullying. A few people have a propensity to engage in that type of behavior, but I don't see gays being open encouraging more people to bully.
Click to expand...

Well, if that were true, there wouldn't be any such thing as hate crimes laws.
 
shades said:
If I may,
the problem with being openly gay, especially on the battle field is the people fighing along side you are in their early 20's, if that.
the scenarios I saw, personally were based on "why would you want to flaunt being gay, stfu.
I may know you're gay, but if you are worthy to fight, and keep it to yourself, as I would say my belief that "Spongebob" was one of my favorite shows back home, then I would have no problem with it.
but if I was to openly talk about Spongebob episodes all the time, I would expect 20 year olds to poke fun at me from time to time.

Would they leave me to die because of it? no of course not.

but i've ran out into a firefight to drag an enemy soldier to safety too, these things know no predjudice, within reason of course.
JMO

the problem I see with the other side of the argument here is that liberals seem to want to think everyone thinks like they do
Click to expand...

At the same time, we know that that's not the case 100% of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom