• 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!

Military recruiters told to accept gay applicants

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think at this point it's over. It's sad to see that it took a judges order instead of giving the military time to prepare for the change.

I have to ask... what the hell do they need to prepare for? What new regulations does the military need put into place? Why do they need a "transition period"? What "training" and "education" do the officers need in order to deal with homosexuals? It's not like homosexuals need to be treated special. Treat them like every other person in the military!

How hard is that???
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
US military to accept gay recruits

US military to accept gay recruits - Americas - Al Jazeera English
The military has said it will accept openly gay recruits for the first time in US history, even as it tries to slow a bid to abolish its ban on gays serving openly.

At least two service members discharged for being gay began the process to re-enlist after the Pentagon's announcement on Tuesday.

The new requirement brings down the barriers built by an institution long resistant and sometimes hostile to gays.

On Tuesday Virginia Phillips, a California judge who overturned the 17-year "don't ask, don't tell" policy last week, rejected the government's latest bid to halt her order telling the military to stop enforcing the law.

[...]The difference now is that recruiters will process those who say they are gay.

This makes me extremely happy to see. I sat down and cried the day DOMA was voted in, I was ashamed to be living in a country that would consider this acceptable. But it seems the tide is reversing and I may yet live to see sexuality start fading out as a bone of contention among most of society.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What "training" and "education" do the officers need in order to deal with homosexuals? It's not like homosexuals need to be treated special. Treat them like every other person in the military!

That. That's the training and education they need, especially since it contradicts the training and education they have been receiving for decades.

No matter how much we might like them to, neither people nor institutions are capable of changing overnight. Creating any form of social progress is a slow and laborious process of cultivation, and there will always be false starts and failures that must be addressed. For this reason, it is always better to have plans in place before attempting to implement any shifts in policy.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Some - how many is some, by the way? 10 - 100 - 1000? And why deny *the whole* any liberties because of what *the some* decide to do?




As of Yesterday MOST Gays in the US Armed Forces could actually reast easy . There was no tremendous focus on them . That is about to change thanks to a few malcontents more interested in Harming the Military than in improving anyone's lot.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: US military to accept gay recruits

US military to accept gay recruits - Americas - Al Jazeera English





This makes me extremely happy to see. I sat down and cried the day DOMA was voted in, I was ashamed to be living in a country that would consider this acceptable. But it seems the tide is reversing and I may yet live to see sexuality start fading out as a bone of contention among most of society.


Fading out(???) Is that what the Activist's truly want (??)
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,370
Reaction score
34,707
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As of Yesterday MOST Gays in the US Armed Forces could actually reast easy . There was no tremendous focus on them . That is about to change thanks to a few malcontents more interested in Harming the Military than in improving anyone's lot.

So, boot out the malcontents. I don't want them in the military, because the actions of the military reflect on my country.

You're blaming the victim.
 

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why is Obama trying so hard to KEEP DADT in place, even though he says he wants it gone?

LINK
The Obama administration asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to freeze a judge's ruling overturning the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military.

Though President Obama opposes the military policy, his administration is fighting to keep the court system from interfering with a congressional effort to overturn it.

It looks more and more like he just wants credit for ending the policy. Talk about ego.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
So, boot out the malcontents. I don't want them in the military, because the actions of the military reflect on my country.

You're blaming the victim.



Parallel Universe - Now the Malcontents are those who carried their Weight for Generations and the Idealist's are those who are essentially Aberrants and of whom many quietly do not wish the Military well.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,370
Reaction score
34,707
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why is Obama trying so hard to KEEP DADT in place, even though he says he wants it gone?

LINK


It looks more and more like he just wants credit for ending the policy. Talk about ego.

What a load of bull. If he wanted credit he could have used an executive order. He wants congress to do it because that's the right way to do it. Your kneejerk partisan reaction of assigning the worst intentions to anything a (D) does just serves to reenforce your own prejudice. Vicious cycle.
 

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 don't understand the OP. Is there a box on the application form where you check off "gay"?

No, there's not. However, recruiters can now ask a potential recruit if he/she is gay. When he/she says yes, it will be denoted in their record. Making it easier to smoke them out, when this house of cards comes crashing down.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,370
Reaction score
34,707
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, there's not. However, recruiters can now ask a potential recruit if he/she is gay. When he/she says yes, it will be denoted in their record. Making it easier to smoke them out, when this house of cards comes crashing down.

You really think DADT is going to stay around?
 

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 have to ask... what the hell do they need to prepare for? What new regulations does the military need put into place? Why do they need a "transition period"? What "training" and "education" do the officers need in order to deal with homosexuals? It's not like homosexuals need to be treated special. Treat them like every other person in the military!

How hard is that???

Officers are going to need to know exactly what the DoD's policy on such things as, fraternization, billeting and sexual harrassment and how these issues are to be addressed, when it comes to gay soldiers.

Gays will have to be counciled on sexual harrassment and fraternization. Currently, the regulations only pertain to male on female/female on male situations.


I know you're not going to agree and will probably call me a homophobe and a racist, but these are the realities of openly gay soldiers serving in the United States armed forces. Anyone that can't accept this, isn't genuinely interested in gays succeeding in a military career.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,813
Reaction score
51,721
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No, there's not. However, recruiters can now ask a potential recruit if he/she is gay. When he/she says yes, it will be denoted in their record. Making it easier to smoke them out, when this house of cards comes crashing down.

No, they actually cannot. As usual on this topic, you are dead wrong.

Military recruiters told they can accept openly gay applicants - CNN.com

The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed. Recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates if they are gay as part of the application process.

You can of course show where on their "record" it denotes whether they are gay or not, and you can of course show where recruiters are actually asking if recruits are gay. I mean, you would not be making stuff up again.
 

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 really think DADT is going to stay around?

Yes, I do and it should. I'll say again--for the umpteenth time--that DADT should remain in place and the actual ban on gays should be lifted. Anyone heard discussing his/her sexuality, sexual escapades, or encounters should be subject to disciplinary action.

I always felt that soldiers, sitting around, telling ***** stories was bad for business, anyway.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No, they actually cannot. As usual on this topic, you are dead wrong.

Military recruiters told they can accept openly gay applicants - CNN.com



You can of course show where on their "record" it denotes whether they are gay or not, and you can of course show where recruiters are actually asking if recruits are gay. I mean, you would not be making stuff up again.

A mod responds with a personal attack? How shocking is that?

Tell us, oh miss, "I know everything", how can, "openly gay", personel be recruited, if no one knows they are gay? gee willikers!

If a recruit is, "openly gay", and you actually believe a CNN story, claiming that nowhere will it be recorded, then I don't know what to say for you.

LOL...why else would recruiters need to inform openly gay recruits of the risk they're taking, by enlisting as, openly gay recruits.

Common sense has to take over at some point.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,813
Reaction score
51,721
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
A mod responds with a personal attack? How shocking is that?

Tell us, oh miss, "I know everything", how can, "openly gay", personel be recruited, if no one knows they are gay? gee willikers!

If a recruit is, "openly gay", and you actually believe a CNN story, claiming that nowhere will it be recorded, then I don't know what to say for you.

LOL...why else would recruiters need to inform openly gay recruits of the risk they're taking, by enlisting as, openly gay recruits.

Common sense has to take over at some point.

So you got nothing to back up your story again.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Pandoras Box - This Administration inspite of past BS in 2008 now kind of realizes that this might blowback on them. It's a No Win situation all around and brought on by less than 500 Malcontents.
 

TheNextEra

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
16,575
Reaction score
6,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
And all you got is CNN? I wouldn't brag about that! :rofl

Yes, but it's still more than you provided. Sad that CNN just proved to be more credible than you.
 

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,655
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I want to make it very clear to everyone that i am not accusing anyone of anything and I am not making any assumptions about anyone who posts here and in threads about homosexuals in the military or outside the military, and I am not going to go and see who is for or against any position.

Okay everybody got that?

All I want to know is what is the attraction to this subject matter? It seems that with minutes of a new thread being posted there is a mad dash to get in on it.

Why? And once again I am just asking. Does anyone else wonder about this, and could it be that there might be some undisclosed reason lurking in the shadow?

I honestly can't think of any topic that gets this much attention so darn fast.

How much can you say about this?

I have stick pretty much with a single position on the subject.

Lift the ban and if problems of a real serious nature come up find a way to make the ban permanent and activist judge proof and use real no imagined evidence to prove the need and if nothing happens fine. No harm no foul. Fraternization is already banned and punishable so there you are.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think this is the end of the line for DADT. Anyone who is waiting for congressional action to make it "permanent"...don't hold your breath.

First of all, Democrats probably aren't going to have 59 Senate seats in the lame duck Congress. Since Illinois and West Virginia are special elections, the winner of the Senate elections in those states (both currently rated as toss-ups) will be seated IMMEDIATELY. So realistically, the Dems will have between 57 and 59 seats.

Secondly, Congress can use this as an excuse for inaction. Some politicians may disingenuously argue "Why do we still need to repeal it when the courts just overturned it?" as though they actually agreed with the ruling. Or they'll suggest that we wait for the appeals process to finish before we act...the same stalling technique they've used to wait for the military report.

Speaking of which, the military report is due out on December 1. Even if the overall report strongly suggests that ending DADT wouldn't cause any problems, anyone who is looking for a reason to vote against repeal will surely be able to find something to support their case somewhere in the third paragraph of the 57th page of Appendix B. They will latch onto anything remotely related to their case as evidence that we need DADT. Surely they'll be able to find something.

So yeah. It looks like DADT will finally meet its demise in the courts. Anyone looking for a congressional showdown, expect to be disappointed.
 
Last edited:

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
45,106
Reaction score
25,241
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think this is the end of the line for DADT. Anyone who is waiting for congressional action to make it "permanent"...don't hold your breath.

First of all, Democrats probably aren't going to have 59 Senate seats in the lame duck Congress. Since Illinois and West Virginia are special elections, the winner of the Senate elections in those states (both currently rated as toss-ups) will be seated IMMEDIATELY. So realistically, the Dems will have between 57 and 59 seats.

Secondly, Congress can use this as an excuse for inaction. Some politicians may disingenuously argue "Why do we still need to repeal it when the courts just overturned it?" as though they actually agreed with the ruling. Or they'll suggest that we wait for the appeals process to finish before we act...the same stalling technique they've used to wait for the military report.

Speaking of which, the military report is due out on December 1. Even if the overall report strongly suggests that ending DADT wouldn't cause any problems, anyone who is looking for a reason to vote against repeal will surely be able to find something to support their case somewhere in the third paragraph of the 57th page of Appendix B. They will latch onto anything remotely related to their case as evidence that we need DADT. Surely they'll be able to find something.

So yeah. It looks like DADT will finally meet its demise in the courts. Anyone looking for a congressional showdown, expect to be disappointed.

I think there is a fairly good chance that the supreme court will rule the other way, given how far to the right they are right now. So, we may yet see this overturned. Personally, I think Obama should wait until the elections are over and then order the justice department to drop their case. It will cause some controversy, but the people who would be upset about it are likely to not vote for the guy in 2012 anyway, so no political loss there. In fact, it might give his base something to be happy about finally as it would mean he is finally taking a stand on something.
 
Last edited:

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,315
Reaction score
28,277
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Officers are going to need to know exactly what the DoD's policy on such things as, fraternization, billeting and sexual harrassment and how these issues are to be addressed, when it comes to gay soldiers.

Gays will have to be counciled on sexual harrassment and fraternization. Currently, the regulations only pertain to male on female/female on male situations.


I know you're not going to agree and will probably call me a homophobe and a racist, but these are the realities of openly gay soldiers serving in the United States armed forces. Anyone that can't accept this, isn't genuinely interested in gays succeeding in a military career.

My point is, make the regulations concerning homosexual relations the exact same rules as male on female or female on male relations. Why do you need two years do this?

And as far as the training and education goes, I'll ask the same thing... why do you need two years to plan, schedule and hold meetings with officers and soldiers and educate them on a new policy?

I'm sure there are already rules in place to punish harassment (physical, mental, vocal, or otherwise), racism, bigotry, sexual relations within the military, etc... re-write those rules to include homosexuals.
 
Top Bottom