Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Ask, Tell (Take two).

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Author
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ask, Tell (Take two).
    Posted: 12 October 2010 at 5:28pm

Judge Orders Injunction on ĎDonít Ask, Donít Tellí



The last thread about this was made back in March, and I didn't want to bump it in today's anti-bumping climate, so I figured I'd make a new thread with the new news of the day.

Interesting situation. I'd say I support the decision, but I also understand that integration of openly homosexual troops will not be without snags and looks into policy and procedure, and will take a while to get right.


"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Blacksheep View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2597
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Blacksheep Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2010 at 5:38pm
First: The US Military bans women from serving in combat arms MOS.

Second: DADT has not proven to be detrimental to the US Armed Forces.

Third: Homosexuality in and of itself does not inherently help the military win wars.

Four: The majority of servicemembers do not want DADT repealed (fm the last survey I saw a few months ago).

Five: There is a risk of negative impact from allowing homosexuals to serve.

Based off this, the only logical answer is to continue to keep it in place until a time where it can be determined if it will have any negative side effects on recruiting, retention, and morale. Until such a time, any action for repealing it would be irresponsible.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2010 at 5:42pm
The current and future Commandant of the Marine Corps have said they won't allow openly gay or lesbian Marines to live with straight Marines, so I'm not sure that getting rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" is actually going to make the lives of our servicemen and women better.  Granted I don't know what the other services have in mind.  The reality is that people's mindsets have to be changed more than the laws.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2010 at 5:43pm
Here's a great way to avoid conflict.

Repeal the ban, ask military members to be responsible about expressing their sexuality. Keep the "Don't Ask" clause in place. It's not anybody's business to be peering into irrelevant parts of the soldiers' lives.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2010 at 5:49pm
Originally posted by Blacksheep Blacksheep wrote:

First: The US Military bans women from serving in combat arms MOS.


And?

Quote Second: DADT has not proven to be detrimental to the US Armed Forces.


If I recall, there has been about 13,000 discharges in the U.S. Military since the implementation of DADT based on homosexual activity or admitting to being homosexual.

Quote Third: Homosexuality in and of itself does not inherently help the military win wars.


Being black doesn't in and of itself inherently help the military win wars, either.

Quote Four: The majority of servicemembers do not want DADT repealed


The U.S. Military is not a democracy. It is a chain of command coming from the top for a reason.

Quote Five: There is a risk of negative impact from allowing homosexuals to serve.


True. And I don't think there are many who don't understand this. But there was also a risk of blacks serving in the military in the 1950s after Executive Order 9981.

Should Truman have not desegregated the military because of those risks?




Edited by agentwhale007 - 12 October 2010 at 5:50pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2010 at 5:56pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

The reality is that people's mindsets have to be changed more than the laws.


Agreed. But people seem to look past this fact (Something I think Tolga missed a bit):

Repealing DADT doesn't mean that homosexuals HAVE to talk about their sexual preference. They don't have to tell anyone. They can stick to keeping it to themselves, and I think the U.S. Military can and should suggest that everyone do just that.

However, what the DADT repeal does is allow - if you choose - someone to admit to being homosexual upon joining, and while serving in, the military without expulsion.

I would suspect that most people will still choose to keep it to themselves until the mindsets of the average American towards homosexuals changes - however, I would say that giving a solider the right to admit they are homosexual openly if they chose is a positive step in the right direction.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2010 at 6:03pm
Seriously. Repealing isn't making "We will ask, you must tell" a law. It is just saying you can be openly gay and still serve. This is a problem why?
Que pasa?


Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2010 at 6:04pm

Originally posted by Blacksheep Blacksheep wrote:

First: The US Military bans women from serving in combat arms MOS.

It shouldn't as long as they can keep up with the rest. (but that is another issue entirely)


Second: DADT has not proven to be detrimental to the US Armed Forces.

So? It's about decency and rights not necessarily about effectiveness. Show me where it's been proven that it is an effective policy for the military.


Third: Homosexuality in and of itself does not inherently help the military win wars.

Nor does it help lose them.


Four: The majority of servicemembers do not want DADT repealed (fm the last survey I saw a few months ago).

That sucks for them then. They serve the people of their country, and represent their morals, rights, and security.


Five: There is a risk of negative impact from allowing homosexuals to serve.

Versus the impact of forcing homosexuals to have to hide in the closet, affecting their morale, and therefore job performance?


Based off this, the only logical answer is to continue to keep it in place until a time where it can be determined if it will have any negative side effects on recruiting, retention, and morale. Until such a time, any action for repealing it would be irresponsible.

Wrong. Keeping any law which infringes on the basic human rights of a significant group of people would be irresponsible.

<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
GroupB View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 September 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GroupB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2010 at 6:42pm
Originally posted by Blacksheep Blacksheep wrote:

First: The US Military bans women from serving in combat arms MOS. 

False - Women are allowed to serve in the Field Artillery branch.  They are not allowed to serve as Infantry, but the reason isn't because they prefer to have sex with men.

Second: DADT has not proven to be detrimental to the US Armed Forces. 

Others have already covered this one well.

Third: Homosexuality in and of itself does not inherently help the military win wars. 

No, but kicking out thousands of able soldiers because of their sexual preference helps the military lose wars.

Four: The majority of servicemembers do not want DADT repealed (fm the last survey I saw a few months ago).
Service members don't like most of the crap they have to do and put up with, but they do it anyways because that's what their higher ups tell them to do.  This will be no different.
Five: There is a risk of negative impact from allowing homosexuals to serve.

And there is proven negative impact from barring them from service. 

Based off this, the only logical answer is to continue to keep it in place until a time where it can be determined if it will have any negative side effects on recruiting, retention, and morale. Until such a time, any action for repealing it would be irresponsible.

There are a ton of G/L/B people already serving, and it is pretty damn easy to spot them.  Service members already know who most of them are, repealing DADT will only make it legal for them to be there.  I would bet that having able bodied service members and close friends who have gone to combat with you get kicked out for being gay would be a bigger blow to morale than them being able to tell you what you already know.

EDIT- INB4 "ZOMG ACTIVIST JUDGES!!1"


Edited by GroupB - 12 October 2010 at 6:44pm
Back to Top
PaiNTbALLfReNzY View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Arsenal FC Fan

Joined: 07 July 2002
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 3808
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PaiNTbALLfReNzY Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2010 at 7:20pm
Did anyone think about equal opportunity when they started pressing this issue? No doubt there will be some immediate claims of discrimination, but what directives will support equal opportunity for homosexuals? To my knowledge, current instructions haven't been revised and probably won't be until that 60-day appeal period passes or it's appealed and taken to a higher court.

Edit: Deleted stupid comment.



Edited by PaiNTbALLfReNzY - 12 October 2010 at 8:01pm
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 October 2010 at 5:12pm
Go yahoo comments!

"Another activist judge, another "special right" given to homosexuals. Any wonder why America is in the shape its in now."
Que pasa?


Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 October 2010 at 5:23pm
It never ceases to amaze me when people say, "they're being given special rights!" When all we are doing is trying to give them the same rights as everybody else.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 October 2010 at 10:49pm
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me when people say, "they're being given special rights!" When all we are doing is trying to give them the same rights as everybody else.


Because some people are stupid, and I've yet to see anyone express a true, good faith argument supporting DADT that wasn't underlies by 'ew, icky'.

Is the 21st century. If you're still so backwards as to think homosexuality is in some way wrote, tough cookies. Your problem for being forty years out of date.

If someone is a good soldier and honors their commitments to service, that's what matters. The rest is just BS by the ideologically obsolete.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Ceesman762 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Time for a C-Section!

Joined: 15 November 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ceesman762 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2010 at 10:41am
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

If someone is a good soldier and honors their commitments to service, that's what matters. The rest is just BS by the ideologically obsolete.

This. 
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!


Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2010 at 11:10am
Excuse my ignorance as far as living conditions/accomodations in the military service as I never served, but isn't part of the issue having to deal with potential sexual harassment incidents? I am not claiming or insinuating that homosexuals are predatory, but doesn't allowing them to be openly gay without seperating them as far as living arrangements open up a can of worms? I mean obviously it happens, but if it is allowed to be open, will other arrangements have to be made? Will they have a his,hers, and somewhere in-between shower time? It just seems that it would make for some very awkward possibilites. Wouldn't it be akin to having men and women use communal bathrooms? At this point, with the current regulations, things happen. With an open policy, does this open a door that doesn't need to be?  
 
Not trying to be homophobic, because I really am not, just asking. I admire anyone that commits their life to protecting our country regardless of their sexual orientation.  


Edited by oldpbnoob - 14 October 2010 at 11:15am
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2010 at 11:34am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Excuse my ignorance as far as living conditions/accomodations in the military service as I never served, but isn't part of the issue having to deal with potential sexual harassment incidents? I am not claiming or insinuating that homosexuals are predatory, but doesn't allowing them to be openly gay without seperating them as far as living arrangements open up a can of worms? I mean obviously it happens, but if it is allowed to be open, will other arrangements have to be made? Will they have a his,hers, and somewhere in-between shower time? It just seems that it would make for some very awkward possibilites. Wouldn't it be akin to having men and women use communal bathrooms? At this point, with the current regulations, things happen. With an open policy, does this open a door that doesn't need to be?  
 
Not trying to be homophobic, because I really am not, just asking. I admire anyone that commits their life to protecting our country regardless of their sexual orientation.  

No homophobia at all in that post. You're bringing up an issue that I think some people supporting homosexual rights are unfortunately ignoring. 

I agree with you, and I think that is where folks who say "Just let them serve open it'll be fine, it doesn't matter!" fall short. I think people who claim that are being willfully ignorant to situations that will be raised by ridding the military of DADT. 

The things you brought up: Living/sleeping arrangements, potential harassment, etc., are going to have to be addressed by the U.S. Military. They are not issues that will magically fix themselves. 

The question becomes: Can the military address them in a positive way? 

Based on historical precedent, I'd say yes. But then again that's just my opinion. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2010 at 12:05pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

The question becomes: Can the military address them in a positive way? 
Unfortunately, this is where the idea of " special priviledges' comes into play. It is not universally agreed as to the "source" of homosexuality. Many people still look at it as a choice that someone makes, not something you are just born with. I believe both situations exist, and that is wehre the downfall is. If I choose to be a radical racist that uses the N word and tatoos swastikas on my forehead, that is a choice I made and I should not be allowed to demand that I not sleep in the same barracks or serve with those that I deem not worthy.  I am not afforded special treatment. Some people would consider homosexuals on the same plane. They would argue if you choose to be gay or lesbian, you are making a choice and should not be afforded special rights or priviledges.  As much as the openly militant racist would most likely not be allowed to join, many can argue that the same goes for homosexuality. I think until is can be legally decided if homosexuality is a choice or not, it leaves a lot of unanswerable questions as to how to proceed.
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2010 at 1:36pm
I don't think DADT being repealed will do anything like that though, unless I'm confused.  The most important part of DADT is that people are involuntarily separated from the military because of their sexual orientation, regardless of how they got there.  I really think that there's a whole lot of blatant homophobia in our culture and our armed services, and that's gotta go.  The reality is that this has little to no impact upon the actual effectiveness of our military.  Certainly less important than having thousands of male and female 18-,19-, and 20-year olds living on the same bases, which is a constant problem causer.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2010 at 1:52pm

^^^^ Why is sexual orientation any less/more important than extreme racial/political views? Again, if it can be determined to be a choice, why should either be allowed in the military?



Edited by oldpbnoob - 14 October 2010 at 1:53pm
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2010 at 1:54pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

^^^^ Why is sexual orientation any less/more important than extreme racial/political views? Again, if it can be determined to be a choice, why should either be allowed in the military?

Choose to be gay, right now, try it.

Post results.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.