Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

[CriticalThought]

Well, you're close. I want to see the ban lifted and DADT to remain in place, so as to avoid discrimination. Personally, I think it would be in the best interest of gay soldiers for DADT to remain in place.

That doesn't make any sense. If gays aren't kicked out of the military when people find out they are gay, then what is the consequence?

 

[Wiseone]

I'm talking about the, "stand alone", camps. I was at Camp Greaves, out to the northwest of Seoul; where there were no dependent services available.

O ok now I see what you mean. Well Camp Greaves has closed and I'm pretty sure most of those forward camps are closed or are closing. But most places in Korea allow dependants to travel with you now.

 

[apdst]

That doesn't make any sense. If gays aren't kicked out of the military when people find out they are gay, then what is the consequence?

Obviously, nothing!...:rofl

However, keeping DADT in place would protect gay soldiers from being grilled about his/her sexuality.

If DADT were still in place, and a soldier was grilled about being gay, then that soldier would be in a position to say, "Sir! It's my duty to inform you that you are violating AR1234, as well as Article 5678 of the UCMJ, by asking me about sexuality", which would put a leader/commander in a position to drop the issue and go about his duties.

The opposite would be the same with a hetero soldier, who was being grilled by a gay leader/supervisor/commander. Hence, a prevention of discrimination.

I think the biggest problem that the abolitionist have, is that none of you have the first ****ing clue of how the system works. That's why you can't understand my point of view.

 

[roguenuke]

Then, I would say that you're sleep posting. No point in talking to you on the subject.

Seriously. Have you read any of my posts? Obviously, not.

I've already stated my stand on gays in the military, a bazillion-million times. You're one of those folks that sees what you wanna see, and nevermind reality.

I read quite fine. You have been the one to constantly state argue that being a KKK member or in other such hate groups should be equated with being homosexual.

You also believe that DADT should stay in place. That is still not right. But, also, what punishment would you suggest to those who violate DADT? And would it apply to heterosexuals? Would it mean that no personnel could be married in the military? Your idea still leaves homosexuals at the disadvantage for no fair reason.

The military's treatment of homosexuals should be the same as it does heterosexuals. And I highly doubt that the military would want to bar married heterosexuals from joining, especially since it is almost encouraged to be married, considering the benefits that come with it. Also, there is no way to really keep everyone in the military from discussing their significant others.

Oh, and as a side, for those who don't know, it is already against military regs for a servicemember to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality, whether real or perceived sexuality. The obvious exception is only DADT and the policies on gays serving openly. Which pretty much means that only a little bit of training will need to be changed. I read this a couple of days ago on our training site.

 

[CriticalThought]

Obviously, nothing!...:rofl

However, keeping DADT in place would protect gay soldiers from being grilled about his/her sexuality.

If DADT were still in place, and a soldier was grilled about being gay, then that soldier would be in a position to say, "Sir! It's my duty to inform you that you are violating AR1234, as well as Article 5678 of the UCMJ, by asking me about sexuality", which would put a leader/commander in a position to drop the issue and go about his duties.

The opposite would be the same with a hetero soldier, who was being grilled by a gay leader/supervisor/commander. Hence, a prevention of discrimination.

I think the biggest problem that the abolitionist have, is that none of you have the first ****ing clue of how the system works. That's why you can't understand my point of view.

Well it doesn't help that you say you want to leave "DADT" in place when the only part you are really interested in leaving in place is the "DA" part.

 

[apdst]

O ok now I see what you mean. Well Camp Greaves has closed and I'm pretty sure most of those forward camps are closed or are closing. But most places in Korea allow dependants to travel with you now.

I see. Wasn't aware that Greaves closed.

had some high-old-times at Greaves. That's where I learned what, "Spartan", really meant.

 

[apdst]

Well it doesn't help that you say you want to leave "DADT" in place when the only part you are really interested in leaving in place is the "DA" part.

The, "DT", is just an important as the, "DA". But, hey, you're a PFC, so there's no way to make you understand in the military. Hell, you don't even have the conception that I think that the ban on gays should be lifted.

 

[roguenuke]

Obviously, nothing!...:rofl

However, keeping DADT in place would protect gay soldiers from being grilled about his/her sexuality.

If DADT were still in place, and a soldier was grilled about being gay, then that soldier would be in a position to say, "Sir! It's my duty to inform you that you are violating AR1234, as well as Article 5678 of the UCMJ, by asking me about sexuality", which would put a leader/commander in a position to drop the issue and go about his duties.

The opposite would be the same with a hetero soldier, who was being grilled by a gay leader/supervisor/commander. Hence, a prevention of discrimination.

I think the biggest problem that the abolitionist have, is that none of you have the first ****ing clue of how the system works. That's why you can't understand my point of view.

You are obviously the one who doesn't have a clue on how the military works. A soldier can easily say that now or after the ban on gay soldiers is lifted. It would be considered on the same level as asking a person about someone they slept with or even if they have ever had sex in a certain way, which is an inappropriate question for a supervisor or officer or anyone, to ask someone.

I had an XO who asked me if I slept with my husband before I married him. I could have absolutely answered him that it is really not any of his business (although it would be best to do so in a more respectful manner), and I would not get in trouble for doing it. In fact, if I would have reported him to the CO or the EO for asking such a question, he most likely have been counseled. Such questions are personal and an order to answer such a question (without having a very good reason to do so) is unlawful.

 

[Redress]

Obviously, nothing!...:rofl

However, keeping DADT in place would protect gay soldiers from being grilled about his/her sexuality.

If DADT were still in place, and a soldier was grilled about being gay, then that soldier would be in a position to say, "Sir! It's my duty to inform you that you are violating AR1234, as well as Article 5678 of the UCMJ, by asking me about sexuality", which would put a leader/commander in a position to drop the issue and go about his duties.

The opposite would be the same with a hetero soldier, who was being grilled by a gay leader/supervisor/commander. Hence, a prevention of discrimination.

I think the biggest problem that the abolitionist have, is that none of you have the first ****ing clue of how the system works. That's why you can't understand my point of view.

If DADT was lifted, they could tell some one grilling them on their sex life: "it's none of your damn business". If it was an officer, they probably should throw a sir in there, but whether officer or not the answer is still legit.

 

[danarhea]

I don't need a poll, nor any documentation, to demonstrate that the opposition to DADT isn't about constitutional rights, or what's good for our armed forces. It's about nothing, other than, "I'm gay and I'm in your ****ing face". Which makes the entire anti-DADT crowd a buncha hypocrites.

I don't buy that argument at all. The reason is obvious. Just answer the following question:

 

[CriticalThought]

The, "DT", is just an important as the, "DA". But, hey, you're a PFC, so there's no way to make you understand in the military. Hell, you don't even have the conception that I think that the ban on gays should be lifted.

It doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see why gay soldiers would want to openly talk about their sexuality and I don't see why their superiors would want to ask them about it. My issue is with the ban and kicking out gay soldiers when their sexual orientation becomes known.

 

[Redress]

I don't buy that argument at all. The reason is obvious. Just answer the following question:

It's a good idea to get rid of DADT for several reasons, with that one only being one. None of them are about teh gays wanting to flaunt their sexuality to all those hot men in the service.

 

[CriticalThought]

This all seems kind of irrelevant. It will probably be another 2-6 years before the policy is repealed.

 

[roguenuke]

This all seems kind of irrelevant. It will probably be another 2-6 years before the policy is repealed.

I don't think so. I think after the results of the study come out in Dec., the military will almost fully support repealing DADT. And once the majority of the military brass are onboard for the repeal, it should get most of those in Congress onboard too. If they have the military saying that they want it that way, it would be stupid for them to go against what the military feels is best.

Now, it could be put off for another couple of years. I just doubt it will be.

 

[apdst]

That doesn't make any sense. If gays aren't kicked out of the military when people find out they are gay, then what is the consequence?

Failure to adhere to DADT regulations is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, "Failure to obey an order, or regulation". The consequence can be a court martial. A court martial for the askers, as well as the tellers.

 

[apdst]

I don't buy that argument at all. The reason is obvious. Just answer the following question:

Which one's the racist? Which is the Communist? You ready to end those bans, too? Or just the bans you disgree with and let the ones you agree with stand, irregardless if they're constitutional, or not?

Double standard, much?

 

[CriticalThought]

Failure to adhere to DADT regulations is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, "Failure to obey an order, or regulation". The consequence can be a court martial. A court martial for the askers, as well as the tellers.

This seems unduly complicated. If I'm a soldier and my comrades want to know about my significant other, and I tell them I'm married to a man, would that constitute a court marshal for everyone involved? What if I'm at a strip club with some of my fellow soldiers and they notice I'm not particularly interested and they ask me if I'm gay and I inform them I am, would that constitute a court marshal for everyone? How about if I show up to a military social function with my significant other, would that constitute as "telling" and if so, how come the heterosexual soldiers can bring their significant others?

Or is this only a situation where an officer orders their subordinates to report their sexuality? If that is the case, then DADT still has to be repealed for situatoins like the ones above.

 

[Redress]

Which one's the racist? Which is the Communist? You ready to end those bans, too? Or just the bans you disgree with and let the ones you agree with stand, irregardless if they're constitutional, or not?

Double standard, much?

Hey, let's compare gays with racists and communists. Nothing better than a mindless appeal to emotion in a debate, it always works...

 

[apdst]

This seems unduly complicated. If I'm a soldier and my comrades want to know about my significant other, and I tell them I'm married to a man, would that constitute a court marshal for everyone involved? What if I'm at a strip club with some of my fellow soldiers and they notice I'm not particularly interested and they ask me if I'm gay and I inform them I am, would that constitute a court marshal for everyone? How about if I show up to a military social function with my significant other, would that constitute as "telling" and if so, how come the heterosexual soldiers can bring their significant others?

Or is this only a situation where an officer orders their subordinates to report their sexuality? If that is the case, then DADT still has to be repealed for situatoins like the ones above.

Yes, asking and telling would be a violation of the UCMJ. Under the redefined version of DADT. Leaving DADT in place will protect gay and straight soldiers from being discriminated against, because of their sexuality.

 

[apdst]

Hey, let's compare gays with racists and communists. Nothing better than a mindless appeal to emotion in a debate, it always works...

I''m only using the same argument that you've used all along. What's the problem?

 

[roguenuke]

Failure to adhere to DADT regulations is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, "Failure to obey an order, or regulation". The consequence can be a court martial. A court martial for the askers, as well as the tellers.

Completely unnecessary, as others have pointed out to you, because no one has a right to ask or order you to reveal personal information about yourself without a darn good reason, such as a criminal investigation or medical information. And medical information is confidential.

Also, there are rules against discrimination already in place. And there is no way to punish a heterosexual for being married when such a thing is encouraged, yet being married pretty much reveals a person's sexuality, depending on the sex of the person they are married to.

 

[apdst]

Completely unnecessary, as others have pointed out to you, because no one has a right to ask or order you to reveal personal information about yourself without a darn good reason, such as a criminal investigation or medical information. And medical information is confidential.

Also, there are rules against discrimination already in place. And there is no way to punish a heterosexual for being married when such a thing is encouraged, yet being married pretty much reveals a person's sexuality, depending on the sex of the person they are married to.

Actually, a commander does have the right to request personal information from a soldier.

Why would you oppose a policy that would go a long way to prevent disccrimination? That's what doesn't make sense.

 

[roguenuke]

Actually, a commander does have the right to request personal information from a soldier.

Why would you oppose a policy that would go a long way to prevent disccrimination? That's what doesn't make sense.

No they don't. A commander cannot ask a soldier, for instance, if the soldier has ever had sex outside of marriage just during a meeting or private conversation. The soldier is completely within their rights to tell the commander, respectfully, that it isn't their business and/or that the question was not appropriate. Any flak for not answering such a question could easily be reported to the Equal Opportunities officer or a formal report submitted beyond the CO.

 

[Jerry]

Really?

It's in the actual policy against homosexuals. So are you saying that had no information on why homosexuals are not allowed in the military?

United States Code: Title 10,654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces | LII / Legal Information Institute

Notice this part:


It is actually in the policy, and I'm pretty sure in the page 13 regarding homosexual conduct in the military (although this I could be wrong about).

And it is taught, whether you realize it was taught to you or not. Otherwise, most of those who are against repealing DADT wouldn't use the almost exact phrasing for doing so.

"Good order and disiplin".

We were never taught bias, formaly or passivly. Even when we teased eachother with sexual references, etc, it was about that soldier's behavior and not some group.

 

[CriticalThought]

"Good order and disiplin".

We were never taught bias, formaly or passivly. Even when we teased eachother with sexual references, etc, it was about that soldier's behavior and not some group.

Yeah...I don't believe that one bit. I know Marines and they claim that calling each other "fag" and "fairy" is pretty common in the service.