• 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!

House approves repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'(edited)

Kelzie said:
Ooo, disaster is a strong word.
Click to expand...

Yes, and until I am convinced otherwise, that is what a repeal of DADT will be for the military and our national security.

Kelzie said:
The military does indeed have a job to do, and I am the first person who will say that if a person's sexuality is getting in the way of their performance, they don't belong in the military.
Click to expand...
We agree here.

Kelzie said:
However, it's not unreasonable to allow soldiers to have their family as their support base. And soldiers do talk about their families/girlfriends/weekend hookups as a way of bonding with each other. I think it's unreasonable to not allow gay soliders to have the same support.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I agree with you but I still think a repeal of DADT will be a disaster for our military because of the lawsuits that will follow.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Yes, and until I am convinced otherwise, that is what a repeal of DADT will be for the military and our national security.

We agree here.

Fair enough. I agree with you but I still think a repeal of DADT will be a disaster for our military because of the lawsuits that will follow.
Click to expand...

What lawsuits are you worried about?
 
Two questions:

1: why do you think it will be a disaster?

2: are you or where you in the service? If so, I got some followup questions.
 
Kelzie said:
What lawsuits are you worried about?
Click to expand...

Founded and unfounded discrimination claims, the right to have breast implants for males or other surgery, men/women/gay restroom and barracks issues, hormone drugs, etc.

Good grief, is there anything the gay community hasn’t sued over yet?

Congress can’t responsibly repeal DADT without dealing with the underlying dangers to the military. Particularly with a charade “shove it through at the last second so we can tell our base ‘we tried’” lame duck congress that didn’t give a crap about the issue until last week.

The only urgency with DADT is to repeal it before the Democrats total domination/power is gone.

My question to you is: Why would you support it being forced through in an emergency fashion without transparent debate so the American people can understand the effects and cost this will have on our military?
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
Founded and unfounded discrimination claims, the right to have breast implants for males or other surgery, men/women/gay restroom and barracks issues, hormone drugs, etc.

Good grief, is there anything the gay community hasn’t sued over yet?

Congress can’t responsibly repeal DADT without dealing with the underlying dangers to the military. Particularly with a charade “shove it through at the last second so we can tell our base ‘we tried’” lame duck congress that didn’t give a crap about the issue until last week.

The only urgency with DADT is to repeal it before the Democrats total domination/power is gone.

My question to you is: Why would you support it being forced through in an emergency fashion without transparent debate so the American people can understand the effects and cost this will have on our military?
Click to expand...

There is no "right to have breast implants." The military does not pay for cosmetic surgery, male, female, gay, straight. I also don't see sleeping/showering arrangements leading to law suits. If someone is harassed, they are punished, same as it's always been. As far as discrimination claims, it could happen. It happens to other minorities in the military, but that's not a reason to not let them serve. There is already a system in place to deal with it.

As far as it being forced through in an emergency fashion, we already waited for a study to come back with favorable results. What more could you want? How many other laws do we commission studies for about their impact?
 
Redress said:
Two questions:

1: why do you think it will be a disaster?

2: are you or where you in the service? If so, I got some followup questions.
Click to expand...

I think it will be a disaster because lawyers will come up with countless reasons to sue.

I was never able to serve. I tried to join the Air Force but couldn’t. I had both eardrums ruptured during my freshman year in high-school and I was honest in disclosing that information

IMHO wouldn’t have prevented me from being a great pilot but it was enough to keep me out.
 
Kelzie said:
There is no "right to have breast implants." The military does not pay for cosmetic surgery, male, female, gay, straight.
Click to expand...

Actually, they have paid for breast implants for some women, they said for self esteem issues. I don't think its right, but it was happening while I was on active duty (not sure if they are still doing it). It wasn't really a "right" that women could get them, but it was more of a sign up sheet type deal.

As for the rest of your post, I completely agree and would have posted right behind/ahead of you again if my 3 year old hadn't have deleted it before I could get it posted.
 
Re: DADT repeal still has a shot!

Navy Pride said:
We are talking about a law here Redress........Everyone is not liberal like you.........as I said some people by their religeous upbringing hate homosexuality.........They did not join the military to be around gays serving openly..........If the gov opts out then they should be allowed to do so to....
Click to expand...

What religions hate gays as part of their doctrine?
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, they have paid for breast implants for some women, they said for self esteem issues. I don't think its right, but it was happening while I was on active duty (not sure if they are still doing it). It wasn't really a "right" that women could get them, but it was more of a sign up sheet type deal.

As for the rest of your post, I completely agree and would have posted right behind/ahead of you again if my 3 year old hadn't have deleted it before I could get it posted.
Click to expand...

Last I heard they'd pay for breast reductions if it was causing issues with PT, but that's it.
 
Kelzie said:
Last I heard they'd pay for breast reductions if it was causing issues with PT, but that's it.
Click to expand...

They started offering breast enlargements sometime around 2005 (give or take a year). Like I said, I don't know how long it lasted or if it is still happening, but it came up as a big issue when I was on active duty because many guys thought that it was unfair (and I agreed with them). The reasoning behind it came out as it would work double duty to raise the self esteem of some female servicemembers and provide a bit of surgery training for field doctors (don't ask me how breast implants are like field surgery because I really don't know).

I found a link and story.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/07/26/040726ta_talk_schaler
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
There is no "right to have breast implants." The military does not pay for cosmetic surgery, male, female, gay, straight. I also don't see sleeping/showering arrangements leading to law suits. If someone is harassed, they are punished, same as it's always been. As far as discrimination claims, it could happen. It happens to other minorities in the military, but that's not a reason to not let them serve. There is already a system in place to deal with it.

As far as it being forced through in an emergency fashion, we already waited for a study to come back with favorable results. What more could you want? How many other laws do we commission studies for about their impact?
Click to expand...

You prove my point.

You already want the military to fund implants for gay male soldiers.
 
GPS_Flex said:
You prove my point.

You already want the military to fund implants for gay male soldiers.
Click to expand...

You are one of those that believes that only gay men are crossdressers aren't you? Got some news for you, some straight men are just as likely to want breast implants as some gay men are. There are straight male crossdressers too.
 
roguenuke said:
You are one of those that believes that only gay men are crossdressers aren't you? Got some news for you, some straight men are just as likely to want breast implants as some gay men are. There are straight male crossdressers too.
Click to expand...

Ughh...Whatever. I made my point clear: The lawsuits that will follow if this isn't done right will cripple the US military.

I just don’t see why this law needs to be shoved through right now without checks and balances that will protect our military force.

I honestly don’t give a crap about why cross dressers do what they do. Neither do most soldiers. It isn't a social network you know?
 
GPS_Flex said:
Ughh...Whatever. I made my point clear: The lawsuits that will follow if this isn't done right will cripple the US military.
Click to expand...

Exactly. One of the main reasons why people should support repeal.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Thanks for the input Einstein.

Who will sue the military if this isn’t passed?
Click to expand...

You aren't very aware of the news, are ya?

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

DADT was found unconstitutional. That means the higher courts could strike it down if Congress does not. That means that the policy will stop being enforced immediately and the military will have no time to prepare for it. It also means all those lawsuits you fear will have an even stronger case because the higher courts will rule that their constitutional rights were violated.

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/12/13/third-dadt-lawsuit-filed-sldn-threatens-more/
 
Last edited:
DADT won’t pass in the Senate because as lame and power hungry as our representatives are, they know repeal of DADT isn’t sufficient without some rules and restrictions.

The House didn’t care because it was sucking up to the left and knew it would never pass in the Senate.

This is an excellent example of your tax dollars being wasted by politicians playing politics. DADT can’t be repealed without a few legal wrinkles being ironed out first.
 
GPS_Flex said:
DADT won’t pass in the Senate because as lame and power hungry as our representatives are, they know repeal of DADT isn’t sufficient without some rules and restrictions.

The House didn’t care because it was sucking up to the left and knew it would never pass in the Senate.

This is an excellent example of your tax dollars being wasted by politicians playing politics. DADT can’t be repealed without a few legal wrinkles being ironed out first.
Click to expand...

It will most likely be struck down by the courts.
 
CriticalThought said:
You aren't very aware of the news, are ya?

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

DADT was found unconstitutional. That means the higher courts could strike it down if Congress does not. That means that the policy will stop being enforced immediately and the military will have no time to prepare for it. It also means all those lawsuits you fear will have an even stronger case because the higher courts will rule that their constitutional rights were violated.

Third DADT lawsuit filed; SLDN threatens more | Keen News Service
Click to expand...

HOLY COW!!!!! Are you for real????

OK, I'm being sarcastic.

That court ruling means nothing until it comes from SCOTUS and everyone knows that.
 
CriticalThought said:
It will most likely be struck down by the courts.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. I'd take my chances with SCOTUS if I were a Senator. That's my opinion.

I didn't notice your LGBT source until I posted. That's just comical.
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
That is your opinion. I'd take my chances with SCOTUS if I were a Senator. That's my opinion.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS will tie on it since Kagan will stand out. It'll be the Appeals court ruling that will decide it. And if you were a Senator who genuinely cared about the military then you would repeal it. It sounds like you wuold be a Senator more concerned politics.
 
CriticalThought said:
SCOTUS will tie on it since Kagan will stand out. It'll be the Appeals court ruling that will decide it. And if you were a Senator who genuinely cared about the military then you would repeal it. It sounds like you wuold be a Senator more concerned politics.
Click to expand...

So you think we should open the military up to unlimited lawsuits?
 
GPS_Flex said:
HOLY COW!!!!! Are you for real????

OK, I'm being sarcastic.

That court ruling means nothing until it comes from SCOTUS and everyone knows that.
Click to expand...

Actually this is not true. The court rulings have limited effect before SCOTUS, but the do have an effect.
 
GPS_Flex said:
DADT won’t pass in the Senate because as lame and power hungry as our representatives are, they know repeal of DADT isn’t sufficient without some rules and restrictions.

The House didn’t care because it was sucking up to the left and knew it would never pass in the Senate.

This is an excellent example of your tax dollars being wasted by politicians playing politics. DADT can’t be repealed without a few legal wrinkles being ironed out first.
Click to expand...

Actually if it makes it to a vote, it has a very good chance of passage. 5 Republicans have openly supported repeal of DADT and voted against it due to other reasons.

By the way, there will be rules in place, and the bill gives the military time to get ready for the change.
 
GPS_Flex said:
So you think we should open the military up to unlimited lawsuits?
Click to expand...

Actually you have it all wrong. If the courts determine that it is unconstitutional the you would face unlimited lawsuits. If the repeal passes, then you would face very few such lawsuits. The reason is because the former would find that the constitutional rights of about 15,000 people had been violated, whereas the latter would mean that the policy is simply ended and anyone who wishes to re-enlist can do so.

Trust me, you really, really want Congress to repeal this, because if it the courts overturn it, you will have a lawsuit ****storm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom