• 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

In my professional opinion, it would.

Right. Try proving that in a courts martial.

In my professional opinion, it would be prevented.

How does DADT prevent someone from finding out or even just suspecting that someone else in their unit is gay? Since DADT specifically states that a CO is the only person who can open an investigation into a person's sexuality, it is quite possible for someone to be almost openly gay (and in some places, even completely openly gay) without being discharged under DADT, especially in certain jobs.

In fact, there are probably a lot of bigoted people out there who would willing allow a fellow servicemember to die just because they don't like a certain trait of that person. There are probably some who would allow a fellow soldier to die because they
don't like a particular person, for whatever reason. There are no rules that will ever prevent this. And DADT does nothing to reduce intolerance. In fact, it promotes it.

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.

First of all, my husband was a Marine and is currently in the Navy, as an MA. My brother was in the Army.

And, yes, an accusation is reason to open an investigation into charges of harassment, not to actually make the charges stick. And, unfortunately, a lot of time it is placed on the accused to prove their innocence, which is wrong. This is another thing about the military that is broke, but it should not prevent repealing DADT. It should mean that those accusing someone else of harassment should have some sort of proof that they were actually being harassed. Unfortunately, there is no good way to deal with this issue, unless the military started setting up cameras with complete audio recording in every space the military owns to ensure that every act of harassment is always completely caught on tape.

And I'm thinking that things should be fair for everyone, to the best extent that it can be. DADT is not fair. It needs to change. I have felt like this since before I joined the Navy, during my active Navy time, and still do during my reserve time. The military should not be promoting intolerance.

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

I don't deal in "what ifs" that have nothing to back them up. I deal in real life. I have worked with openly gay men and women aboard a US Navy aircraft carrier. I know what the results of the study showed about repealing DADT. And I know that many people fear the unknown, and that fear of the unknown is the main reason for being against repeal of DADT.
 
Because you said that being gay doesn't encourage discrimination. Actually...it does.

Being gay doesn't create a bully any more than being black does. Some people just like to pick on others, and they'll find any reason for it. If they aren't picking on the gay soldier, they'll pick on the red-haired one.
 
Because you said that being gay doesn't encourage discrimination. Actually...it does.

Actually, she said being openly gay doesn't encourage discrimination. There are always going to be people who bully/tease/harm others because the other people are different in some way. This doesn't mean that we should encourage the discrimination within our military by denying some people who are different the ability to serve without fear of discharge because some of those who don't like their difference may do them harm.
 
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.

This article is actually very positive about gays serving in the military and that the problems are solvable(Again, I don't think any one is going to say there will be zero problems). Let's look at some more quotes, first on the situation before gays could serve openly:

"Until then no-one could complain about homophobic bullying because the Army could say 'bullying is terrible, and you're sacked - thanks for bringing it to our attention'," said Mr Summerskill.

This is very analogous to the situation in our military now. If a gay gets bullied for being gay, to bring it to the attention of the command would be telling the command he is gay, and a discharge.

He said that, having spoken with serving gay military personnel, the knowledge that General Dannatt was engaging with the issue had already re-enforced their commitment to the forces.

Mr Summerskill acknowledged that, as with any large organisation, it is unrealistic to stamp out homophobic attitudes altogether, but that it was imperative to create a culture where people know that if they report bullying they will be taken seriously.

A solution to the problem is there and considering this article is from 2 years ago, our military leaders are surely aware of the situation and can use the experience of the British military to guide setting up the changeover with DADT repeal.

Finally, what you quoted:

General Dannatt said: "One of the Army's six Core Values is 'Respect for Others' and it is therefore our absolute duty to treat our fellow soldiers as we would wish to be treated ourselves.

"Discrimination against those in the Army who are lesbian, gay and bisexual does not give them a chance to contribute or to play a full part in the teams that are vital for our success on operations."

Notice what is missing: there is no details on how widespread the problem is. That is important. There are problems with any group of people. The military still deals with racial issues today. The problem is not widespread, and is well handled by the military and the people in it. Gays in the military could and probably will be much like that. There will be the occasional idiot who makes problems, but training should limit the numbers, and swift appropriate action should both reduce incidence and show that the military is serious and keep morale high.
 
Actually, she said being openly gay doesn't encourage discrimination. There are always going to be people who bully/tease/harm others because the other people are different in some way. This doesn't mean that we should encourage the discrimination within our military by denying some people who are different the ability to serve without fear of discharge because some of those who don't like their difference may do them harm.

Stop it! :lol:
 
How does DADT prevent someone from finding out or even just suspecting that someone else in their unit is gay? Since DADT specifically states that a CO is the only person who can open an investigation into a person's sexuality, it is quite possible for someone to be almost openly gay (and in some places, even completely openly gay) without being discharged under DADT, especially in certain jobs.
Obviously, nothing is fool-proof, however, I think it would go along way to lesson the shock of the transition.

In fact, there are probably a lot of bigoted people out there who would willing allow a fellow servicemember to die just because they don't like a certain trait of that person. There are probably some who would allow a fellow soldier to die because they
don't like a particular person, for whatever reason. There are no rules that will ever prevent this. And DADT does nothing to reduce intolerance. In fact, it promotes it.

There's no way it can promote it, unless you're suggesting that the quicker we force soldiers to accept gay soldiers serving openly, the quicker we'll weed out the homophobes. More of the same ole, "in yo face", crap? Make them homophobes pay?



First of all, my husband was a Marine and is currently in the Navy, as an MA. My brother was in the Army.

My mistake.

And, yes, an accusation is reason to open an investigation into charges of harassment, not to actually make the charges stick. And, unfortunately, a lot of time it is placed on the accused to prove their innocence, which is wrong. This is another thing about the military that is broke, but it should not prevent repealing DADT. It should mean that those accusing someone else of harassment should have some sort of proof that they were actually being harassed. Unfortunately, there is no good way to deal with this issue, unless the military started setting up cameras with complete audio recording in every space the military owns to ensure that every act of harassment is always completely caught on tape.

Not only that, convicted, or not, the case becomes a permanent part of a soldier's record, that will be seen everytime that he goes up for promotion.

And I'm thinking that things should be fair for everyone, to the best extent that it can be. DADT is not fair. It needs to change. I have felt like this since before I joined the Navy, during my active Navy time, and still do during my reserve time. The military should not be promoting intolerance.

The ban on gays isn't fair. Leaving a modified version of DADT in place would make things more fair, after the ban has been lifted.



I don't deal in "what ifs" that have nothing to back them up. I deal in real life. I have worked with openly gay men and women aboard a US Navy aircraft carrier. I know what the results of the study showed about repealing DADT. And I know that many people fear the unknown, and that fear of the unknown is the main reason for being against repeal of DADT.

You need to stop saying that everything is going to be fine, because real life tells us that it won't be.
 
This article is actually very positive about gays serving in the military and that the problems are solvable(Again, I don't think any one is going to say there will be zero problems). Let's look at some more quotes, first on the situation before gays could serve openly:



This is very analogous to the situation in our military now. If a gay gets bullied for being gay, to bring it to the attention of the command would be telling the command he is gay, and a discharge.



A solution to the problem is there and considering this article is from 2 years ago, our military leaders are surely aware of the situation and can use the experience of the British military to guide setting up the changeover with DADT repeal.

Finally, what you quoted:



Notice what is missing: there is no details on how widespread the problem is. That is important. There are problems with any group of people. The military still deals with racial issues today. The problem is not widespread, and is well handled by the military and the people in it. Gays in the military could and probably will be much like that. There will be the occasional idiot who makes problems, but training should limit the numbers, and swift appropriate action should both reduce incidence and show that the military is serious and keep morale high.

I guess that's why the British Army has to ban together with gay rights groups, because there's so much gay tolerance within the ranks?
 
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.



If you wrong, people will die.

This is an old story that was thoroughly debunked at the time it came out. He based his claim on the hearsay evidence of Dutch officers, but no so officer has turned up. When the Dutch investigated it, they found a completely different set of reasons for the massacre. The events surrounding the Srebrenica massacre have been investigated many times, and no investigation has ever held that low morale due to homosexuals serving was in any way a pat of the problem, or that it was even the case that morale was low due to homosexuals serving.
 
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.

Happens to me alot. I are not gud with words.
 
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?

Evidence?

This guy:

6a00d8341c730253ef0134885d3615970c-800wi
 
I guess that's why the British Army has to ban together with gay rights groups, because there's so much gay tolerance within the ranks?

Not alot of trouble, and solvable problems is not the same thing as no problem nor does it mean there is not room for improvement.
 
How does DADT prevent someone from finding out or even just suspecting that someone else in their unit is gay? Since DADT specifically states that a CO is the only person who can open an investigation into a person's sexuality, it is quite possible for someone to be almost openly gay (and in some places, even completely openly gay) without being discharged under DADT, especially in certain jobs.
Obviously, nothing is fool-proof, however, I think it would go along way to lesson the shock of the transition.



There's no way it can promote it, unless you're suggesting that the quicker we force soldiers to accept gay soldiers serving openly, the quicker we'll weed out the homophobes. More of the same ole, "in yo face", crap? Make them homophobes pay?





My mistake.



Not only that, convicted, or not, the case becomes a permanent part of a soldier's record, that will be seen everytime that he goes up for promotion.



The ban on gays isn't fair. Leaving a modified version of DADT in place would make things more fair, after the ban has been lifted.





You need to stop saying that everything is going to be fine, because real life tells us that it won't be.

DADT, for the past 17 years, was the transition. There will be a bit more after its repeal, but it will be mostly in training and figuring out how to effectively handle those incidents that do arise when someone doesn't approve of another person being open about their sexuality. Not something that is insurmountable.

And I haven't said that everything will be fine. What I have said numerous times, is that there will be some issues and problems that arise, but none of them will be as bad as you or others that are against repeal are making them out to be.
 
Evidence of what? A substandard officer?

Being gay makes you sub-standard now? Maybe that's why you think treating homosexuals like second class citizens is "not broken".
 
Even without facts, opinions still matter in debate; why do you think evolutionists are allowed to debate here?

While this is a whole other debate, evolution, while still a theory, is supported by huge amounts of scientific fact. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a guess.

To the OP: I wouldn't have said "bad guys." "Misguided and amoral" would seem less inflammatory and appropriate imo.

Among my reasons for supporting DADT, one would be based on what Britain is foinf to its troops. Forcing them to act as homosexuals. Are we naive enough to think that won't happen here? Perversion, at an intensifying rate, is why I support DADT.

Once again, do you have anything close to proof? Homosexuals aren't perverts who want to rape you and turn you gay and indoctrinate children. I know many gay people, and am close friends with some and I'm sure they don't want to rape me and turn me gay. This bigoted claim that homosexuals are perverted sexual deviants is totally wrong.
 
Evidence of what? A substandard officer?

No. He was a war hero. He happened to be gay and had his email hacked and read. They found he had sent emails to his boyfriend and they dishonorably discharged him. To be quite frank, you disgust me. To say someone is less of a person because of their sexual orientation is an awful thing to say. DADT is nothing more than a front for bigotry and that statement proved it
 
Being gay doesn't create a bully any more than being black does. Some people just like to pick on others, and they'll find any reason for it. If they aren't picking on the gay soldier, they'll pick on the red-haired one.

stop making our point for us..

after all, nothing is true for everyone, nothing all conclusive.

your "red head" example would be the work of a person truly just looking to bully.

why do you keep using bullying as the example by the way.
Did you read somewhere that would be the case...or is that the oddity you compare the red head analogy to.?
I opine the reason for dont ask dont tell is the comfort level being a distraction in a venue needing no unecessary distraction.

the reason why dont ask dont tell works is just what it says.
who cares, unless you flaunt it.
I dont think anyone would care if I attended an athiest convention as long as I didnt mention Christ as my lord and savoir.
people that dont feel comfortable around "openly" acting gays arent going to be made to just because you pass a law that says they have to.
 
Last edited:
stop making our point for us..

after all, nothing is true for everyone, nothing all conclusive.

your "red head" example would be the work of a person truly just looking to bully.

why do you keep using bullying as the example by the way.
Did you read somewhere that would be the case...or is that the oddity you compare the red head analogy to.?
I opine the reason for dont ask dont tell is the comfort level being a distraction in a venue needing no unecessary distraction.

the reason why dont ask dont tell works is just what it says.
who cares, unless you flaunt it.
I dont think anyone would care if I attended an athiest convention as long as I didnt mention Christ as my lord and savoir.
people that dont feel comfortable around "openly" acting gays arent going to be made to just because you pass a law that says they have to.

It's not working for those who can't be themselves and talk about the ones they love.
 
Being gay makes you sub-standard now? Maybe that's why you think treating homosexuals like second class citizens is "not broken".

Of course you think that's what it means.

But, actually, I'm talking about how be violated Army regulations in his crusade against DADT.

Here is a photgraph of Lt. Choi attending a political rally, in uniform. A violation of Army Regulations.

Lt_-Choi-at-NatlEqualityMarch.jpg


Another photograph of Lt. Choi egaging in unauthorized political speech. Another violation of Army Regulations.

Dan_Choi_Speaking2.jpg


And, another of Lt. Choi enagaging in political activities, while in uniform. Again, an illegal act, in accordance with Army Regulations.

news-dan-choi-jim-pietrangelo-white-house-protest-detail.jpg



Any officer that doesn't conduct himself IAW with the regulations and laws of the United States military, is a piece of **** and therefore a substandard officer. It doesn't matter which regulation and laws that are being violated.
 
stop making our point for us..

after all, nothing is true for everyone, nothing all conclusive.

your "red head" example would be the work of a person truly just looking to bully.

why do you keep using bullying as the example by the way.
Did you read somewhere that would be the case...or is that the oddity you compare the red head analogy to.?
I opine the reason for dont ask dont tell is the comfort level being a distraction in a venue needing no unecessary distraction.

the reason why dont ask dont tell works is just what it says.
who cares, unless you flaunt it.
I dont think anyone would care if I attended an athiest convention as long as I didnt mention Christ as my lord and savoir.
people that dont feel comfortable around "openly" acting gays arent going to be made to just because you pass a law that says they have to.

No one has a right to be comfortable during their time in the military. A person's religion may make others uncomfortable during wartime, doesn't prevent people of certain religions from serving openly. A guy's preference in women may make some that he works with uncomfortable, doesn't prevent people with such preferences from serving. Even a person's race may make some people uncomfortable, and that doesn't prevent people any longer of a certain race from serving in the military, in the same units that may be uncomfortable with their race.
 
Any officer that doesn't conduct himself IAW with the regulations and laws of the United States military, is a piece of **** and therefore a substandard officer. It doesn't matter which regulation and laws that are being violated.

I think he is an uber sexy substandard officer. :)
 
stop making our point for us..

after all, nothing is true for everyone, nothing all conclusive.

your "red head" example would be the work of a person truly just looking to bully.

why do you keep using bullying as the example by the way.
Did you read somewhere that would be the case...or is that the oddity you compare the red head analogy to.?
I opine the reason for dont ask dont tell is the comfort level being a distraction in a venue needing no unecessary distraction.

Because that's what apdst and I were talking about? I find I insert my foot in my mouth a lot less often if I read the last few pages of the thread. At the very least, look at what I was responding to before you wonder why I brought it up.

the reason why dont ask dont tell works is just what it says.
who cares, unless you flaunt it.
I dont think anyone would care if I attended an athiest convention as long as I didnt mention Christ as my lord and savoir.
people that dont feel comfortable around "openly" acting gays arent going to be made to just because you pass a law that says they have to.

How exactly do you define flaunting it? Cause I don't consider mentioning my husband "flaunting" my heterosexuality, but gays are apparently held to a different standard.

And as long as they continue to act professionally, I don't care if they're uncomfortable.
 
Of course you think that's what it means.

But, actually, I'm talking about how be violated Army regulations in his crusade against DADT.

Here is a photgraph of Lt. Choi attending a political rally, in uniform. A violation of Army Regulations.

Lt_-Choi-at-NatlEqualityMarch.jpg


Another photograph of Lt. Choi egaging in unauthorized political speech. Another violation of Army Regulations.

Dan_Choi_Speaking2.jpg


And, another of Lt. Choi enagaging in political activities, while in uniform. Again, an illegal act, in accordance with Army Regulations.

news-dan-choi-jim-pietrangelo-white-house-protest-detail.jpg



Any officer that doesn't conduct himself IAW with the regulations and laws of the United States military, is a piece of **** and therefore a substandard officer. It doesn't matter which regulation and laws that are being violated.

Your time line is all wrong. He was discharged after he came out on Rachel Maddow's show in March 2009. Those rallies were after his discharge.
 
Of course you think that's what it means.

But, actually, I'm talking about how be violated Army regulations in his crusade against DADT.

Here is a photgraph of Lt. Choi attending a political rally, in uniform. A violation of Army Regulations.


Another photograph of Lt. Choi egaging in unauthorized political speech. Another violation of Army Regulations.


And, another of Lt. Choi enagaging in political activities, while in uniform. Again, an illegal act, in accordance with Army Regulations.


Any officer that doesn't conduct himself IAW with the regulations and laws of the United States military, is a piece of **** and therefore a substandard officer. It doesn't matter which regulation and laws that are being violated.

Is he active duty? :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom