• 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  • No, DADT should be repealed and gays not allowed to serve at all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
Your Star said:
Why?

The time for equality in any aspect of this country is always now. If we ever are going to see the day where the phrase that "All men are created equal" is actually accurate in describing this country we must fight for equality, for everyone, in every situation.
Click to expand...

Your star,

Perhaps you should join the military and endeavor to change it from the inside. Spend some time among the ranks and see if you can effectuate your agenda.
 
alms said:
Your star,

Perhaps you should join the military and endeavor to change it from the inside. Spend some time among the ranks and see if you can effectuate your agenda.
Click to expand...

Why would (s)he do that when the change will come from congress and not the military?
 
Redress said:
1) I disagree that we should refrain from idealism in the military. It should in fact be one of the many goals for the military.
Click to expand...

Redress,

Don't you think the primary goal of our military should be operational efficiency and tactical proficiency?

2) The issue is whether it will work. I think we all agree that if it will not, then it should not be implemented. Part of the explanation of why it will is that forcing people to be responsible for their own emotional reactions is not harmful to the military, and will actually lead to better soldiers.
Click to expand...

I don't think we "all" agree. It seems most people don't care about whether or not it will work. Mostly they're concerned with justice and equality. Idealism seems to be their main concern.
 
Redress said:
Why would (s)he do that when the change will come from congress and not the military?
Click to expand...

Redress,

My position is that the military should decide for itself. I think if someone wants to tell the military what it should do then they should spend some time in the uniform first. That's why I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
 
alms said:
Redress,

Don't you think the primary goal of our military should be operational efficiency and tactical proficiency?
Click to expand...

Certainly. That is not, nor has it ever been the only goal of the military however.

I don't think we "all" agree. It seems most people don't care about whether or not it will work. Mostly they're concerned with justice and equality. Idealism seems to be their main concern.
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding the discussion. Yes, one reason gays should be allowed to serve openly is because it is the right thing to do. With that in mind, the next question is will it work, and yes, it will work.
 
alms said:
Redress,

My position is that the military should decide for itself. I think if someone wants to tell the military what it should do then they should spend some time in the uniform first. That's why I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
Click to expand...

The military does not make policy for itself, nor should it. Congress makes the laws, the president is the CinC.
 
Redress said:
Certainly. That is not, nor has it ever been the only goal of the military however.
Click to expand...

Redress,

I didn't say that it was.

You are misunderstanding the discussion. Yes, one reason gays should be allowed to serve openly is because it is the right thing to do. With that in mind, the next question is will it work, and yes, it will work.
Click to expand...

I think the "next" question should be the first and only question. I don't believe I'm misunderstanding anything.
 
Redress said:
The military does not make policy for itself, nor should it. Congress makes the laws, the president is the CinC.
Click to expand...

Redress,

I disagree. The military is in the best position to decide internal matters. Politicians do not always have operational and tactical efficiency in mind.
 
alms said:
Redress,

I didn't say that it was.



I think the "next" question should be the first and only question. I don't believe I'm misunderstanding anything.
Click to expand...

Then your conclusion is flawed. Doing the right thing should always be part of the equation for any decision, including those with the military. We do not intentionally target civilians because it would be wrong. We do not turn a blind eye to our soldiers who commit crimes while on duty(which is thankfully exceedingly rare) because it is wrong. Ethics do play a role in military decisions.
 
alms said:
Redress,

I disagree. The military is in the best position to decide internal matters. Politicians do not always have operational and tactical efficiency in mind.
Click to expand...

We do not allow the military to make those decisions for very good reasons. The military is an instrument of the people, not the other way around. It is not independent.
 
The whole reason why they are doing an investigation is to see whether or not this will weaken the military, especially recruitment. What is more important, our national security, or allowing a thread-thin minority of the population (who are mostly anti-military anyway) feel warm and fuzzy? The military isn't a social program. We are talking about the defense of our country! And when you are talking about the possibility of discouraging brave young men from serving on a submarine for 6 months sleeping next to a guy who is flirting with him, then the matter is serious. Why not wait to find what the investigation reveals?

Because they know they won't get the answer they want.
 
Redress said:
Then your conclusion is flawed. Doing the right thing should always be part of the equation for any decision, including those with the military. We do not intentionally target civilians because it would be wrong. We do not turn a blind eye to our soldiers who commit crimes while on duty(which is thankfully exceedingly rare) because it is wrong. Ethics do play a role in military decisions.
Click to expand...

Redress,

Asserting that I am wrong adds nothing to the discussion. Let's refrain from such tactics.

I do believe ethics play a role in military matters and the most important ethic is protecting our country. Anything that undermines or jeopardizes that end is necessarily unethical.
 
Redress said:
We do not allow the military to make those decisions for very good reasons. The military is an instrument of the people, not the other way around. It is not independent.
Click to expand...

The military makes a great many decisions on its own. Politicians and laymen are certainly not in a better position than the military to decide how the military ought to operate. We should only decide when and where they operate.
 
alms said:
Redress,

Asserting that I am wrong adds nothing to the discussion. Let's refrain from such tactics.

I do believe ethics play a role in military matters and the most important ethic is protecting our country. Anything that undermines or jeopardizes that end is necessarily unethical.
Click to expand...

I explained why you are wrong. Nothing inappropriate about that.

The vast majority of this thread has been on the topic of whether it would undermine or jeopardize our readiness. I have seen nothing which makes me even the least bit concerned that it will in fact undermine or jeopardize our readiness. All of the data suggests otherwise.
 
alms said:
The military makes a great many decisions on its own. Politicians and laymen are certainly not in a better position than the military to decide how the military ought to operate. We should only decide when and where they operate.
Click to expand...

The military does not make policy decisions, and all the decisions it does make are in response to civilian directives. The decisions the military makes are only how something is accomplished.
 
Rightarrow said:
The whole reason why they are doing an investigation is to see whether or not this will weaken the military, especially recruitment. What is more important, our national security, or allowing a thread-thin minority of the population (who are mostly anti-military anyway) feel warm and fuzzy? The military isn't a social program. We are talking about the defense of our country! And when you are talking about the possibility of discouraging brave young men from serving on a submarine for 6 months sleeping next to a guy who is flirting with him, then the matter is serious. Why not wait to find what the investigation reveals?

Because they know they won't get the answer they want.
Click to expand...

Gays are mostly anti-military? Really? You have some evidence of this, since what one of our gay veterans on this board has told us is that gays strongly want to serve their country.
 
Rightarrow said:
The whole reason why they are doing an investigation is to see whether or not this will weaken the military, especially recruitment. What is more important, our national security, or allowing a thread-thin minority of the population (who are mostly anti-military anyway) feel warm and fuzzy? The military isn't a social program. We are talking about the defense of our country! And when you are talking about the possibility of discouraging brave young men from serving on a submarine for 6 months sleeping next to a guy who is flirting with him, then the matter is serious. Why not wait to find what the investigation reveals?

Because they know they won't get the answer they want.
Click to expand...

This is the same exact argument used when they decided to integrate the military. We can't be discourage of providing equality because some people are intolerant.

And I agree with Redress, lets see your proof that gays are anti-military.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
It's hardly irrelevant if the military study is focusing on such topics. What do you think they are studying, whether or not they can eat the same MREs?
Click to expand...

I think it's typical government red tape bull****. Thats OK though, it's over and it's going to happen. And people who are against it are going to have to suck it up, end of story. :)
 
Redress said:
I explained why you are wrong. Nothing inappropriate about that.
Click to expand...

Your explanation is far from compelling. Anyone can assert that their opponent is wrong, but it adds nothing to the discussion. Let us refrain from it.

The vast majority of this thread has been on the topic of whether it would undermine or jeopardize our readiness. I have seen nothing which makes me even the least bit concerned that it will in fact undermine or jeopardize our readiness. All of the data suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...

This thread hardly encapsulates the entirety or complexity of this argument. As for my part, I've heard compelling and impassioned arguments from former officers that it could undermine or jeopardize our readiness. I've also heard compelling and impassioned arguments that it won't undermined or jeopardize our readiness. Since I've never served, I'll withhold judgement and defer to the military in matters of which I have no understanding.
 
Your Star said:
This is the same exact argument used when they decided to integrate the military. We can't be discourage of providing equality because some people are intolerant.
Click to expand...

And now the military takes pride in the fact that it is colorblind, as it should. How the times have changed.

The same argument was used for women serving on ships, and yet it works as well.
 
Redress said:
The military does not make policy decisions, and all the decisions it does make are in response to civilian directives. The decisions the military makes are only how something is accomplished.
Click to expand...

Of course the military makes policy decisions. The military has numerous policies, many of which came about with no political or civilian input. The military is certainly an instrument of the populace, but it can only be effective when its given a relative amount of autonomy. I don't think it is the prerogative of politicians and laymen to dictate to the military how it should operate, only to what end.
 
alms said:
Your explanation is far from compelling. Anyone can assert that their opponent is wrong, but it adds nothing to the discussion. Let us refrain from it.
Click to expand...

This is a debate board. Explaining why we think some one elses arguments are wrong is an integral part of debate.

This thread hardly encapsulates the entirety or complexity of this argument. As for my part, I've heard compelling and impassioned arguments from former officers that it could undermine or jeopardize our readiness. I've also heard compelling and impassioned arguments that it won't undermined or jeopardize our readiness. Since I've never served, I'll withhold judgement and defer to the military in matters of which I have no understanding.
Click to expand...

While the opinions of the people who have served is important to note(since I have served, I would hope so anyway), it is not data, it is anecdote. By data, I mean the history of integrating different people in the military, the experiences of other militaries which allow gays to serve openly, and the data on the changing attitudes in this country on gays and gays in the military.
 
alms said:
Of course the military makes policy decisions. The military has numerous policies, many of which came about with no political or civilian input. The military is certainly an instrument of the populace, but it can only be effective when its given a relative amount of autonomy. I don't think it is the prerogative of politicians and laymen to dictate to the military how it should operate, only to what end.
Click to expand...

Name one policy decision the military made not in response to a government directive.
 
Redress said:
This is a debate board. Explaining why we think some one elses arguments are wrong is an integral part of debate.
Click to expand...

You're free to explain your position but asserting that I am wrong adds nothing to the discussion. Anyone can say "you're wrong" but it's hardly worth saying.

While the opinions of the people who have served is important to note(since I have served, I would hope so anyway), it is not data, it is anecdote. By data, I mean the history of integrating different people in the military, the experiences of other militaries which allow gays to serve openly, and the data on the changing attitudes in this country on gays and gays in the military.
Click to expand...

I thank you for your service, and your opinion in this regard means more to me than the politicians and laymen. Still, I think the military as a whole ought to decide for itself. I hesitate to impose the views of politicians and laymen on the people who defend this nation with their very lives.

Apart from your assertion that I am wrong, this has been a very pleasant discussion. I hope we can have more of these discussions in the future but I must bid you adieu for now.

Thank you for your service and God bless you. God bless the troops and God bless this nation. May we all live in peace!
 
if he is a competent soldier what should I care if he wants to bang me in the ass. although looking at my ass, I doubt that would be an issue. our country needs the best of the best period end of story
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom