• 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!

Don't Ask Don't Tell Survey

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't get why they're doing a survey anyway. The military should not discriminate. Period.

But what gets me is the fact they're asking spouses to fill out surveys.

It's none of the spouses business at all. They're not in the military. There input shouldn't be asked for.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The funny thing about people that are against repealing DADT are stupid. Gays are in the military now and have been since the beginning of time.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
doesn't a survey defeat the purpose of don't ask don't tell. :roll:
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
doesn't a survey defeat the purpose of don't ask don't tell. :roll:
No. The survey is asking what people think about repealing it. It's not asking if the person is gay.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,782
Reaction score
50,700
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The DADT survey is not to determine if they should repeal DADT, it is to determine the potential problems and areas that need to be addressed in such a repeal.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,171
Reaction score
32,759
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The funny thing about people that are against repealing DADT are stupid. Gays are in the military now and have been since the beginning of time.
i find it immensely hilarious that you demonstrated such poor grammar in this sentence. :D

particularly given the poor logic you have demonstrated on this thread.


1. of course the military should discriminate in whom it chooses to hire. paranoid schizophrenics, for example. those with felony backgrounds. the blind. and so forth. because the military is not a vehicle for self-empowerment and fulfillment, it is a fighting force devoted only to being the deadliest and most professional such force on the face of the planet. the cost of admitting people who weaken the group is not a suffering of production that matches a similar drop in efficiency across the market (such as what you see, for example, when hiring practices are dictated by interest group in the private sector); but pain, blood, and death.

the "oh the military shouldn't discriminate" argument is bunk. the military should and does discriminate because the costs for not doing so are unnacceptable.

2. "gays are already in the military". yes. so are child-rapists, fraudulent enlisters, and persons of questionable loyalty. their current presence in the military is not an automatic argument in favor of their open service nor their retention.


i agree it's sort of superflous to poll spouses (though, given the weight that spouses have when it comes to retention of personnel, perhaps not as pointless as you seem to indicate); but if you want to talk about introducing the kinds of issues that would come with introducing open homosexual service to the US military, you're going to need better reasons than that.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,931
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I thought the military was more of, do what your told or get the hell out type of organization. Why are they asking for their soldiers input on this issue?
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,782
Reaction score
50,700
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
i find it immensely hilarious that you demonstrated such poor grammar in this sentence. :D

particularly given the poor logic you have demonstrated on this thread.


1. of course the military should discriminate in whom it chooses to hire. paranoid schizophrenics, for example. those with felony backgrounds. the blind. and so forth. because the military is not a vehicle for self-empowerment and fulfillment, it is a fighting force devoted only to being the deadliest and most professional such force on the face of the planet. the cost of admitting people who weaken the group is not a suffering of production that matches a similar drop in efficiency across the market (such as what you see, for example, when hiring practices are dictated by interest group in the private sector); but pain, blood, and death.

the "oh the military shouldn't discriminate" argument is bunk. the military should and does discriminate because the costs for not doing so are unnacceptable.
But in the examples you use, there are solid, quantifiable reasons to discriminate. With gays, not so much. In fact, there is zero evidence to even suggest that allowing gays to serve openly would reduce the effectiveness of the military.

2. "gays are already in the military". yes. so are child-rapists, fraudulent enlisters, and persons of questionable loyalty. their current presence in the military is not an automatic argument in favor of their open service nor their retention.
This is what is called an appeal to emotion.


i agree it's sort of superflous to poll spouses (though, given the weight that spouses have when it comes to retention of personnel, perhaps not as pointless as you seem to indicate); but if you want to talk about introducing the kinds of issues that would come with introducing open homosexual service to the US military, you're going to need better reasons than that.
Actually, there is a very good reason to poll the spouses. They offer an added insight into the issues that might be involved in gays serving openly.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
"No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hand of the person they love. No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are," President Obama said.
I guess that's unless you're a member of the military. Forget DADT. That's the homophobes' problem.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has signed legislation that elevates homosexuals to the class of citizens that enjoy special protections under the law.
Gays Now a Protected Class under New Law - Politics - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,533
Reaction score
30,961
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I thought the military was more of, do what your told or get the hell out type of organization. Why are they asking for their soldiers input on this issue?
I dont mean this to be rude...but I am wondering...considering the mission...the ops tempo...what is already asked of soldiers...do you REALLY have a hard time understanding why they dont just throw the switch and be done with it? I mean...if it wasnt something you PERSONALLY believed in...would you still feel the same way?

It MIGHT have something to do with concern that changing the rules might cause or lead to internal strife. If you dont believe that to be the case then Irespectfully suggest ( and I mean that sincerely) that you know NOTHING about the military.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,782
Reaction score
50,700
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I dont mean this to be rude...but I am wondering...considering the mission...the ops tempo...what is already asked of soldiers...do you REALLY have a hard time understanding why they dont just throw the switch and be done with it? I mean...if it wasnt something you PERSONALLY believed in...would you still feel the same way?

It MIGHT have something to do with concern that changing the rules might cause or lead to internal strife. If you dont believe that to be the case then Irespectfully suggest ( and I mean that sincerely) that you know NOTHING about the military.
That is in effect the point of the survey. Identify the problems that will occur when the change happens, and prepare to handle them so they do not become actual problems. The problems are not large, not insurmountable, and won't have any impact on readiness. Mostly, training will prepare for the changes.
 

hallam

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
620
Reaction score
114
Location
Philly
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That is in effect the point of the survey. Identify the problems that will occur when the change happens, and prepare to handle them so they do not become actual problems. The problems are not large, not insurmountable, and won't have any impact on readiness. Mostly, training will prepare for the changes.
They didn't need a survey when the Military desegregated. they don't need one now.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,782
Reaction score
50,700
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
They didn't need a survey when the Military desegregated. they don't need one now.
Actually, it might have benefited. I have heard some of the horror stories from that time period. No, the survey is not necessary, but if it makes the transition easier, then it has served it's purpose. Mind you, the change is coming, DADT's days are numbered. The question is simply how well the problems that any change in policy causes are handled.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,533
Reaction score
30,961
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They didn't need a survey when the Military desegregated. they don't need one now.
Riiiight...because desegregating hip hop clubs/country western bars/bars/gay bars wouldnt result in any kind of fights, problems...so why should it impact a few hundred thousand people in a high stress combat zone with a forced close quarter living environment...
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't have a problem with gay people openly serving in the military however, I can understand that it could cause a lot of internal problems with people getting violent about it. Some people just hate gays so much that it makes them unreasonably violent, so I could understand why to keep the policy intact, then again there are still people that have a problem with women in the military.
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I know the survey is about potential problems.

I just don't get why they're asking spouces for their input. It's none of her business.

I hate when the military tries to equate the spouse to the service member GTFO.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,782
Reaction score
50,700
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I know the survey is about potential problems.

I just don't get why they're asking spouces for their input. It's none of her business.

I hate when the military tries to equate the spouse to the service member GTFO.
Because a large portion of the military is married, and their insight might be valuable. Trying to tell the spouses of our military to just butt out of things that effect their servicemember spouses won't work and is unrealistic. Happy spouses are more supportive spouses, and our military people can use that support.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,171
Reaction score
32,759
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But in the examples you use, there are solid, quantifiable reasons to discriminate. With gays, not so much.
exactly; that is the debate. not "oh the military shouldn't discriminate" but "where should the military discriminate in order to give first priority to maintaining itself as a deadly and efficient fighting force"

In fact, there is zero evidence to even suggest that allowing gays to serve openly would reduce the effectiveness of the military.
on the contrary, there is indeed evidence to suggest that introducing sexuality to the combat branches would reduce their effectiveness. it's called "the reduced effectiveness of every mixed-gender MOS field due to the natural sexual tension between men and women".

This is what is called an appeal to emotion.
no, it's a demonstration of a flaw in a (claimed) set of logic; simply because a set of persons are already serving is not an argument that they should be or (given the 'nuance' of this one) that they should openly.

Actually, there is a very good reason to poll the spouses. They offer an added insight into the issues that might be involved in gays serving openly.
my wife has never been to the field with us. she has (i love her, but still) very little grasp of the kind of bond that you get at the squad level. she also is not fluent in enough of the everyday humdrum to be able to instantly access the kinds of disruptions that openly serving homosexuals would cause (bah, for example).

but you seem to be suggesting that they should be asked because that would make them feel more important?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom