• 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.


  • Total voters
    96
The US Military is not a social experiement, its our country's fighting force. Their mission needs to be taken more seriously than some guinea pig social experiment.

Erm... Actually that's not historically accurate.

Racial integration was first achieved in... Wait for it... Wait for it... The military. Religious integration was first achieved in... The military. Sexual integration was first achieved in... The military.

In each of these cases it was done long before it was popular in the mainstream.

Historically, the military is where we start social changes, not the other way around. This is one of the arguments in favor of a compulsary military service.

Our education system (schools) is another place where we've installed social change historically.

Both institutions have a precedent for being a productive place and way to enact social change.
 
Allowing gays to serve openly is not an experiment. They're already doing it in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, The United Kingdom and Uruguay.

It has been done for years now. Why would so many countries do it if it was a dangerous "social experiment"?

Nice post cropping. Pay attention to other posts, I speaking of the reasons why we haven't done it in the past.

However, that said, we are the United States of America, we are not Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg (seriously?), Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Phillipines, Romania, Russia, Slovenia (seriously?), South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, UK, or Uruguay.

We have a different social makeup than those countries, just like those countries have different social makeups than each other. Just because one country enacts a policy doesn't mean it suits all those other countries.

Years ago (1990s) we were not ready for this sort of policy.

I do believe we are ready for it now.

Besides, name me one of those military organizations that have our efficiency and capability.
 
Erm... Actually that's not historically accurate.

Racial integration was first achieved in... Wait for it... Wait for it... The military. Religious integration was first achieved in... The military. Sexual integration was first achieved in... The military.

In each of these cases it was done long before it was popular in the mainstream.

Historically, the military is where we start social changes, not the other way around. This is one of the arguments in favor of a compulsary military service.

Our education system (schools) is another place where we've installed social change historically.

Both institutions have a precedent for being a productive place and way to enact social change.

While true, Military Leaders have to feel that the change is not going to cause great discipline problems within our units before enacting said change. Regardless of what has been done in the past.
 
While true, Military Leaders have to feel that the change is not going to cause great discipline problems within our units before enacting said change. Regardless of what has been done in the past.

If that had been true blacks would not have been allowed to serve in the military along-side whites in the late 40s. The Civil Rights movement didn't start until the mid 60s.

It's really not up to the generals. It's up to the President.
 
If that had been true blacks would not have been allowed to serve in the military along-side whites in the late 40s. The Civil Rights movement didn't start until the mid 60s.

It's really not up to the generals. It's up to the President.

Regardless of what has been done in the past........

Apparently that statement wasn't being read.

It might be up to the President and Congress, but they aren't the ones who have to deal with the day to day problems created by social experimentation with the military.

Any President worth his vote is going to carefully consider the advice of those who actually lead and run the military.
 
Erm... Actually that's not historically accurate.

Racial integration was first achieved in... Wait for it... Wait for it... The military. Religious integration was first achieved in... The military. Sexual integration was first achieved in... The military.

In each of these cases it was done long before it was popular in the mainstream.

Historically, the military is where we start social changes, not the other way around. This is one of the arguments in favor of a compulsary military service.

Our education system (schools) is another place where we've installed social change historically.

Both institutions have a precedent for being a productive place and way to enact social change.

Actually, racial integration, religious integration, and sexual integration were all achieved aboard pirate ships in the mid-eighteenth century. =)
 
Actually, racial integration, religious integration, and sexual integration were all achieved aboard pirate ships in the mid-eighteenth century. =)
But those were murderous, violent, savage, and uncivilized bandits!!!

Such things have no place in civilized society!!!

/sarcasm
 
It might be up to the President and Congress, but they aren't the ones who have to deal with the day to day problems created by social experimentation with the military.

Any President worth his vote is going to carefully consider the advice of those who actually lead and run the military.

A soldier will adapt, and they'll follow the orders they're given. That's a soldier's job.

Just like it was when blacks were integrated. Just like when women were integrated.

It's been done before. It's worked well before. Anyone who claims the military isn't capable of handling it isn't being honest; they're making excuses.
 
I always wonder when I see these discussions how many of the commentators serve or have ever served in the Armed forces. How many have any idea what it's like other than what they've seen in movies?
 
I love the argument against allowing gays to serve openly. In the movies soldiers are portrayed as these tough guys who take verbal and physical abuse all day long from some sadistic drill sergeant without flinching. But then so many people seem to think that they are really a bunch of sissies whose delicate feelings and insecurities need to be coddled and treated with sensitivity.

I think that if anyone can't handle being ogled by someone they aren't attracted to, then they just aren't cut out for the military. I think we should expect our soldiers to be made of sterner stuff than that.




This happens to the Greatness that is the Good Reverend ALL THE TIME.... I mean ALL THE TIME.... then again, I can't believe its me either sometimes. :shrug:
 
I always wonder when I see these discussions how many of the commentators serve or have ever served in the Armed forces. How many have any idea what it's like other than what they've seen in movies?

You don't have to wonder too much on here. Many people who have served and post on here, have either their award for doing so or have referenced it somewhere on this forum. Checking out their profiles or checking out the military thread is a good place to start.

Not sure what you are going for though. We actually have people who have served on both sides of this issue. Even some in combat MOSs on both sides. I was Navy, and absolutely believe that gays should be allowed to serve openly. I served with some, and we had very little problems, and none actually directly because the people were gay.
 
You don't have to wonder too much on here. Many people who have served and post on here, have either their award for doing so or have referenced it somewhere on this forum. Checking out their profiles or checking out the military thread is a good place to start.

Not sure what you are going for though. We actually have people who have served on both sides of this issue. Even some in combat MOSs on both sides. I was Navy, and absolutely believe that gays should be allowed to serve openly. I served with some, and we had very little problems, and none actually directly because the people were gay.

I think the issue for the military services is more one of logistics than morality at this point. More specifically, birthing. Have you heard of any strong opposition from the services to repealing DADT? The services are just asking for some time to figure out how to implement.....however, a great majority of the folks I hear squaking about it have no real knowledge of what the impact is on the services. They think it's the same thing as allowing openly gay school teachers, or doctors into their communities. It's just not that simple in regards to the military.
 
I think the issue for the military services is more one of logistics than morality at this point. More specifically, birthing. Have you heard of any strong opposition from the services to repealing DADT? The services are just asking for some time to figure out how to implement.....however, a great majority of the folks I hear squaking about it have no real knowledge of what the impact is on the services. They think it's the same thing as allowing openly gay school teachers, or doctors into their communities. It's just not that simple in regards to the military.

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
 
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 berths 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
However, to correctly implement this change with minimal impact, it seems an obvious necessity to prepare measures directed toward preventing and responding to the majority of issues that will arise.

It is NOT as easy as flipping a light switch.

And issues WILL arise.
 
Besides, name me one of those military organizations that have our efficiency and capability.

I think the reason for the military capability of the US is the funding, not DADT ;)
 
However, to correctly implement this change with minimal impact, it seems an obvious necessity to prepare measures directed toward preventing and responding to the majority of issues that will arise.

It is NOT as easy as flipping a light switch.

And issues WILL arise.

Some issues yes. Most will be due to intolerance of those that do decide to come out, and a few don't like it.

I am okay with waiting a while, but I don't like the fact that it is so open-ended. There really is no good reason to insist on continuing to discharge personnel, especially those who aren't causing disruptions. I absolutely think it is easy to say that there will be a halt to discharges of personnel who haven't shown themselves to be a problem and/or whose case has shown no disruptions to the unit. There is no reason to put that off.
 
However, to correctly implement this change with minimal impact, it seems an obvious necessity to prepare measures directed toward preventing and responding to the majority of issues that will arise.

It is NOT as easy as flipping a light switch.

And issues WILL arise.

Those issues were pretty much taken of with DADT. People know homosexuals are in the military and all that will happen now is that gays won't get discharged for going home to their same sex partner.
 
Some issues yes. Most will be due to intolerance of those that do decide to come out, and a few don't like it.

I am okay with waiting a while, but I don't like the fact that it is so open-ended. There really is no good reason to insist on continuing to discharge personnel, especially those who aren't causing disruptions. I absolutely think it is easy to say that there will be a halt to discharges of personnel who haven't shown themselves to be a problem and/or whose case has shown no disruptions to the unit. There is no reason to put that off.
I quite agree. An immediate policy change to eliminate sexual preference (or however that works) as a discharge reason should be made.

Of course, that would put those not “hidden” in a sort of limbo until finalized rule changes are put in place, but its still the best option I can see.

Those issues were pretty much taken of with DADT. People know homosexuals are in the military and all that will happen now is that gays won't get discharged for going home to their same sex partner.
No, now they will have to rewrite multiple regulations regarding multiple things.

And no, DADT caused many of those issues, and they will still exist until it is completely removed and any rules based upon it are rewritten.

And so forth and so on.
 
And no, DADT caused many of those issues, and they will still exist until it is completely removed and any rules based upon it are rewritten.

And so forth and so on.

As far as I know sex is illegal on military bases unless you are married. And as far as I know and everybody else knows gays are serving in the military. All that is changing is gays will not get discharged for being gay.
 
As far as I know sex is illegal on military bases unless you are married. And as far as I know and everybody else knows gays are serving in the military. All that is changing is gays will not get discharged for being gay.
Not at all.

In effect, yes, but all the varied rules and regulations that enforce that fact must be in place to...Enforce it.

That is what will take a bit.

I have no idea as to your first statement, perhaps someone who has been or is in the military can weigh in on that.
 
Not at all.

In effect, yes, but all the varied rules and regulations that enforce that fact must be in place to...Enforce it..

What rules and regulations? All that is changing is DADT.
 
What rules and regulations? All that is changing is DADT.
Are you serious?

And I do not know.

I simply made an educated guess - namely, that, if there is something one wishes to regulate (in this case, gays openly in the military), then you create rules and regulations governing such.

Not to mention, the rules and regulations governing sexual harassment, sexual acts while on duty (I assume there are such), and so on, and so on....
 
Last edited:
Are you serious?

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.
 
A soldier will adapt, and they'll follow the orders they're given. That's a soldier's job.

Just like it was when blacks were integrated. Just like when women were integrated.

It's been done before. It's worked well before. Anyone who claims the military isn't capable of handling it isn't being honest; they're making excuses.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom