• 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, don't tell" cost tops $50,000 per expulsion, study finds

:) then you should go back and read my posts.

So what experience are you actually basing your position on and could it have been dealt with by other rules already in place? Did that experience actually show a decline in unit cohesion because of the openly gay personnel in your unit?
 
Do you have proof of this... a study or something, because the petagon's study is in disagreement with your statement

His combat experience isn't enough?
 
What is that? That you guys are basing your beliefs about the problems off of fear of possible consequences, rather than actual experience with working with openly gay personnel in combat units.

I've already explained it to you until I'm blue in the face. I served in a combat arms unit, know the rules, understand how those rules will be interpreted and you still claim I don't know ****. The other ground pounders here have said the same things I've told you and you insist they are full of ****.

Whatelse is there to talk about? :rofl
 
We've already explained to you what problems are going to arise.

Could you please summarize?
Also, just because you have a hypothesis doesn't make it true.
 
bingo. because DADT was in effect.



well hells bells, i have no 'proof' (having never subjected it to experimentation) that bullets wouldn't bounce off my chest. that doesn't mean i'm going to let you blast me.

Do you guys honestly believe that a person would control their behavior because of DADT but not because of other rules in the UCMJ?

Along with this, do you honestly believe that other personnel, who do not approve of homosexuality, would turn homosexuals in for being gay under DADT or for causing problems with DADT in place, but those same personnel wouldn't turn those homosexuals in after DADT is repealed for violating other rules?
 
Do you have proof of this... a study or something, because the petagon's study is in disagreement with your statement

proof of the cost of casualties?

well, i know that the up-front cash that the NOK of a KIA can expect to recieve is $500,000. i don't know what the cost of transporting a body + a military funeral + the benefits that are extended to the survivors are, but my bet would be more than zero.
 
Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
Plenty of people have given you first hand experience working with openly gay personnel and provided polls that indicate strongly that even most combat troops who have actually worked with openly gay personnel did not find it to cause any issues.
bingo. because DADT was in effect.

Obviously it wasn't very effective if the guy was openly gay.
 
Do you guys honestly believe that a person would control their behavior because of DADT but not because of other rules in the UCMJ?

having seen precisely that on multiple occasions now, i would have to say..... yup. probably to do with the relative punishments. if we were to attach brig time to adultery, for example, that might go some ways to curing that problem.

Along with this, do you honestly believe that other personnel, who do not approve of homosexuality, would turn homosexuals in for being gay under DADT or for causing problems with DADT in place, but those same personnel wouldn't turn those homosexuals in after DADT is repealed for violating other rules?

again, yup.
 
I've already explained it to you until I'm blue in the face. I served in a combat arms unit, know the rules, understand how those rules will be interpreted and you still claim I don't know ****. The other ground pounders here have said the same things I've told you and you insist they are full of ****.

Whatelse is there to talk about? :rofl

:) well, she was in the Navy. which is totally like the infantry :).
 
:shrug: absolutely they will, the same as women do now.

sexual tension in a unit = reduced cohesion. it's almost a tautology.



(apdst: :D)

...so somebody being openly gay automatically causes sexual tension?? LOL

If you feel sexual tense around openly gay people, then I think you are probably gay and can't admit it to yourself.

I have actually worked with many openly gay people, in many different types of work enviroments. The manager I work for right now is gay, and he is without a doubt professional and right for the job. I don't think gay people are more prone to creating issues for the rest of the work force than any other professional. I have worked with some straight people who were actually unprofessional, undependable, and disruptive, moreso than the homosexuals. However, that might be because I have worked with less homosexuals. But the gay men and women I have worked for, have all been professional and great team members.

So if somebody complains that gay people are disruptive in work environments and destroy cohension, then I think the people complaining are more than likely the problem and need to look in the mirror and get over their homophobia.
 
I've already explained it to you until I'm blue in the face. I served in a combat arms unit, know the rules, understand how those rules will be interpreted and you still claim I don't know ****. The other ground pounders here have said the same things I've told you and you insist they are full of ****.

Whatelse is there to talk about? :rofl

All of your arguments are based on your experience in combat units alone. Not based on experience working with openly gay personnel in those combat units. There is a difference between the two. This argument is about what issues will most likely arise from allowing gays to serve openly and how those issues may cause casualties. You guys have no proof for your assertion that these things will happen, especially not they will happen often enough to be an actual problem.

Could allowing gays to serve openly cause deaths? Yes. Will it most likely cause deaths because of a decline of unit cohesion? Not likely, but possible. Can those deaths be blamed on the policy change? Not unless they are widespread.

Most likely the deaths that might occur will be few and far between and due to other unit personnel who disapprove of the gay personnel. This means that those people who are incapable of maintaining professionalism while in a combat situation by putting their feelings toward others aside and doing their are the ones that should be blamed, not the policy change.
 
It did happen prior to 9/11 a lot. We had a few straight guys/girls that signed paperwork in '99 to get out when school got too rough for them. By the 4th or 5th one, our Master Chief said that anyone else in our class that said that they wanted to sign the paperwork was going to have to call their mother up in his office, in front of him and explain to her exactly why the person was getting out of the military. No more signing was done in my class.

It wasn't long after that or possibly even during that time, the military started expecting people to actual prove that they were homosexual to get out that way. I'm not exactly sure what that proof had to be, but I knew at least one other person, who really was a lesbian, who was able to sign paperwork to be put out under DADT. I do know that she had to go to medical and EO a lot while she was getting out, so I think that she had to talk to someone in medical and someone in EO to prove that she really was a lesbian.

That is messed up. How can you prove your gay?

And isn't the policy designed so if somebody else knows your gay and tells, then you can get kicked out? .. and your playing by the rules, not telling

I think there was a Family Guy episode where Stewie and Brain tried to get kicked out by saying they were gay but it didn't work either... They ended up shooting each other in the foot, so using DADT just to get out has crossed a lot of people's minds. It's in so many movies..
 
having seen precisely that on multiple occasions now, i would have to say..... yup. probably to do with the relative punishments. if we were to attach brig time to adultery, for example, that might go some ways to curing that problem.

Did the issue involve a gay person who was given special treatment because they were gay? There is a big difference in how men and women in the military treat other men and women in the military vs how people treat others of a different sexuality.

Also, since DADT is in place, you can't possibly say that you have seen the thing that I described. Homosexuals are not allowed to serve openly. So, if they were causing issues and violating other UCMJ rules, then it is highly unlikely that such behavior would simply be ignored when they could easily be put out for the behavior.


again, yup.

Based on what do you believe this? I absolutely don't believe this. I believe that it is very likely that any person would turn someone in for being openly gay would also turn someone in for hitting on them or someone else, for having relationships that would be covered by fraternization rules, or for having sex while on duty. It doesn't make any sense that someone would turn a person in for just admitting that they are gay but wouldn't turn that same person in for violating other policies.
 
...so somebody being openly gay automatically causes sexual tension?

no. two people being sexually compatible causes sexual tension. as does one person being attracted to another.

I have actually worked with many openly gay people, in many different types of work enviroments. The manager I work for right now is gay, and he is without a doubt professional and right for the job.

good for him. and how often, again, do you strip down to your underwear and cuddle with your manager?
 
That is messed up. How can you prove your gay?

And isn't the policy designed so if somebody else knows your gay and tells, then you can get kicked out? .. and your playing by the rules, not telling

I think there was a Family Guy episode where Stewie and Brain tried to get kicked out by saying they were gay but it didn't work either... They ended up shooting each other in the foot, so using DADT just to get out has crossed a lot of people's minds. It's in so many movies..

It was generally done through an investigation. COs were given pretty much complete control over who was investigated for DADT violations, prior to a couple of years ago. It all depended on the CO and whether the personnel trying to get out had a history of things showing they might be gay prior to turning themselves in.

I heard of a story of some guy getting his wife to videotape him in bed with one of his buddies, pretending to have sex. I actually think that one of the three or someone else turned them in for setting up the situation, and the guys got punished but still didn't get their discharge.
 
It wasn't long after that or possibly even during that time, the military started expecting people to actual prove that they were homosexual to get out that way. I'm not exactly sure what that proof had to be, but I knew at least one other person, who really was a lesbian, who was able to sign paperwork to be put out under DADT. I do know that she had to go to medical and EO a lot while she was getting out, so I think that she had to talk to someone in medical and someone in EO to prove that she really was a lesbian.

All this goes to show is just how ridiculous, laughable, and inherently contradictory the policy is. This and the "Queen-for-a-day" rule.
 
no. two people being sexually compatible causes sexual tension. as does one person being attracted to another.

I believe this potential scenario exists whether DADT is in place or not. The gays are still there (doesn't matter if they're "open" or "secret"), and they will find each other and be attracted to each other if they so choose.
 
Last edited:
no. two people being sexually compatible causes sexual tension. as does one person being attracted to another.

Which would mean that same sexual tension would exist with DADT in place or not. People can be attracted to people and control themselves. It happens all the time.

good for him. and how often, again, do you strip down to your underwear and cuddle with your manager?

How often are you cuddling with other guys in your unit? Last I checked, you guys get bunks, even in the field, most of the time. Sometimes you might have to share a tent, but that can become uncomfortable no matter what the sexuality of the two in the tent is. Wouldn't it be uncomfortable if the straight guy next to you had a good dream and got a woody from it? Heck, my brother told me that during training, when they were sleeping in the trucks, he got kicked out of his truck for excessive flatulence. Besides, those gays have been there, sleeping those tents with the other guys the whole time DADT has been in place. If they didn't do anything with DADT in place, I honestly don't see why they would try/do something with it repealed, when there are other rules to cover such things. Plus, they take a chance, either way, that the guy that they try it with will just beat the crap out of them or kill them.
 
You have no actual proof that allowing gays to serve openly will affect unit morale or cohesion.
well hells bells, i have no 'proof' (having never subjected it to experimentation) that bullets wouldn't bounce off my chest. that doesn't mean i'm going to let you blast me.

But you've seen other people get blasted. If someone shoots you in the chest in all likelihood it won't bounce off your chest because you know what a bullet can do to you.

Likewise, other nations and militaries have gone through the same exact transition we are going through now. Essentially, they have been blasted. All of those other countries were voicing the same concerns and coming up with the same hypothetical situations that you are now. And guess what? They all pulled through. Are you saying that their experimentation wasn't enough for you? They all went through the experience and emerged realizing their chests were bulletproof.

Like I said above, just because you have a hypothesis doesn't make it true. You have to prove it. And so far the evidence contradicts your unfounded concerns.
 
Last edited:
It was generally done through an investigation. COs were given pretty much complete control over who was investigated for DADT violations, prior to a couple of years ago. It all depended on the CO and whether the personnel trying to get out had a history of things showing they might be gay prior to turning themselves in.

I heard of a story of some guy getting his wife to videotape him in bed with one of his buddies, pretending to have sex. I actually think that one of the three or someone else turned them in for setting up the situation, and the guys got punished but still didn't get their discharge.

That is funny actually... It seems like that guy could have had a "boyfriend" in the same unit and even kissed him in front of everybody, and it would have been accetable for him... so much for DADT being effective
 
proof of the cost of casualties?

well, i know that the up-front cash that the NOK of a KIA can expect to recieve is $500,000. i don't know what the cost of transporting a body + a military funeral + the benefits that are extended to the survivors are, but my bet would be more than zero.

proof of anything you said... weak cohesion and casualities

And I am not even sure how you could provide proof given that nobody has been allowed to be open about their homosexuality until now, so it seems like all speculation to me. I don't understand how such a study could have been honestly conducted.
 
no. two people being sexually compatible causes sexual tension. as does one person being attracted to another.



good for him. and how often, again, do you strip down to your underwear and cuddle with your manager?

I can manage to be professional with people I am even attracted to, can you not do the same? What is your point?
 
...so somebody being openly gay automatically causes sexual tension?? LOL

If you feel sexual tense around openly gay people, then I think you are probably gay and can't admit it to yourself.

I have actually worked with many openly gay people, in many different types of work enviroments. The manager I work for right now is gay, and he is without a doubt professional and right for the job. I don't think gay people are more prone to creating issues for the rest of the work force than any other professional. I have worked with some straight people who were actually unprofessional, undependable, and disruptive, moreso than the homosexuals. However, that might be because I have worked with less homosexuals. But the gay men and women I have worked for, have all been professional and great team members.

So if somebody complains that gay people are disruptive in work environments and destroy cohension, then I think the people complaining are more than likely the problem and need to look in the mirror and get over their homophobia.

You're in a combat arms unit and share billets with those gay employees?
 
Back
Top Bottom