• 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!

Gays in the Military

Should the law be changed so that gays can serve openly in the military.

  • Yes, do it now

    Votes: 65 67.7%

  • Yes, but after the Pentagon completes it study on the issue

    Votes: 9 9.4%

  • No, do not change the law

    Votes: 12 12.5%

  • No, DADT should be repealed and gays not allowed to serve at all

    Votes: 3 3.1%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 7 7.3%
  • Total voters
    96
roguenuke said:
Doctors? Seriously? I'm pretty sure there are openly gay doctors. I don't even think it's legal for a hospital to fire a doctor for being gay.

Actually, really it is that simple. Even the berthing issue. Straight and gay men and women already share berthings and heads.

As I've pointed out in other threads before, there are few times when many military personnel will actually have to share a shower or even really be naked for a considerable amount of time in front of others. Open bay showers are not common in the military. According to my husband, who has been in combat zones, they really aren't even common in those areas. Boot camp you have open bay showers, but from my experience in boot camp, 20 people have about 2 min to use 6 shower heads to completely wash their bodies (and this was the Navy). The only thing you are worried about in a boot camp shower is getting as clean as possible as fast as possible, gay or straight. Normally, military members do not actually share showers.

Berthing is different, but not exactly hard to regulate. Having sex on duty is still punishable. Raping or attempting to rape or sexually assaulting someone is still punishable. It doesn't matter what the sexuality of the person is. Inappropriate relationships are still punishable.

And besides all this, most of the homosexuals are not going to be flaunting themselves as homosexuals, even when they are allowed to serve openly. The social stigma attached with being gay isn't going to just go away. Many homosexuals may keep themselves in the closet on-duty voluntarily just to fit in. The biggest difference will be that they won't have to worry about something slipping about them actually being gay. They won't have to worry about getting turned in, and subsequently kicked out because someone seen them out in town with someone they are dating. They
Click to expand...

Of course there are openly gay doctors. You have missed the point I was making.

First, God Bless your husband, but has he spent months on end at sea on a ship or submarine? There berthing situations in the military with which you and your husband are unfamiliar. Many of which I have experienced in my 22 years in the Navy.

Second, I think you've misunderstood me. I am not speaking against repealing DADT. Personally I could care less what anyone does with their free time. What I am saying is, the public and congress needs to understand that the service chiefs are going to need some time to work this out.

Third, every ship in the US Navy is open bay for the enlisted folks. So actually, really, it's not that simple.
 
Caine said:
Ive already stated, and you've responded to such, that I believe the military is capable of handling it at this point.

To suggest that soldiers are robots who follow orders regardless though, that is where I disagree.
Click to expand...

That's a fair critique of what I wrote, Caine.

That's not quite what I meant though either. I just didn't write out the elaborate answer - which I now feel obliged to do.

When a soldier knows that part of his job is accepting his fellow soldiers, they will do so. That's what they're taught, and it's what they believe. You have a star on your profile. So do I. I'm not saying anything either of the two of us don't already fully understand.

Soldiers will accept other soldiers. Period.

If those soldiers are black, other soldiers will accept them.
If those soldiers are Jews, other soldiers will accept them.
If those soldiers are women, other soldiers will accept them.

And if those soldiers are gay, other soldiers will accept them.

Because soldiers don't care about much beyond, "This is my ally. This is part of my unit. This is my fellow soldier, and we're going to do our job."

That is what I meant to say.

I in no way intended to portray the modern soldier as an automaton. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The modern soldier is very independent, very intelligent, highly trained and well-educated not just in their craft but in deep analysis of almost all facets of their world. They are enlightened and educated, hard working and disciplined. The modern soldier is anything but a drone, and I apologize if I gave the impression that I felt otherwise.
 
Alastor said:
That's a fair critique of what I wrote, Caine.

That's not quite what I meant though either. I just didn't write out the elaborate answer - which I now feel obliged to do.

When a soldier knows that part of his job is accepting his fellow soldiers, they will do so. That's what they're taught, and it's what they believe. You have a star on your profile. So do I. I'm not saying anything either of the two of us don't already fully understand.

Soldiers will accept other soldiers. Period.

If those soldiers are black, other soldiers will accept them.
If those soldiers are Jews, other soldiers will accept them.
If those soldiers are women, other soldiers will accept them.

And if those soldiers are gay, other soldiers will accept them.

Because soldiers don't care about much beyond, "This is my ally. This is part of my unit. This is my fellow soldier, and we're going to do our job."

That is what I meant to say.

I in no way intended to portray the modern soldier as an automaton. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The modern soldier is very independent, very intelligent, highly trained and well-educated not just in their craft but in deep analysis of almost all facets of their world. They are enlightened and educated, hard working and disciplined. The modern soldier is anything but a drone, and I apologize if I gave the impression that I felt otherwise.
Click to expand...




this is not always true. I refused orders that were illegal twice.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
this is not always true. I refused orders that were illegal twice.
Click to expand...

Good on ya'.

Panda bears mate once every seven years.


While admirable (and I'm being serious), neither your statement nor my last statement have anything to do with the topic at hand, as such an order would not be illegal.
 
winston53660 said:
Yep......


Everybody already knows gays are serving under DADT. Sex is still illegal on base except for married people. All this means is if a gay soldier goes home to a same sex partner they have no worries of getting discharged for that.
Click to expand...

where did you get this ridiculous information? Sex is only illegal in combat zones where getting pregnant puts the mother at risk.
 
Alastor said:
Good on ya'.

Panda bears mate once every seven years.


While admirable (and I'm being serious), neither your statement nor my last statement have anything to do with the topic at hand, as such an order would not be illegal.
Click to expand...




Well, the point was, your all or nothing argument, is not different than your oppositions. Just like this forum, some of us were for it, some were against it, and some like myself simply didn't care. That said. Not all would "Accept it" some would not re-enlist, some would try to get out, and some would simply put up with it.


And you talk about those of us who served in actual combat type units as if we somehow are different than others. I'll tell you what. When I was throwing JDAMS around, I didn't give a **** where the dood laying down cover was sticking his junk during his off time.... I couldn't say the same for others though, and knew several who would.


Humans are humans.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Well, the point was, your all or nothing argument, is not different than your oppositions. Just like this forum, some of us were for it, some were against it, and some like myself simply didn't care. That said. Not all would "Accept it" some would not re-enlist, some would try to get out, and some would simply put up with it.
Click to expand...

A fair critique. I've used a blanket statement where it would be more appropriate to use "some, many, most" and so on.

I don't believe that undermines my point.


And you talk about those of us who served in actual combat type units as if we somehow are different than others. I'll tell you what. When I was throwing JDAMS around, I didn't give a **** where the dood laying down cover was sticking his junk during his off time.... I couldn't say the same for others though, and knew several who would.

Humans are humans.
Click to expand...


You're right that some would leave the military as a result of the new policy. That would open the way for new talent, potentially better talent, to come in. The military is also back-logged. My nephew is currently on the waiting list to become a Marine. It'll be nine months before he even gets a chance to be taken. They're that backed up.

The Air Force and Navy had similar lines. The Army could get him in right away...


::cough::



I don't think the idea that some folks either couldn't or wouldn't adapt to modernity in the military is a reason to not modernize the military.




mac said:
where did you get this ridiculous information? Sex is only illegal in combat zones where getting pregnant puts the mother at risk.
Click to expand...

It's illegal?

News to me... I know several more felons than I thought I did then. That's funny.
 
Last edited:
Alastor said:
You're right that some would leave the military as a result of the new policy. That would open the way for new talent, potentially better talent, to come in. The military is also back-logged. My nephew is currently on the waiting list to become a Marine. It'll be nine months before he even gets a chance to be taken. They're that backed up.


The Air Force and Navy had similar lines. The Army could get him in right away...


::cough::
Click to expand...


Potentially better, potentially worse. You can't put a shine on something that is an unknown. :shrug:




as for a backlog, I'm not to sure about that. We had two kids sign up from our jits school and there was no delay whatsoever for the Marines.



I don't think the idea that some folks either couldn't or wouldn't adapt to modernity in the military is a reason to not modernize the military.
Click to expand...



I have no issue with repealing DADT, I just don't think messing with it during 2 wars is in the best interest of the force.


DADT, in reality had little effect on policy anyway.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
as for a backlog, I'm not to sure about that. We had two kids sign up from our jits school and there was no delay whatsoever for the Marines.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it depends on the MOS. All I know is I begged the recruiter to get the kid out of my house ASAP (do you know what it costs to feed a 19 year-old these days?), and he said the best he could do was nine months.

I have no issue with repealing DADT, I just don't think messing with it during 2 wars is in the best interest of the force.
Click to expand...

Again, on one hand I agree with you. There's no need to exacerbate their already daunting plight.

On the other hand, it's not really ever an ideal time, and if not now, when?

Beyond that, our government has pretty much crapped all over the current generation of soldiers, so I don't see that this would be a major impact compared to 36 month deployments, inadequate weapons, armor, housing, food, medical support, psyschological support, absence of training or mismanaged military policy.

Again, I think that for the vast majority of our soldiers, this is the least of their problems.

DADT, in reality had little effect on policy anyway.
Click to expand...

True. I don't ever recall any of us actually giving two craps about the policy one way or another. Underneath the politics, the soldiers are human - just as you said.
 
Alastor said:
Perhaps it depends on the MOS. All I know is I begged the recruiter to get the kid out of my house ASAP (do you know what it costs to feed a 19 year-old these days?), and he said the best he could do was nine months.
Click to expand...


That is what I was thinking.



Again, on one hand I agree with you. There's no need to exacerbate their already daunting plight.

On the other hand, it's not really ever an ideal time, and if not now, when?
Click to expand...


When our troops are home from afghanistan and Iraq. 1998 would have been a good year. :shrug:


Beyond that, our government has pretty much crapped all over the current generation of soldiers, so I don't see that this would be a major impact compared to 36 month deployments, inadequate weapons, armor, housing, food, medical support, psyschological support, absence of training or mismanaged military policy.
Click to expand...


:lol: you think its only the current generation? this has been so since before the roman empire.



Again, I think that for the vast majority of our soldiers, this is the least of their problems.



True. I don't ever recall any of us actually giving two craps about the policy one way or another. Underneath the politics, the soldiers are human - just as you said.
Click to expand...



The only thing I remember being pissed about, was that some dirtbag draft dodgers first move as POTUS was to meddle with the military.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
When our troops are home from afghanistan and Iraq. 1998 would have been a good year. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. That would have been a good time, though that may have been "too much, too soon" too.

I also don't think we foresaw our current military situation at the time, and thought that at a time of relative peace and stability we'd be good to go for a few more years.

The only thing I remember being pissed about, was that some dirtbag draft dodgers first move as POTUS was to meddle with the military.
Click to expand...

I never thought I'd have to ask this, but, "To which President do you refer?"

I know at least two that fit that description.
 
Alastor said:
Yeah, I agree. That would have been a good time, though that may have been "too much, too soon" too.

I also don't think we foresaw our current military situation at the time, and thought that at a time of relative peace and stability we'd be good to go for a few more years.
Click to expand...



Any time during the brac as well... as we were retiring folks early, that would have been the time.


I never thought I'd have to ask this, but, "To which President do you refer?"

I know at least two that fit that description.
Click to expand...



The one who put DADT in place.
 
Alastor said:
A fair critique. I've used a blanket statement where it would be more appropriate to use "some, many, most" and so on.

I don't believe that undermines my point.





You're right that some would leave the military as a result of the new policy. That would open the way for new talent, potentially better talent, to come in. The military is also back-logged. My nephew is currently on the waiting list to become a Marine. It'll be nine months before he even gets a chance to be taken. They're that backed up.

The Air Force and Navy had similar lines. The Army could get him in right away...


::cough::



I don't think the idea that some folks either couldn't or wouldn't adapt to modernity in the military is a reason to not modernize the military.






It's illegal?

News to me... I know several more felons than I thought I did then. That's funny.
Click to expand...

disobeying a direct order, which that is, is punishible under the UCMJ. That means, it's illegal. Military members are subject to laws that civilians are not subject too.
 
mac said:
disobeying a direct order, which that is, is punishible under the UCMJ. That means, it's illegal. Military members are subject to laws that civilians are not subject too.
Click to expand...

No, I understand what disobeying an order is. Thanks for the condescention however.

I don't recall any orders not to have sex being given to me when I was in combat zones. That's what I meant was news to me.
 
Alastor said:
No, I understand what disobeying an order is. Thanks for the condescention however.

I don't recall any orders not to have sex being given to me when I was in combat zones, however. That's what I meant was news to me.
Click to expand...





You can be charged under a general article under the UCMJ for getting pregnant while deployed.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You can be charged under a general article under the UCMJ for getting pregnant while deployed.
Click to expand...

That I knew.

So is getting a tattoo if they really want to press the issue. Or a sunburn.

That doesn't make having sex illegal though. It is possible to have sex without getting pregnant. I wasn't aware of any regulation barring sexual intercourse in a combat zone.
 
Alastor said:
That I knew.

So is getting a tattoo if they really want to press the issue. Or a sunburn.

That doesn't make having sex illegal though. It is possible to have sex without getting pregnant. I wasn't aware of any regulation barring sexual intercourse in a combat zone.
Click to expand...




there were no women in any of the units I was attached to. I didn't need a regulation to "bar" sexual intercourse for me.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
there were no women in any of the units I was attached to. I didn't need a regulation to "bar" sexual intercourse for me.
Click to expand...

Most unfortunate.

Not that we had tons of women either. I personally never had sex in a combat zone. I do know a few people that did, however.
 
Alastor said:
Most unfortunate.

Not that we had tons of women either. I personally never had sex in a combat zone. I do know a few people that did, however.
Click to expand...



o_O I guess that would matter what you consider a "combat zone".
 
Alastor said:
No, I understand what disobeying an order is. Thanks for the condescention however.

I don't recall any orders not to have sex being given to me when I was in combat zones. That's what I meant was news to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know how long it's been since you were in a combat zone, but that is a standing order in all the current combat zones whether you were aware of it or not.
 
Alastor said:
No, I understand what disobeying an order is. Thanks for the condescention however.

I don't recall any orders not to have sex being given to me when I was in combat zones. That's what I meant was news to me.
Click to expand...

mac said:
I don't know how long it's been since you were in a combat zone, but that is a standing order in all the current combat zones whether you were aware of it or not.
Click to expand...




Gentlemen, the answer you seek is called "General Order #1" google it.
 
The homosexuals should serve as long as they honor the DADT, even then, they must respect their fellow soldiers.
If most of their compatriots are not offended, then, lets put this to rest....
We have many other, more important, things which must be addressed..
 
mac said:
Of course there are openly gay doctors. You have missed the point I was making.

First, God Bless your husband, but has he spent months on end at sea on a ship or submarine? There berthing situations in the military with which you and your husband are unfamiliar. Many of which I have experienced in my 22 years in the Navy.

Second, I think you've misunderstood me. I am not speaking against repealing DADT. Personally I could care less what anyone does with their free time. What I am saying is, the public and congress needs to understand that the service chiefs are going to need some time to work this out.

Third, every ship in the US Navy is open bay for the enlisted folks. So actually, really, it's not that simple.
Click to expand...

He has, but so have I. I was active duty for almost 10 years. I was on a carrier for 5 years. I am quite aware of the berthing situation aboard.

However, from my experience, there were many sailors who were "out" in my department. This was not an issue at all. In fact, everyone aboard was well aware that the legal officer was gay. It just wasn't a big deal. That said, I understand there will probably be some problems. But, again, most will come because of other people's intolerance of those gays who do decide to come out in commands/departments/units where it is less accepted.

And I also understand that some time is needed to do things such as deciding on how to implement and conduct initial tolerance training, including sexuality into equal opportunity training, deciding how to deal with those situations where the intolerance is affecting unit cohesion and morale, and deciding how to handle a person whose open disclosure of their sexuality is disruptive to the unit because of the way they are doing it or if they are flaunting it. Many of the rest of the "problems" that I have heard/read people being concerned with are covered by other military regulations, such as fraternization and sexual relationships while on duty.

The military could still implement a policy where only cases where the person's homosexuality is proven to cause a problem with unit cohesion are actually discharged. Most people are pretty certain that the military will eventually agree to allow homosexual personnel to serve openly, but the problem I see is that until then, there are people being discharged who have actually shown that they are a problem to unit morale or cohesion, but rather that they were accidentally found out to be gay or they turned themselves in for the general discharge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom