• 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!

DADT cloture passes

roguenuke said:
No, but it will be more likely to happen when it is homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. One is viewed by most to be acceptable. Heck, many see it as if they could, they would. Two men getting together though (and yes, I believe the most issues will come from men, not women) is viewed as unacceptable, wrong, immoral, and/or icky by many straight men. They are much more likely to ignore a roommate having sex with a woman than they are to ignore a roommate having sex with a man. And, even if they did have issues with their roommate having sex with a woman in their room, they are much more likely to simply talk to the guy about the issue than to turn him in if they do not view the act as wrong, but just inappropriate. Not everyone will be like this, but many, who are likely to be uncomfortable with homosexuals in the first place, would do as I described.
Click to expand...

It's more likely to be reported, because it's homosexual sex vice heterosexual sex. Whether, or no it will be enforced is irrelevant. Any officer that ignores a violation of the UCMJ can find himself appearing at his own court martial for violating several articles of the UCMJ.
 
apdst said:
It's more likely to be reported, because it's homosexual sex vice heterosexual sex. Whether, or no it will be enforced is irrelevant. Any officer that ignores a violation of the UCMJ can find himself appearing at his own court martial for violating several articles of the UCMJ.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Historically commands have turned a blind eye to many UCMJ violations, and not just article 125(which has a long history of being ignored).
 
apdst said:
The DADT Bible also shows that 38% of the members of the Marine Corps say they will get out, if DADT is abolished. Can we really afford to lose 38% of the Marine Corps? Ready for national conscription?
Click to expand...

I am not sure that this is entirely accurate.

From the survey - page 54.

DADT Survey Findings

18.5% of all Service members reported they would consider leaving sooner than their current intentions if repeal occurs. This is the group of Service members who “switched”their military career intentions when considering DADT repeal. They were not considering leaving, but said repeal will cause them to “think about leaving sooner” or“leave sooner.”

Among all Service members, Marine Corps members were most likely to say they will leave sooner than planned or will consider leaving sooner than planned (38.1%)
Click to expand...

I would not equate "leaving sooner than planned" or "considering leaving sooner than planned" to equal a wholesale loss that would lead to national conscription.
 
satandog said:
I am not sure that this is entirely accurate.

From the survey - page 54.

DADT Survey Findings



I would not equate "leaving sooner than planned" or "considering leaving sooner than planned" to equal a wholesale loss that would lead to national conscription.
Click to expand...

Further, prior to the UK allowing gays to serve openly they got similar results, but the exodus never happened.
 
Redress said:
Oh come on. Historically commands have turned a blind eye to many UCMJ violations, and not just article 125(which has a long history of being ignored).
Click to expand...

Turning a blind eye to UCMJ violations is illegal. Just because officers in the past have broken the law, doesn't make it ok.

I personally never saw an officer ignore a violation of the UCMJ. Any officer that does is putting his career on the line.

I caught a soldier ass ****ing a chick in the barracks one time and had him locked myself. He was charge and convicted of an Article 125 and an Article 92 violation and dishonorably discharged. Had I just closed the door and went about my business, i would have been looking at a courts martial for violating Articles 78 accessory after the fact, 192 failure to obey and order, or regulation, and 134 all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty.

Sorry, but I wouldn't put my career on the line for some asshole that can't follow the rules. Nor, have I ever known any officer, or NCO that was worth his salt, that would.
 
apdst said:
It's more likely to be reported, because it's homosexual sex vice heterosexual sex. Whether, or no it will be enforced is irrelevant. Any officer that ignores a violation of the UCMJ can find himself appearing at his own court martial for violating several articles of the UCMJ.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. Before this recent repeal, which was most likely to be even looked into by a command, a man who received a BJ from a woman or a man who received a BJ from a man. Both are considered sodomy, yet most commands would only charge a heterosexual with that if the person was a ****bag and the command was trying to find enough against the person to get them discharged.
 
We had a good sailor who developed an alcohol problem when his wife left him. He showed up drunk a couple times. Rather than boot him out, we handled things in command and talked him into volunteering for the rehab program(forget what it is called). He never went to a UCMJ, his showing up drunk never appeared on his record.

Sex in the barracks was commonplace, and our officers knew it. We had two semi openly gay people over my time in the command, one was a yeoman who was the skippers secretary. This was prior to DADT.

I think you would be surprised at how often commands look the other way on things.
 
satandog said:
I am not sure that this is entirely accurate.

From the survey - page 54.

DADT Survey Findings



I would not equate "leaving sooner than planned" or "considering leaving sooner than planned" to equal a wholesale loss that would lead to national conscription.
Click to expand...

If everything is sop peachy in the British Army, why is the commander seeking the advice of gay rights groups to end the tension within the ranks?

BBC NEWS | UK | Army acts to promote gay rights

Besides that, this isn't the UK, nor does the British Army have the same military regulations that the United States military has.
 
apdst said:
If everything is sop peachy in the British Army, why is the commander seeking the advice of gay rights groups to end the tension within the ranks?

BBC NEWS | UK | Army acts to promote gay rights

Besides that, this isn't the UK, nor does the British Army have the same military regulations that the United States military has.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that there was tension in the ranks? They don't even mention that from what I read.
 
apdst said:
If everything is sop peachy in the British Army, why is the commander seeking the advice of gay rights groups to end the tension within the ranks?

BBC NEWS | UK | Army acts to promote gay rights

Besides that, this isn't the UK, nor does the British Army have the same military regulations that the United States military has.
Click to expand...

You used this link before and it did not go over well. It's also old news(2.5 years ago).

Your source makes no mention of retention post-gay integration, so it does not address what I said in any way. Also, while the UK does not have significant problems with gays serving that is not the same as no problem. Trying to improve is a positive trait.
 
Redress said:
We had a good sailor who developed an alcohol problem when his wife left him. He showed up drunk a couple times. Rather than boot him out, we handled things in command and talked him into volunteering for the rehab program(forget what it is called). He never went to a UCMJ, his showing up drunk never appeared on his record.

Sex in the barracks was commonplace, and our officers knew it. We had two semi openly gay people over my time in the command, one was a yeoman who was the skippers secretary. This was prior to DADT.

I think you would be surprised at how often commands look the other way on things.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you served with substandard officers.

At Fort Polk, a soldier from another platoon in my company drove a Bradley into a big ass ditch while on the gunnery range. One soldier was killed, another soldier was paralyzed from the chest down and two other soldiers had to be hospitalized. Turns out he had been drinking.

He didn't get a chance to volunteer for rehab. In fact, as far as I know, he's still in prison.

The point being, if he can't stay sober on a training mission, how can we expect him to stay sober on an actual battlefield. In the units I served in, there were no second chances for crap like that. It was too easy for someone to get killed.
 
apdst said:
If everything is sop peachy in the British Army, why is the commander seeking the advice of gay rights groups to end the tension within the ranks?

BBC NEWS | UK | Army acts to promote gay rights

Besides that, this isn't the UK, nor does the British Army have the same military regulations that the United States military has.
Click to expand...

Which regulations, that would affect this issue and are important, are different between the British military and the US military? I'm pretty sure that the main issues that servicemembers here are concerned with are housing and discrimination in the form of violence. Last I checked, the British Army houses men and women separately and gays and straights together (just like us). And, I'm pretty sure that they have rules against discrimination, especially violent discrimination/intolerance within their ranks. Is there something that I'm missing that you know about the British military that makes their ability to handle this situation easier than ours? And if so, why can't we adopt whatever they do?
 
apdst said:
Sounds like you served with substandard officers.

At Fort Polk, a soldier from another platoon in my company drove a Bradley into a big ass ditch while on the gunnery range. One soldier was killed, another soldier was paralyzed from the chest down and two other soldiers had to be hospitalized. Turns out he had been drinking.

He didn't get a chance to volunteer for rehab. In fact, as far as I know, he's still in prison.

The point being, if he can't stay sober on a training mission, how can we expect him to stay sober on an actual battlefield. In the units I served in, there were no second chances for crap like that. It was too easy for someone to get killed.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, weren't you telling me sometime in the last year that you had a guy in your unit that used drugs while on liberty but that your unit "let slide"? How is that different?
 
apdst said:
If everything is sop peachy in the British Army, why is the commander seeking the advice of gay rights groups to end the tension within the ranks?

BBC NEWS | UK | Army acts to promote gay rights

Besides that, this isn't the UK, nor does the British Army have the same military regulations that the United States military has.
Click to expand...

Well since the UK example does not apply then I suppose we could expect fewer issues here. Especially since we are better. Is that not correct?
 
Iron River said:
If someone asks you what 2+2 is and you say "H" that isn't the answer, is it?? You said something, but isn't an answer.
Click to expand...

I love it when people comment on my sig. lol Someone inevitably does stating something like you just did.

Yes it would be an answer. It might be an incorrect answer but it would still be an answer.

Iron River said:
In a spirit of fairness I ask why it is fair for homosexuals to shower with me but it isn’t allowed for me to shower with the lady nurses? As far your habit of staring at the guy next to you’s junk you might try to break that habit before you shower with a squid of combat troops. They might stomp you down the drain pipe.
Click to expand...

Personally I think that women and men should be allowed to shower together if they so wish. Maybe it would desensitize people to gender differences. Think about it, you have whole nudist camps all around the globe and they apparently don't get hung up over seeing someones private parts. According to a friend of mine who visits nudist camps regularly sex doesn't even come to his mind. Sure it did the first time he went, but apparently after an hour it never even crossed his mind. And from what I can tell it still never does.
 
roguenuke said:
Which regulations, that would affect this issue and are important, are different between the British military and the US military? I'm pretty sure that the main issues that servicemembers here are concerned with are housing and discrimination in the form of violence. Last I checked, the British Army houses men and women separately and gays and straights together (just like us). And, I'm pretty sure that they have rules against discrimination, especially violent discrimination/intolerance within their ranks. Is there something that I'm missing that you know about the British military that makes their ability to handle this situation easier than ours? And if so, why can't we adopt whatever they do?
Click to expand...


Because this isn't the British Army. This isn't Britain. We're not Britons.

We kicked their asses twice and bailed them out two more times. Why on earth would we want to mirror the British Army?
 
apdst said:
Because this isn't the British Army. This isn't Britain. We're not Britons.

We kicked their asses twice and bailed them out two more times. Why on earth would we want to mirror the British Army?
Click to expand...

You said that they didn't have the same rules that we have. I want to know why that matters. You made a claim, I am asking you to back it up.
 
satandog said:
Well since the UK example does not apply then I suppose we could expect fewer issues here. Especially since we are better. Is that not correct?
Click to expand...

I think the issues will be dealt with, but not in the way that the DADT abolitionists expect. My view on billetting are example of the procedures that will be put in place to make it easier for gays and straights to serve together.
 
roguenuke said:
Wait a minute, weren't you telling me sometime in the last year that you had a guy in your unit that used drugs while on liberty but that your unit "let slide"? How is that different?
Click to expand...

I never made that comment. You must be thinking of someone else.
 
apdst said:
I never made that comment. You must be thinking of someone else.
Click to expand...

Maybe, sorry. I know that I was talking to someone who is very against DADT repeal about this who was also in the military. I thought it was you, if not, I apologize.
 
roguenuke said:
Maybe, sorry. I know that I was talking to someone who is very against DADT repeal about this who was also in the military. I thought it was you, if not, I apologize.
Click to expand...

No, not maybe...:rofl
 
roguenuke said:
You said that they didn't have the same rules that we have. I want to know why that matters. You made a claim, I am asking you to back it up.
Click to expand...

The British Army doesn't have a sexual harassment prevetion policy that the United States does, hence the reason that 99% of the female soldiers in the British Army have reported some kind of sexual harassment. Want to adopt a lax sexual harassment policy like the Brits have?
 
apdst said:
The British Army doesn't have a sexual harassment prevetion policy that the United States does, hence the reason that 99% of the female soldiers in the British Army have reported some kind of sexual harassment. Want to adopt a lax sexual harassment policy like the Brits have?
Click to expand...

No, I want to know why you think that it has any bearing on how gays or straights will be in worse shape with such a policy and gays being able to serve openly than without such a policy or gays serving with such a policy and under DADT? Most of the problems that come from our sexual harassment policies are based on the fact that there will always be some people that abuse the policy or who assume that some are abusing the policy. This is true no matter what the policy is. And, with DADT in place, cases of harassment against a gay person are rarely reported because it opens the gay person up to scrutiny that could cause them to be discharged for doing trying to report wrongdoing.
 
apdst said:
The British Army doesn't have a sexual harassment prevetion policy that the United States does, hence the reason that 99% of the female soldiers in the British Army have reported some kind of sexual harassment. Want to adopt a lax sexual harassment policy like the Brits have?
Click to expand...

Also, I don't think that it is true that The British Army doesn't have a sexual harassment prevention policy in place at all. It may look different than the US's, but I highly doubt that they don't have one at all.
 
roguenuke said:
No, I want to know why you think that it has any bearing on how gays or straights will be in worse shape with such a policy and gays being able to serve openly than without such a policy or gays serving with such a policy and under DADT?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that adjustments are going to be made and housing will be one of those adjustments and when soldiers stop living together, unit cohesion will suffer.

Most of the problems that come from our sexual harassment policies are based on the fact that there will always be some people that abuse the policy or who assume that some are abusing the policy.
Click to expand...

100% of the sexual harassment issues exist, because male and female soldiers serve together.


And, with DADT in place, cases of harassment against a gay person are rarely reported because it opens the gay person up to scrutiny that could cause them to be discharged for doing trying to report wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

If a modified version of DADT were left in place, there would be no gay/straight sexual harassment problems. Since that's not going to be the case, the problems are going to exist.


I'm not saying any of that. All I'm saying, is that there are going to be diffferent housing arrangements within our military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom