• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

DADT cloture passes

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I think our men and women in uniform can handle the passing of this historic legislation.. they have been through years and years of war for ****s sake

I think that the love, effection, respect and confidence that most Liberals have in our service members is very selective and certainly conditional.

Most Liberals that hail our armed service members as the smartest, most professional military force in history are the same ones that were calling them murderers and war criminals, just a few short years ago.

they have been through years and years of war for ****s sake

I reckon the wars weren't for naught, afterall. Eh?

P.S. ever notice how Libbos like to apply, "historic", to everything that Obama has his cabbage collectors in?
 
Last edited:

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think that the love, effection, respect and confidence that most Liberals have in our service members is very selective and certainly conditional.

Most Liberals that hail our armed service members as the smartest, most professional military force in history are the same ones that were calling them murderers and war criminals, just a few short years ago.

That is an absurd generalization.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How is that any different than the situation describing the end of racial segregation? I won't deny there won't be issues but those Soldiers with issues will change, Soldiers will say they are being ordered to do something because they are gay just like there were some who claimed racism. And Soldiers will file complaints for bunking with a gay Soldier like they did for a black one, but it will go away as they change.

It'll go away as seperate billets are built and assignments made. Or, because local commands insititute their own versions of DADT.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That is an absurd generalization.

But, it's true, I'm sure.

Notice I said, "most". Redress doesn't fall into that catagory, but she's the exception, not the rule.

Whatcha' wanna bet that every single Liberal that responds to that post says the same thing, "uh, uh, I didn't do that!". To be followed up with, "yooz a racist", or, "yooz a homophobe", or, well, you get the picture.
 
Last edited:

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It'll go away as seperate billets are built and assignments made. Or, because local commands insititute their own versions of DADT.

You assume the commanders will want to go along with that, I certainly won't recommend it to my CO if any of my Soldiers have a problem billeting with a gay Soldier. Why? Because I have to trust my Soldiers to be able to perform every duty required of them with their fellow Soldiers. Having to seperate Soldiers for those reasons, outside of Army policy required seperation like gender seperation, will only add another layer of complexity to the mission, and quite frankly I'm far more in favor of forcing those Soldiers to adapt or get out. The same way the Army forced Soldiers with problems against those of another race to adapt or get out. But at NO TIME will I punish or have another Soldier go out of his way, one who has not violated any Army policy or done anything to warrent that punish, to bear an additional burden for a Soldier who cannot operate within the required standards of an Army Soldier. Those standards being in this case tolerance for differences among Soldiers, and respect for fellow Soldiers.

As for establishing their own verisons of DADT, you should know that is impossible because no commander can create a command policy in direct conflict with Army policy. And you assume again they will have the resources required to seperate their Soldiers.

And your generalization is still just as absurd, calling someone, you specifically, a racist or homophobe is not akin to believing all Soldiers are war criminals or murderers.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You assume the commanders will want to go along with that, I certainly won't recommend it to my CO if any of my Soldiers have a problem billeting with a gay Soldier. Why? Because I have to trust my Soldiers to be able to perform every duty required of them with their fellow Soldiers. Having to seperate Soldiers for those reasons, outside of Army policy required seperation like gender seperation, will only add another layer of complexity to the mission, and quite frankly I'm far more in favor of forcing those Soldiers to adapt or get out. The same way the Army forced Soldiers with problems against those of another race to adapt or get out. But at NO TIME will I punish or have another Soldier go out of his way, one who has not violated any Army policy or done anything to warrent that punish, to bear an additional burden for a Soldier who cannot operate within the required standards of an Army Soldier. Those standards being in this case tolerance for differences among Soldiers, and respect for fellow Soldiers.


What rank are you? or, rather, what's your future former rank?

The first time one of your soldiers stands tall, starts quoting AR600-20 and calls his congress critter, telling about how his/her rights are being violated, you'll let that soldier billet damn near anywhere that he/she wants to. You'll let that soldier sleep on your livingroom couch, if it keeps that congressman from crawling up your ass and building a nest there. That's if the congressman is a Democrat; you better pray to God that that soldier doesn't have a congressman that was elected on the tea party vote.


As for establishing their own verisons of DADT, you should know that is impossible because no commander can create a command policy in direct conflict with Army policy. And you assume again they will have the resources required to seperate their Soldiers.

Creating a version of DADT that doesn't punish sexual orientation, but forbids discussing sexual orientation wouldn't be in conflict with DoD policy. Cancelling social functions, indefinitely, or barring significant others from social functions wouldn't be in conflict, either. Lots-a-leeway for commanders, when it comes to interpretation of the regulations.

And your generalization is still just as absurd, calling someone, you specifically, a racist or homophobe is not akin to believing all Soldiers are war criminals or murderers.


Are you calling me a homophobe, or a racist, or both?
 
Last edited:

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What rank are you? or, rather, what's your future former rank?

The first time one of your soldiers stands tall, starts quoting AR600-20 and calls his congress critter, telling about how his/her rights are being violated, you'll let that soldier billet damn near anywhere that he/she wants to. You'll let that soldier sleep on your livingroom couch, if it keeps that congressman from crawling up your ass and building a nest there. That's if the congressman is a Democrat; you better pray to God that that soldier doesn't have a congressman that was elected on the tea party vote.

I am a 2LT. And as a PL if a Soldier outright refuses to be billeted with a gay Soldier he'll receive a counseling statement when I am soonest able to. And if he wishes to make a UCMJ issue out of it, I'll be sure to bring my PSG in for his opinion as well as inform the CO who will probably for command and Army policy reasons address the issue personally. However I'm aware that forcing the issue on the spot may cause additional problems and until I can deal with the issue better accommodations will be made. Now I'm not as familiar with AR 600-20 as I'd like to be admittedly, and no post DADT regulations have been written or at least released yet, but I will become as familiar as I can. For example I know chapter 4-19 on homosexual policy will be amended if not completely removed.

As for a Congressmen, well thats a little out of my pay grade to be worrying about what some Congressmen thinks of my day to day actions. And frankly I've never heard or seen of a junior officer creating an incident that led to Congressional involvement.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I am a 2LT. And as a PL if a Soldier outright refuses to be billeted with a gay Soldier he'll receive a counseling statement when I am soonest able to. And if he wishes to make a UCMJ issue out of it, I'll be sure to bring my PSG in for his opinion as well as inform the CO who will probably for command and Army policy reasons address the issue personally.

I hope you enjoyed your time in the Army, El-tee. You won't be there long.


However I'm aware that forcing the issue on the spot may cause additional problems and until I can deal with the issue better accommodations will be made.
And, at that point, you just lost the fight, sir.


Now I'm not as familiar with AR 600-20 as I'd like to be admittedly, and no post DADT regulations have been written or at least released yet, but I will become as familiar as I can. For example I know chapter 4-19 on homosexual policy will be amended if not completely removed.

Wait! What? I'm just a dumb, unejumacated, homophobic racist nigger from the Louisiana piney woods and AR600-20 was one of the first regulations that I became familiar with. I suggest that you become familiar as hell with it in the next few weeks. That information just might save your career, Sir.

As for a Congressmen, well thats a little out of my pay grade to be worrying about what some Congressmen thinks of my day to day actions. And frankly I've never heard or seen of a junior officer creating an incident that led to Congressional involvement.

Out of your paygrade, until that soldier's letter to his/her congressman says, "2LT Wiseone ordered me...", and, "2LT Wisone's PS, SSG. Brightone also issue an order that violates my rights as a soldier and Captain Smartone backed them both of them up, so on, so on and so forth...". Oh yeah, it'll be within your paygrade then, Sir.

You think you're outta the woods if they don't find any violations with that soldier? Naw! They'll **** around your AO, til they do find something ****ed up.

You may want to become very familiar with FM 27-1--if you're not already.

CORRESPONDING WITH A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Soldiers may write or petition any member of Congress about a complaint. You should not interfere with or try to dissuade a soldier from exercising this right. UCMJ, Article 138 (Chapter 13), protects a soldier's right to complain and request correction of a grievance against his commander.
 
Last edited:

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
50,128
Reaction score
18,092
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why not? Because it's something you don't agree with?

Sounds to me like you're selling our service members short and saying that they're not professional enough to look past a person's personal beliefs and soldier on.

I explained, in detail, why exactly they aren't professional. How about you try to refute the post instead of trying to attack me?
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
50,128
Reaction score
18,092
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It'll go away as seperate billets are built and assignments made. Or, because local commands insititute their own versions of DADT.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here, but have given absolutely zero evidence to back them up.

And constantly bringing up AR600-20 doesn't mean squat. First of all, the soldier would have to be absolutely familiar with it to even suggest it. Second, most people do not interpret that to mean that men or women should have separate berthings/showers based on their sexuality. In fact, it is not likely that any in the upper chain of command do so, since none of them have even mentioned this article. And many on here have told you that it really doesn't apply, since you would have to make the case that it is very likely that two men of differing sexualities are likely to cause one of them to face sexual harassment issues if they live together much more often than if they just work together. You can interpret that policy how ever you wish, but you nor any enlisted soldier would be the ones who get to decide how that policy applies in cases of sexuality, that would be up to those who are actually in charge of making and ensuring that military/Army policies are enforced/followed correctly.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I hope you enjoyed your time in the Army, El-tee. You won't be there long.


However I'm aware that forcing the issue on the spot may cause additional problems and until I can deal with the issue better accommodations will be made.
And, at that point, you just lost the fight, sir.




Wait! What? I'm just a dumb, unejumacated, homophobic racist nigger from the Louisiana piney woods and AR600-20 was one of the first regulations that I became familiar with. I suggest that you become familiar as hell with it in the next few weeks. That information just might save your career, Sir.



Out of your paygrade, until that soldier's letter to his/her congressman says, "2LT Wiseone ordered me...", and, "2LT Wisone's PS, SSG. Brightone also issue an order that violates my rights as a soldier and Captain Smartone backed them both of them up, so on, so on and so forth...". Oh yeah, it'll be within your paygrade then, Sir.

You think you're outta the woods if they don't find any violations with that soldier? Naw! They'll **** around your AO, til they do find something ****ed up.

You may want to become very familiar with FM 27-1--if you're not already.

This situation will be made on a case by case basis, I cannot afford to create a scene with a Soldier who is willing to disregard a lawful order because of his personal opinions about homosexuals, just as I wouldn't want that other Soldier to be forced to put up with the intolerant one. That also creates a situation where there's a good chance these Soldiers become involved in a physical altercation or due to staying up all night arguing or whatever else aren't as prepared for the mission the next day along with their leadership who has to put them down.

The reason I'd separate the two if the issue came up immediately is because I'd picture myself standing in front of my commander when these two Soldiers beat the **** out of each other, or the gay one gets so angry after having to listen the first one bitch that he does something stupid, and trying to explain why I not only allowed but forced this two individuals to stay in a confined space all night when a switch could be made. Now that Soldier's openly anti-homosexual feelings will still be a issue, simply because I have to trust him to work as well with that gay Soldier as he would any other Soldier, and I can't have separately be the permanent solution since it makes my PLT less effective and efficient than it can and should be.

When I say I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be, I don't mean I've never opened the cover after all I know where to find the section on homosexual conduct and you don't know my personal standard for familiarity so you have no idea on what it specifically means when I say I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be.

Now again as for a Soldier writing their Congressmen, I know its their right and if a Soldier informed of his intent to do so I would not attempt to prevent him from doing that. However, I've still never heard of a Congressmen responding to a Soldier's sob story and I'll be damned if when the new regulations come out regarding billeting between straight and gay Soldiers that it'll read anywhere in there the commander does not have fully authority in this matter or that a Soldier has the right to not be billeted with another Soldier of the opposite sex.

The Army has made clear in both its report and the Army times that regarding billeting the commander will have authority to move Soldiers to maintain good order and conduct, which could include separation based on a Soldier's opinion of homosexuality. However like I said before, I doubt many commanders will have either the resources or the will to do that specifically because I don't think any commander wants his Soldiers thinking of their fellow Soldiers as anything but their fellow Soldiers, same and no different to them in that regard, not as their fellow Soldiers plus "the gay one."
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I hope you enjoyed your time in the Army, El-tee. You won't be there long.


However I'm aware that forcing the issue on the spot may cause additional problems and until I can deal with the issue better accommodations will be made.

This situation will be made on a case by case basis, I cannot afford to create a scene with a Soldier who is willing to disregard a lawful order because of his personal opinions about homosexuals, just as I wouldn't want that other Soldier to be forced to put up with the intolerant one. That also creates a situation where there's a good chance these Soldiers become involved in a physical altercation or due to staying up all night arguing or whatever else aren't as prepared for the mission the next day along with their leadership who has to put them down.

The reason I'd separate the two if the issue came up immediately is because I'd picture myself standing in front of my commander when these two Soldiers beat the **** out of each other, or the gay one gets so angry after having to listen the first one bitch that he does something stupid, and trying to explain why I not only allowed but forced this two individuals to stay in a confined space all night when a switch could be made. Now that Soldier's openly anti-homosexual feelings will still be a issue, simply because I have to trust him to work as well with that gay Soldier as he would any other Soldier, and I can't have separately be the permanent solution since it makes my PLT less effective and efficient than it can and should be.

When I say I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be, I don't mean I've never opened the cover after all I know where to find the section on homosexual conduct and you don't know my personal standard for familiarity so you have no idea on what it specifically means when I say I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be.


The Army has made clear in both its report and the Army times that regarding billeting the commander will have authority to move Soldiers to maintain good order and conduct, which could include separation based on a Soldier's opinion of homosexuality. However like I said before, I doubt many commanders will have either the resources or the will to do that specifically because I don't think any commander wants his Soldiers thinking of their fellow Soldiers as anything but their fellow Soldiers, same and no different to them in that regard, not as their fellow Soldiers plus "the gay one."

You can afford even less to push an unlawful order. A congressional enquiry is going to send you into bancruptcy

Now again as for a Soldier writing their Congressmen, I know its their right and if a Soldier informed of his intent to do so I would not attempt to prevent him from doing that. However, I've still never heard of a Congressmen responding to a Soldier's sob story and I'll be damned if when the new regulations come out regarding billeting between straight and gay Soldiers that it'll read anywhere in there the commander does not have fully authority in this matter or that a Soldier has the right to not be billeted with another Soldier of the opposite sex.

You just may be, indeed, sir.

I think you should start selecting a spot within the company area to be the designated bivouac site, for soldiers who refuse to billet with soldiers of a different sexual orientation. Might wanna start now, putting some thought into how your run CQ with that situation. A seperate CQ desk may be good idea. Maybe a TA312 to the main CQ?
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I hope you enjoyed your time in the Army, El-tee. You won't be there long.
You can afford even less to push an unlawful order. A congressional enquiry is going to send you into bancruptc

You just may be, indeed, sir.

I think you should start selecting a spot within the company area to be the designated bivouac site, for soldiers who refuse to billet with soldiers of a different sexual orientation. Might wanna start now, putting some thought into how your run CQ with that situation. A seperate CQ desk may be good idea. Maybe a TA312 to the main CQ?

Well we'll have to wait and see exactly what the new regs will be and, assuming I'll have an openly gay Soldier, I'm not going to make a unilateral decision without guidance from the PSG and the CO, or anyone who might have some insight. I'm aware of the potential touchiness of the situation and I'm not an LT whos afraid to walk up to anyone, especially a subordinate, and ask for input. And I imagine the CO is going to want to set his own company policies, or maybe even the BN commander will make a decision, who knows. I'm going to see what comes down the line and execute it, but any freedom of movement in this matter I end up still having I'm going to use in a way towards making may PLT most effective and efficient at its mission, and I'm not afraid to break something thats already "workable"(like making these kind of additional accommodations a permanent feature) if I can break it and fix it to make it work better. And of course that'll be prioritized next to the long list of things I have to do and considerations I have, so until, and if, I'm confronted with this situation I can't tell you how specifically its going to be dealt with.

The separate CQ is an excellent example of what I'd like to avoid, it means more resources being used and more Soldiers occupied with a task than if we had only one area. It may be workable but its not as efficient because I want to get the "mostest for the leastest."

Additionally a separate bivouac site would probably unworkable anyway, there's likely not to be more than 1 or 2, if any, gay Soldiers in any given company. They are expected to make up less than 1% of the Army anyway, although of course no one knows for sure, and that number also assumes they all want to be openly gay since nothing will stop a Soldier from hiding his homosexuality if he wants to. This is why I doubt most COs are going to let 1 or 2 Soliders divide their company in half or into parts when it comes to billeting.
 
Top Bottom